Nikon F100 stolen; advice on replacement welcome

[pinktank]

If you can give me your price range and answer a simple question, I'll send you a lineup of what I think you should get. I am a photographer and have almost every camera made available at a photo cage that I have access to.

Question is would you rather have high quality shots at a limited ISO, say under 800 or lose some general tonal quality to shoot at a higher ISO with a slightly smaller body.

I think you should be looking at a Canon 5d mI or a nikon d90

 

[Alex72]

I'd agree that you probably would not like the feel of the 500D/T1i -- it's a much flimsier camera than your F100; a good camera, yes, but not a real joy to handle. Indeed, your best bet really is a D300 or D700, as they are the closest thing to that F100 around right now. The K7 is also a solid piece of gear -- a little smaller than the Nikon, but more substantial in feel than the lower-end Canons.

Since you mentioned looking for a "holdover" kind of camera, I would go so far as to suggest simply looking for another F100 on the used market. There's plenty of them at places like KEH and eBay, often in pretty good shape, as it was the kind of camera that tended have owners who were perhaps a little more conscientious about their stuff. 35mm film seems to be fading quite fast from the marketplace, becoming more and more of a special order kind of thing for anything other than real basic emulsions...

That being said, since you're used to the feel of a film camera and the workflow of film photography, I would actually suggest riding out the 35mm era in style with another good film body. There IS still some selection in 35mm, and it's a pretty good one, too, if you can find the stuff. The new Ektar 100 is fabulous, as are the newer Fuji pro stocks -- slide and negative ("Natura" is an eye-opening new 1600-speed colour negative film worth trying). Tri-X is still around and still begging to be shot through a Leica Summicron or a Nikkor 35/1.4... Heck, you might find a thrill in buying up some of the last rolls of Kodachrome and shooting them before Dwayne's stops processing it next year (December 2010).

Whatever you get, it'll be fun. It's an exciting time to go digital, as the cameras seem to have really reached a level of maturity now and have some great new features like HD video recording (T1i, D90, G1H, EOS 7D, D300S, K7...) -- but it's also a great time to be shooting film IF you can still find good processing for it. There's not as much choice in film stocks, but recent breakthroughs in chemistry mean that what we've got is better than anyone could have dreamed of even ten years ago; plus, with so many folks going or having gone digital, there's a great selection of good used equipment on the market...

I just checked B&H in New York and you might find it interesting that they still have NEW F100s in stock for $750. Since it's what you're used to, it really is worth thinking about.

If you're interested in shooting the works on REALLY riding the 35mm horse into the sunset in style, they also have the F6... for $2500, though it is presently back-ordered and I have heard of it selling cheaper than that. It's probably the last and greatest AF film SLR that will ever be made.

My short answer: Get another F100 and some good lenses; shoot some of today's truly extraordinary film; then pick up the D700 or its successor and move all your lenses over to it. Then you at least have a nice film body for backup...

 

[wheelhot]

I think you should be looking at a Canon 5d mI or a nikon d90

That's silly, the 5D is a FullFrame whereas the D90 is an APS-C, and besides D90 slightly better IQ, D300 performs better it in every way (D300s should have same IQ as D90).

 

[compuwar]

Going with the D300s or any DX camera means a commitment to the DX line of cameras and lenses. Many are excellent, but are based on a cropped sensor and cannot be fully used with FX cameras or film cameras. You strike me as the type that would do well with a D700 or another FX body (one available now or in the future). There's no certainty that DX cameras will last well into the future, though both Nikon and Canon continue to actively support it by way of making new crop sensor cameras and lenses to go with them.

1. Shooting a DX camera does not mean a commitment to the DX line- my D3x uses the exact same lenses my D2x did with no problems at all. I haven't purchased a single lens since buying the D3x.

2. Unless we get to zero process defects the economies of sensor costs pretty-much guarantee that DX is here for a long, long while. I see no indication that fabrication processes are going to be defect-free anytime soon.

No DX camera can match that kind of performance.

By the same token, you can't match the resolution performance of a DX body- each choice is a trade-off.

If you get a D700, you have to get similarly expensive lenses
to match the camera. Pairing a D700 with a cheap lens won't do you any good and you should rather invest in good lenses instead.

This statement is not complete- while some cheap lenses aren't good- there are many that perform adaquitely depending on one's definition of cheap. For instance, you can do perfectly ok with older lenses like the 20-35mm, 35-70mm and even 80-200mm- they're a half a step down from spending 3x as much on modern lenses, but they're quite functional even on the D3x, which is more picky about lenses than the D3/D700.

