Nikon D3 is it still a good camera

[rbsinto]

Well exactly.

The only thing you have to contend with is changing film stock.
Salgado has some comments on what he perceives as the decreasing quality of the film he likes.

All of the Nikons, particularly the F-anything series, are solid picture making machines.

I don't have any experience with their rangefinders (my RF life was 4x5 and Leica until a decent reflex camera came along) but as long as you can get the stock you like to shoot....

Changing quality of film stocks is not a problem as all my slide film was given to me by now-Digital photobuds who carefully freezer-stored it. I have hundreds of rolls in my freezer in suspended animation and 99% of it is fine.
The big problem is the availability of E-6 processing.
The only lab here in Toronto that still does it sends it to a lab in Montreal for processing and the turn-around is about two weeks at a cost of about $25.00 per roll.
Not great but it's still better than having to switch to (ugh)Digital.

 

[Oscuro]

Changing quality of film stocks is not a problem as all my slide film was given to me by now-Digital photobuds who carefully freezer-stored it. I have hundreds of rolls in my freezer in suspended animation and 99% of it is fine. The big problem is the availability of E-6 processing. The only lab here in Toronto that still does it sends it to a lab in Montreal for processing and the turn-around is about two weeks at a cost of about $25.00 per roll. Not great but it's still better than having to switch to (ugh)Digital.

Interesting. That's exactly why I switched to digital.

Working, I typically went through between 500 and 1200 rolls a year. Lots of road work.

Digital was an amazing revelation to me. I shoot long (mostly), with lots of portraiture, and so the early DSLR crop factor wasn't an issue.

The D3 was a watershed moment. Still putting bread on the table and a roof over the head with them.

 

[Range-rover]

I still don't know why people still say "ugh digital". Since I gotten the D3 with the expanded ISO being clean, and the smooth look, Can you guys say why.

 

[rbsinto]

I still don't know why people still say "ugh digital". Since I gotten the D3 with the expanded ISO being clean, and the smooth look, Can you guys say why.

Because the cameras are ugly and loaded with dreck I neither need nor want, and have controls that are counter-intuitive.
The lenses lack basic features I need such as aperture rings, and depth of field scales, and the resulting images are so hyper-real that they don't look real at all.
My gear is simple and basic and does right by me, so why mess with a good thing?
If Digital makes you happy, then good luck to you. I really want no part of it and will avoid switching for as long as I possibly can.

 

[Oscuro]

Because the cameras are ugly and loaded with dreck I neither need nor want, and have controls that are counter-intuitive. The lenses lack basic features I need such as aperture rings, and depth of field scales, and the resulting images are so hyper-real that they don't look real at all. My gear is simple and basic and does right by me, so why mess with a good thing? If Digital makes you happy, then good luck to you. I really want no part of it and will avoid switching for as long as I possibly can.

You'll forgive me, but I really think this is disingenuous. Many digital cameras have all the things you refer to - Leica, Fuji, for instance - and so the generalization doesn't hold.

As to the "hyper real" well, even hyper realism doesn't rival reality.

Counter-intuitive controls. Certainly many cameras have them. But a Lot of those cameras are film. TLRs, for instance. Counter-intuitive is often a dog whistle for "I can't be bothered to learn." Which is fine too - just don't blame it on others.

Your last point is solid. If what you've got works, great. Happy for you. Luck will have nothing to do with it.

Oh. Ugly? When did the damn camera have to be good looking?

 

[rbsinto]

You'll forgive me, but I really think this is disingenuous. Many digital cameras have all the things you refer to - Leica, Fuji, for instance - and so the generalization doesn't hold.

As to the "hyper real" well, even hyper realism doesn't rival reality.

Counter-intuitive controls. Certainly many cameras have them. But a Lot of those cameras are film. TLRs, for instance. Counter-intuitive is often a dog whistle for "I can't be bothered to learn." Which is fine too - just don't blame it on others.

Your last point is solid. If what you've got works, great. Happy for you. Luck will have nothing to do with it.

Oh. Ugly? When did the damn camera have to be good looking?

I really get tired of discussing this with the Digivolk.
I like Film and it's gear. I don't like Digital and it's gear.
You disagree. That's great.

