Ponderings of a Digital Future

[farlymac]

I've been pondering getting a DSLR lately, mainly because I came into possession of a couple of DX format lenses, and the fact the Nikon D750 is now down to the same price as the D500 (which would mean I can use all my D series lenses on the D750 in their native format).

I went down to the closest camera store to do some fondling of the above mentioned gear, and it only muddles the issue of do I abandon my film gear for the sake of getting my moneys worth out of what would be a big investment? Or do I go downstream a bit to say, the D5500, so I can save $1500, and not feel like I have to use it all the time?

After walking out the store without being able to make a commitment one way or the other, I later came home to read up on the latest from PetaPixel. Sometimes the articles are more "Why I ditched ... for ..., and you should too!", which just seem so pandering to me, but this time I read something that kind of hit home for me. I still can't make up my mind on the issue, but this article helped me to feel like whatever I decide, it will be okay in the long run.

The Year of Living Mirrorlessly

PF

 

[Pioneer]

Everyone makes their own choices so one person's experience is not necessarily any indication of how you will respond.

I have been telling myself for years that the future belongs to digital and that I am dragging my feet for no good reason. Over these years I have occasionally purchased a digital camera and worked with it. But I have never bonded with any of them that I own. The closest I have come has been with my digital M, but that was a costly step and I still much prefer to carry and use my M-A.

My wife is not very considerate. She says I should just toss out all the film cameras and leave myself with nothing but digital equipment. "Once you have nothing to use but digital you will get used to it pretty quickly." She may be right, she usually is, but the thought of tossing out all my film cameras sends me into near seizures. 🙂

 

[peterm1]

I never buy new camera bodies (and seldom buy new lenses). I buy second hand. Most people change their gear so often that it's not hard to find top quality 2nd hand equipment at perhaps half the cost you would have paid 18 months before if you bought new.

In terms of my main DSLR (a Nikon) I had a DX camera (a D200 and before that a D70s, my first DSLR after my film days) some years back and sold it to buy a D700. My main reason was that I wanted a camera that could shoot in natural light and especially in dim conditions such as street lighting at night without too much loss of image quality. The D700 fit the bill nicely and I am still using it. The D200 had the older CCD sensor and the D700 in addition to being full frame and hence having larger pixel pitch had the newer CMOS sensor. Its image quality in bad light is markedly better. But of course this camera has now been surpassed with Nikons newer offerings. But I have no plans to change yet despite the occasional G.A.S. attack (which I tend to satisfy by buying smaller format cameras as my second string cameras)

To be honest DX cameras have improved so much these days (in terms of sensor quality / image quality) I would have trouble deciding whether to stick to FX or go back to DX on this criterion alone. Furthermore, I like shooting with longer lenses so for me using DX is actually an advantage because of the 1.5 crop factor. I still use many of my older lenses on my DSLRs (both FX and DX) so a bigger issue for me would be ensuring that whatever I get it meters properly with older lenses including MF ones and will auto focus the screw drive AF ones.

My advice would be ask yourself how you will use the camera and let this be your guide. If you mainly shoot wider angles then maybe DX is not for you. The opposite applies if you like longer lenses. I would also advise finding yourself a good store that you trust and consider whether buying second hand might not work best for you. This option allows to get a better camera without the financial strain of buying new. I use my digital cameras as if they are film cameras (i.e. I do not shoot zillions of images with them. Usually its one or two shutter presses and that's it with each image. If I miss it I miss it) and hence can happily keep my digital cameras for a long time thus getting good value from them.

As to your last point / link. If you are really considering buying a mirrorless and using your Nikon lenses with adapters on it, (you are not clear about this) it really depends whether or not you want AF. If not then a suitable mirrorless (say an Olympus OM D EM 5 etc) may be fine. But I can say that my experience is that if you want to use AF comparing Nikon DSLR AF with an Olympus alternative (with its own native 4/3 lens with AF) the Nikon AF seems faster and more decisive. So again it comes back to your needs.

 

[Roger Hicks]

There is no single future. Your own future is a mixture of choice and happenstance. You might, tomorrow, be introduced to large format contact printing and decide that this is the best future for you, without any digital, ever again.

Feeling that you "have to use" a particular piece of equipment seems to me to be getting things precisely backwards. If you want to take pictures, rather than just buying cameras, you will pay whatever you can afford in order to get the camera that is closest to what you need (or at least want) to get the kind of pictures you hope to take.

If you don't really know what you want to take, or what you want to do with the pictures, then pretty much any camera will do. As you form a clearer idea of what you want, you may decide to change cameras. You may also form stronger opinions of what you don't want: for pleasure, and "fine art" (whatever that may be) I'd rather use a Lubitel than a mirrorless camera with adapted lenses. In the studio, a mirrorless camera might be more use.

Ultimately, though, as Pioneer says, no-one can tell you what you will prefer.

Cheers,

R.

 

[leicapixie]

If you shoot for yourself, stay where you are.
If you do pro work, where the results are needed yesterday,
get digital. Digital is continually changing.
It means upgrading computers, drives and now memory cards.
That in turn means purchasing new programs.
DNG or RAW may need to be repurchased.