 

[SPG]

Once you've bought in to either Canon or Nikon, switching will be expensive so you should take this opportunity to try them both and make a decision. Being "used to" the controls on a particular camera shouldn't be your main deciding factor as you will learn a new one quickly and the benefits may far outweigh the learning curve.
Another thing to consider is what your friends and coworkers are using and what will be available to borrow. I don't shoot pro anymore, but when I did most of my colleagues were using Canon and it was always nice to be able to borrow a certain lens or flash that I didn't have in a pinch, or even just to test out to see if I wanted to buy one.
Take the time to try them both. I'm partial to Canon, but I know that Nikon makes great cameras too. They have their pros/cons and values depending on which company has released one most recently, but ultimately it will be the camera that you own, not a bunch of people posting on a forum.
Sorry that you lost your camera, but enjoy the ride of choosing a new one and I kind of envy the discovery process and getting some brand new gear!

 

[compuwar]

Thank you in advance for any responses you submit and any advice which you may offer.

Cheers and good luck

D90 if you'd rather spend your money on great glass, D300 if you still want a robust body. You'll get more pixel density in the images with a DX sensor, and that will give you amazing crop options and a very high level of detail. I wouldn't worry too much about the crop factor, you can get nice 10-20mm lenses if you want to go ultra-wide. Both will feel natural, and you'll be shooting comfortably inside of an hour. If you have somewhere which you can rent from, or if you can do online rentals in .eu, then I'd suggest renting a body and lens for a weekend and buying a memory card. That should give you enough time to figure out if you're ready to go digital and if you'd like the body you select enough to purchase one.

 

[namethisfile]

look what i found:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800652401-USE/Nikon_1796_F100_Body_Black_.html#features

FYI: i don't work for these guys but i do peruse often. heheh. even though i shoot digital now with a d90, i am still waiting to replace my beat up canon al-1 with a nikon 35mm slr, like an fm2 or something.

 

[hank-b]

That being said, since you're used to the feel of a film camera and the workflow of film photography, I would actually suggest riding out the 35mm era in style with another good film body.

But you'll use your new digital camera more, so there's an argument for going for a film camera less expensive and sophisticated than your stolen F100. For example, you could pick up a Nikon F3-HP for $200-$300 (guesswork - I haven't checked recently) and you'll get one of the few cameras Nikon made which are tougher and more reliable then your F100.

- HB

 

[electroshock]

My beautiful Nikon F100 (film camera, professional standard) which I have had for a number of years and travelled everywhere with me was stolen from my suitcase a few weeks ago on my way back to the Caucasus, from western Europe, presumably at a stopover in Istanbul. The suitcase eventually arrived at my final destination - over 24 hours later - but minus my camera, which, to put it mildly, mightily annoyed me.

I had been contemplating - at leisure - switching to digital, but this theft has put a bit of urgency into the idea of plunging into the digital world. I am not used to being without a camera.

So, as someone who has no experience whatsoever in digital photography, but who has been used to excellent film SLR cameras for over twenty years (Minolta, Pentax, Nikon), what model - and lenses - would members of the forum recommend that I purchase; one of my colleagues at work has recommended the Canon 500D.

Thank you in advance for any responses you submit and any advice which you may offer.

Cheers and good luck

I'm really sorry to hear about your loss. I quite understand how you feel and I certainly don't blame you for it. If there's any small consolations, the thieves must be incredibly stupid and most likely have discovered by now that it is pretty hard to unload a film SLR quickly if they don't know where to hawk it properly.

With that said, given your years of experience with a full-sized sensor, you definitely want to stick with a FX/APS camera, be it a Nikon D700, Canon EOS 5D (or its Mark II successor), or some other.

Given your familiarity with the Nikon system, might want to look at the D700 first. There has been some speculation, including from some well-informed sources, that there may be a D700s (minor refresh of the D700) or a D700x/D800 (major successor to the D700) sometime in November.

Still, the D700 as it is today is a solid performer as far as Nikon full-frame SLRs goes. (The Canon 5D would be the other favourite.)

One thing that gives me some pause is the fact that you haven't made the transition to a digital workflow yet. Nothing you can't master, of course. But there will definitely be a learning curve associated with it -- this is the part that throws quite a few film SLR shooters when initially making that transition to digital.

To get most out of your digital SLR photographs, you may also need to edit them with image editing applications -- Capture NX2 (Nikon), Apple Aperture 2, Adobe Lightroom 2, Adobe Photoshop CS4, etc. You'll most likely need to purchase at least one good book on editing for digital photographers (I like to recommend Scott Kelby's book on this topic for Photoshop CS3 and CS4 users) for the editing app you end use using.