 

[Range-rover]

To all above that's fair, I still have some film SLR's Contax and Olympus so one day
I'll get that bug in me to use them. rbsinto is right about the dreck, there's so many
menu's and added thing's that I will not use on them and never will.

 

[Oscuro]

I really get tired of discussing this with the Digivolk. I like Film and it's gear. I don't like Digital and it's gear. You disagree. That's great.

Fair enough, so why did you bring it up in a thread discussing the merits of one particular and very good example of a pro's workhorse digital camera?

This isn't a X vs Y model debate. This isn't a digital vs film debate. This is a discussion about one particular camera. One.

Quite apart from the fact that your argument is ill-informed and specious, the fact is you're doing it in the wrong place. There are plenty of other threads where you can vent your so-called anti-digital feelings.

We were talking about the D3. No one here is asking you to use or buy one. Or any other camera, for that matter.

As to digivolk, that's a nice turn of phrase. But again you're generalizing, and prejudicially so.

 

[rbsinto]

Read comment number 10 by Kent.
That's the reason I jumped in.
And despite your opinion, I believe my reasons to be spot on.
And just so we're perfectly clear I don't need your permission or vetting to make a comment.

 

[sevo]

Because the cameras are ugly and loaded with dreck I neither need nor want, and have controls that are counter-intuitive.
The lenses lack basic features I need such as aperture rings, and depth of field scales,

All of that is HABIT - and habits that don't even hold up in the film world if you straddle into the professional world. A view camera or any modular medium format SLR is at least as far removed from the regular 35mm film SLR/RF paradigm as the strangest digital system camera designs around...

I can perfectly understand sticking to habits - from some point on you don't benefit by any change (even if novices would consider it to the better) as you already have mastered whatever you started out with. You cannot technically improve on a flawlessly sharp, perfectly exposed picture - anything beyond that point is a matter of content, not technique. Personally, I still use every camera on manual focus and on manual exposure or aperture priority AE, regardless of any new modes they might offer, as I have never integrated overriding more modern automations into my muscle memory. But for one, I have had no problem setting every common DSLR or EVIL camera to my preferred primitive modes. And for the other it does not mean either that even my contemporaries reached the same level of diminishing benefits by 1982 - earlier or later starters in the same generation might have similar feelings of greatest familiarity towards all-manual-no-meter-included or towards single point AF. And other generations will be entirely different. Which makes habits a almost entirely personal thing...

 

[Oscuro]

Read comment number 10 by Kent. That's the reason I jumped in. And despite your opinion, I believe my reasons to be spot on. And just so we're perfectly clear I don't need your permission or vetting to make a comment.

You certainly don't.

But Kent's post was civil, clear in thought, and on topic.

And, as a civility, as if we were in a room together, I engaged your discussion about film.

I've used film since the sixties and that formed the basis for our exchange. A simple comparison of reasons behind choices.

Perhaps I should have just ignored the statement about digital cameras but I believed (based on other posts of yours on this forum ) you to be more thoughtful than that. So I challenged your argument on the basis of that perception.

And then you became somewhat insulting. Generalization are just that. Insults to the intelligence when speaking of specific items, persons, et al.

Characterizing all digital users as "Digivolk" as if we are somehow of one mind? Come on. Neither you nor I have any idea of the full range of various individual's motivations to use one process and/or another. You like film. It doesn't matter WHY you like film. But we can discuss why civilly. It most certainly does not require the denigration of other processes or the choice of persons to use a particular process.

If you wish to provoke a discussion, fine. But if you lead with gratuitous assertions that aren't defensible please don't take offense at having your rhetoric challenged.

English is not my first language and perhaps it is not yours. If that is the case, then civility becomes even more important.

 

[Oscuro]

So, Range-rover, how are you liking the D3?

 

[Oscuro]

Here's mine slightly over 200,000 actuation and not a bump. You'll notice that the D3 and its little cousin both have aperture rings!! Oh and focusing rings as well....

 

[Oscuro]

Beaters, both. I've been using this pairing for a little over two years now and the D3 for nearly eight. They complement each other very well. The D3 gets a 20-35, a fifty, and a 70-300.

From a kitchen somewhere in the Levant,

Mme. O.