I went another way.
A small point and shoot.
I use it continually as I am retired.
It is adequate for 8x12" prints.
Mainly print 4x6" at lab.
I don't own a printer.
Picasa is my only Photoshop.
I have the Canon one but don't bother.
I have never stopped shooting film.
BW is easy processed in my kitchen.
Canonscan is perfect for my needs.

BW Film for things, events, well worth documenting for the future.
Digital images can disappear.
Images on phones are lost, drives collapse,
memory cards don't open.
If Vivian Maier had shot on early digital?
If NASA can't read early data, what chance have I?
Lately NASA released FILM images.
Film for me will continue.
A digital camera if required might well be a smart phone.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I went DSLR way from SLR. If film is your thing no reason to stay virgin or religious fanatic. Do it. After DSLR I ventured back to film as I never did before. Because I learned what film is better as my thing and digital is convenient time saver for pictures everyone else is needed.

I'm not Nikon expert, don't know what DX is. If it is lenses from film era, you might get better results with cheap DSLR (Nikon make them good) and dedicated modern lenses.

 

[willie_901]

There is no single future. Your own future is a mixture of choice and happenstance. ...

R.

Well said! Low probability events happen.









12345678910

 

[willie_901]

As far as I can tell Nikon believes DX users prefer zoom lenses. I suggest you pick up the lowest price, most recent FX Nikon body you can find. I would take a hard look at KEH.

If you end up using the DSLR more than you think you have the option sell or trade for an upgrade. If you use it lightly, you have spent an appropriate amount of money.

As far as software and computer costs go, unless people have a pure analog work flow or can afford out sourcing all of their scanning and post-production work, you have to invest in IT with film too. It takes time and effort to create high quality prints with both film and digital media.

 

[jsrockit]

Buy a used D7100...

 

[farlymac]

Ahem... I made a u-turn, and got a Calumet 4x5. DSLR can wait.

PF

 

[Spanik]

Well, surprising change of mind.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Ahem... I made a u-turn, and got a Calumet 4x5. DSLR can wait.

PF

See Post 4...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Brian Atherton]

farlymac,

If finances allow, obviously one can do both; it’s not an either-or decision. Despite a life-long preference for film with Leicas, I’m enjoying my digital experience.

For example I find it easier travelling abroad with digital than film – and certainly I don’t feel a ‘traitor’ leaving my film cameras at home, but they get well used when I frequently wander around London for a day shooting a roll or two.

Keep an open mind, and don’t fall into the trap of thinking within a rigid set of parameters that limit creativity and mental development.

 

[Ronald M]

DX is a small viewfinder because the sensor is small. FX is bigger and allows better manual focus and seeing of details such as facial expressions.

No matter how good the tests show the camera to be in final image, there will always be the small image in the viewfinder. Only you can decide if this is important.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Keep an open mind, and don’t fall into the trap of thinking within a rigid set of parameters that limit creativity and mental development.

Dear Brian,

aka "Hardening of the Categories".

Cheers,

R.

 

[Brian Atherton]

Dear Brian,

aka "Hardening of the Categories".

Cheers,

R.

😀

(plus additional characters)

 

[yanchep_mike]

Ahem... I made a u-turn, and got a Calumet 4x5. DSLR can wait.

Congratulation, 4X5 is big beautiful negs.

 

[Dogman]

This brings back memories...again.

No one resisted digital more than I. But from a practical standpoint, I knew I should go ahead and take the plunge. Since I already owned Canon film equipment, in 2007 I bought a Canon 30D (APS-C format...I think it's the same as Nikon's DX, isn't it?) and I hated it. I carried it around but resisted using it, instead using either my Leicas or Pentax medium format cameras. Truth was, I was afraid of the damn thing and I was confused because I had read too much advice from camera forum "experts".

I had the 30D for about a year before I finally forced myself to use it and only it for a trip. And I made a photo on that trip that I felt was as good as anything I had ever done on film. That one photo built up my confidence and I started shooting more things digitally. Eventually, I realized I hadn't used a film camera in months and the chemicals in my darkroom had begun to look and smell kinda nasty. I realized I had finally made the transition.

I've previously read the Peta Pixel article that the OP referenced. It brought back those memories for me the first time recently. Randall Armor, the author, must have lived a life parallel with mine at several points. His other article that he referenced, "The Myth of More", is also a good read. His assessment of the Fujifilm X100T (I have the older X100S model) is very accurate.

 

[Doug]

Parallel story here too, Dogman! Just substitute "Pentax" for "Canon". My new-in-2007 K100D sat for a year before I picked up the manual and tried to figure out how the thing worked. Now it's been years since I used any film.

 

[Pioneer]

Enjoy.

Although I have been spending time lately testing out some film I have also been running around with my new snapshot camera, the Wanderlust Travelwide. It has been great shooting 4x5 negatives with my wide angle 90 without too much concern if I remembered my tripod or not.

As soon as I get around to implementing John Carter's suggestion for scanning 4x5 negs with my V500 scanner I'll get some things posted.

Don't be expecting anything better than what I post now. 😀

Have fun.