The fact you have years of experience with film SLRs is a major plus as you are far more likely to correctly compose and expose the shot on the spot, which will go a long way in reducing the amount of any post-processing work needed.

So, you will also need to factor in some additional investments when making the leap to digital: 1) editing application, 2) cataloging application (Aperture, Lightroom), 3) at least one book on the topic, 4) some time and practice. Nothing insurmountable, just something to be aware of.

Might I offer an interesting thought? Consider buying another F100? They can be readily found for about USD $700-$800 these days. That would get you back in your comfort zone and you would be able to continue your shooting without needing to deal with the expense or time of dealing with a transition to a digital workflow. Not a bad idea if you're already happy with the film workflow and are still capable of finding your desired films and getting them developed as well as any camera repairs.

 

[toxic]

I'm thinking you should stick to film now, and make the jump to 35mm digital when you can afford it. right now, the cheapest option is a used Canon 5D for around $1200, body-only.

That's silly, the 5D is a FullFrame whereas the D90 is an APS-C, and besides D90 slightly better IQ, D300 performs better it in every way (D300s should have same IQ as D90).

that's utter crap. the 50D is the only current APS-C camera to come close to matching the 5D in resolution. noise handling still goes to the 5D when compared to all currently available APS-C cameras. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=26218503

 

[wheelhot]

that's utter crap. the 50D is the only current APS-C camera to come close to matching the 5D in resolution. noise handling still goes to the 5D when compared to all currently available APS-C cameras. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=26218503

Huh? Erm, I was referring that besides the D90 IQ, the D300 is better then the D90 in every way.

 

[luminosity]

Might I offer an interesting thought? Consider buying another F100? They can be readily found for about USD $700-$800 these days.

That would be far too much. Just a few hundred gets you an EX+ condition one from either Adorama or KEH.

 

[bobt]

This is a lens developed for film and technology has progressed a lot since. I don't want to go into technological detail (I can if you want to), but digital sensors do not behave the same way as film -- and hence newer lenses are constructed differently.

I would appreciate it if you would go into detail if you wouldn't mind. Your thoughts or any good links would be appreciated. Hopefully this won't hijack this thread.

For the OP, I'm sorry for your misfortune. Even if going into the digital world, you might want to pick up a used F100 as others have suggested. I'm currently using a D300 and still go back to my F100.

 

[OreoCookie]

I would appreciate it if you would go into detail if you wouldn't mind. Your thoughts or any good links would be appreciated. Hopefully this won't hijack this thread.

Film is less sensitive to the angular dependence of the incident light rays. To put it simple, it doesn't matter whether light enters film perpendicular to it or at an angle. Even if light isn't absorbed in the `first' layer, since film has a certain thickness, it will be absorbed slightly later.

Digital sensors only have one `layer' where light is absorbed -- and the absorption is much more sensitive as to whether the light comes in perpendicular to the surface or at an angle. If it enters at an angle, the absorption probability is lower.

This leads to a higher amount of vignetting and is particularly significant for wide angle lenses.
Modern sensors try to combat this by putting micro lenses on top of the sensor so that the light beam is focussed again and hits the surface of the sensor at a `more perpendicular angle.'

Also, sensors are more reflective than film so lenses need to have better coating (at least the very last one).

Another important thing is resolution: with current APS-C sized sensors it's much easier to see differences in resolution. Back in the film days, you needed a damn good loupe or a very good film scanner, time and know-how to look for limits of your equipment. And then you probably had high-quality glass anyway Nowadays when you want to see limits of your cheap $100 kit lens, take a picture and view it at 100 or 200 %. Done. Every bozo (no offense to all the bozos in the world) can do that, no special equipment required.

Despite all this, keep in mind that lenses are lenses. Digital lenses are not another species, they are just optimized differently. For example: you can easily correct vignetting with your favorite image editing app. Some modern cameras (at least some Nikons) do that on the fly!

Very often, moinkers such as EF-S, DX, DG, etc. just indicate the lenses have been designed for APS-C-sized (read: smaller) sensors. That makes them easier to construct, lighter and cheaper. Tokina's or Sigma's 50-135/150 mm f/2.8 zoom weighs about half of its full frame counter parts.

And of course, there is one more important point: nowadays, you can just construct better lenses just like we can buy better cars today than 10 or 20 years ago. This is also true for bodies.
Personally, I think the focus on IQ is a bit overrated these days: the lenses you can buy now are usually a lot better than what you could buy for a similar price a few years ago. There are exceptions, but overall, things have improved. I own 2 `digital' lenses and 2 `film' lenses. Of these, one of the digital lenses is clearly the `worst' (as in not as good as the others and I feel limited by it).

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I haven't posted (or logged on) in a few days; this has been due to a serious avalanche of stuff at work - which can vary from frenetic to tranquil - and the fact that I rather stupidly broke one of my own golden rules - don't eat meat in the summer; hygeine here isn't as it is in the west, and inevitably, I suffered the consequences. My apologies for not responding earlier, especially as quite a number of you were good enough to put time and thought into your considered responses.

So, thanks to everyone who took the time to post and offer suggestions; I'm truly grateful and I have already learned quite a bit on topics on which I knew next to nothing.

Thanks, SPG, for your comments - since the Nikon was stolen I have been trying to "look on" the proverbial bright side and it does give me an opportunity to try out cameras and ranges and models which I would not have considered, or looked at and to experiment with them. I shall certainly do that.

To OreCookie, I stand corrected - preconceptions are sometimes hard to shed and it can be difficult to accept that impressive advances have been made in areas one had dismissed.

Electroshock and Alex72 have suggested riding out the film age "in style". In fact, I'm sorely tempted to do that, and have been persuing second hand Leicas with indecent interest (both range-finders and SLRs; I had an amazing - if ancient - Minolta rangefinder when I was at school, a gift from parents; it looked - and was - something of an antique but it took incredible pictures). Re quality of film now available mentioned by Alex72, my attention was drawn to that when I was last home in mid July, and I have access to professional quality film.

Electroshock, your welcome advice on what one needs to do by way of homework/preparation for entry into the digital age is noted - I'm aware that it is not simply a case of pick up and shoot but that I'll have to know what I'm doing (or give that impression, at the very least).

I have looked up the Pentax K7, and read reviews, and it does sound like a very interesting camera; I shall certainly see if I can try it out and see what it is like.

Given that today is a Leica Event day (in competition with Apple's long anticipated Event) has anyone any thoughts on SLRs (film) such as the R7, or R9, and the digital rangefinder, the M8 model?

Once again, heartfelt thanks to all of you who took the time to respond.

Cheers and good luck

 

[OreoCookie]

One more tip which works regardless of what you'll get next: buy black tape and apply it on your camera. Perhaps it will discourage thieves. Please, don't go overboard, though

Just one comment regarding the Minolta (CLE, I believe that's what it was called) is a great camera that allows you to use excellent lenses. It's a different style compared to dslrs, but I'd also be tempted if I were you!

 

[bobt]

Thanks OreoCookie for the detailed explanation. I do appreciate it.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

With apologies to all for resurrecting this thread, but as I am on leave and in western Europe, I have replaced the stolen Nikon and wished to inform all who were kind enough to offer advice, support and ideas what "happened next".

Essentially, I have done as Electroshock and Alex72 suggested, which is to "ride out" the film age "in style". Thus, I treated myself to a "used" Leica R7 and a Leica zoom 35-70 lens which I intend to replace with the Leica 28-90 in due course, when I can lay hands on it. Prime lenses will be more suitable when I am travelling less, and I am more than open to all of the arguments (especially concerning quality) that prime lenses offer. At the moment, my main problem is two-fold and practical; I live and work abroad, and do an awful lot of travelling. Moreover, I do a lot of walking in cities (old cities above all) and in the countryside and mountains, so carrying extra weight in suitcases, (never again, for a camera after the felonious removal of my Nikon) or in person, does, or can, become an issue.

Yes, I suppose there is a bit of self-indulgence in this purchase, but I always wanted a Leica, I can now afford it, and so I bought it a few days ago. In any case, I have spent the week-end just beginning to get to know it. It is like when I return to my MBP after a few months abroad (my work environment is exclusively Windows based) and I have to remind myself of where the necessary controls are.

The technology on the Leica is from an earlier time; no automatic loading, or winding on, or auto-focus; instead, I have to work at taking a photograph. However,it is beautiful to hold - is exquisitely balanced in the hand - and feels right when prowling looking for angles, shots, and the right light. For now, I'm enjoying it, hugely, and can enter the world of digital photography when the need, or want, arises.

Luminosity, I looked hard and long at the D700 and have to say I found it too big (and too heavy with the appropriate lenses, but it is a lovely piece of equipment). The K7 is an attractive option, and one I shall think about seriously, but I have not seen one in stock anywhere yet.

Once again, a warm thank you to all of you who took the thought, care and time to respond with such a vast (useful and very welcome) amount of information. I have learned a lot from this thread and I'm truly grateful to you all.

Cheers and good luck to you all