Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2011 21:22:34 GMT -5
Digital, that is.
Probably at this point I would have to say it's my Nikon D300 because it will meter with my older manual focus Nikon lenses. On the other hand I like my older D50 because it's smaller, lighter and if I bend it, it's not the end of the world.
But there are a lot of good DSLRs out there. Even most Nikon users will say Canon and/or several other companies make good digital gear and it's more about what works better with the lenses you already have. Not like the old days when there were heated arguments over the best 35mm.
Someone commented an the film "best camera" thread that the good thing about film is that it has more latitude. I really have to disagree with that. I have digital images--especially RAW ones, that almost look black. But Photoshop or Nikon Capture NX2 reveal there is a lot of detail lurking in that darkness--much more than one would find in an underexposed slide of color negative.
It is possible that camera phones will replace even digital cameras. But even in the best models, like the iPhone, taking pictures is an extra. My Fuji point and shoot take much better pictures than my daughter's newest model iphone. And the iPhone has a long way to go to catch up--just with as point and shoot.
Of course one of the problems is that younger generations don't seem to really care about getting the best picture possible. For them it's a matter of taking a picture they consider "good enough"--sort of like the saying older generations sometimes used when a job was done half a$$ed and they referred to it as "close enough for government work."
But the number of people willing to embrace mediocrity seems to be growing.
W.
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Dec 27, 2011 22:26:35 GMT -5
So far hands down it has been my Nikon D700. No heated arguments from me about which is the best camera, they all do a decent job of it. Use what pleases you, I do. People have different needs and expectations from the images they take. That ranges from "good enough for government work" to down right anal in attention to the details. I think more people are taking photos today than ever before so the bottom end expectations are more numerous now simply because that has always been the largest segment of users. If they are happy with it who can say they are on the wrong track. Sometimes ignorance is bliss instead of driving yourself crazy with the details if it is not really called for.
Bob
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Dec 27, 2011 23:35:40 GMT -5
My great Canon T90.
For the many reasons that I have enumerated somewhere else on this site.
I don't remember where but it was also a thread about favourite cameras.
Mickey
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Dec 28, 2011 14:58:41 GMT -5
"Someone commented an the film "best camera" thread that the good thing about film is that it has more latitude."
Digital has improved in leaps and bounds. I do think it tends to burn highlights out more than film does - hence Mickey's idea of always underexposing a little. As you say, Wayne, it's amazing what can be rescued with digital processing.
Favourite? Currently Canon 7D
|
|
|
Post by andys93integra on Dec 28, 2011 15:25:32 GMT -5
Well me being completely digital except for the the occasional use of my Rolleiflex(s), digital does tend to have less dynamic range than film. This is coming from a lower Nikon D5000, but then again its has the same sensor as the d90 and d300s. Digital tend to burn highlights, and the thing is digital loves light, even more so than film, and I am now usually over exposing just a tad to have it be not so dark.
Using both digital and film in the studio about a month ago I noticed that digital needs more light than film. For example, I had my d5000 and Tele-Rollei, both same ISO speed (400), same shutter speed (1/125) and aperture (f/16) settings: the digital actually came out a tad on the dark side where as the film was over exposed by at least a stop.
So that is the conundrum, digital tends to burn highlights but also requires lots of light.
Being that my D5000 was my first digital SLR and really got my into photography, it is my favorite camera.
Andy
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Dec 28, 2011 18:26:49 GMT -5
Andy, I'm not sure it that easy to draw conclusions as to correct exposure. It might be correct but then again it might be that the shutters are not actually giving the time that is shown on the dial. I believe that old mechanical shutters tend to 'run slow' with age as the springs weaken and the mechanism looses 'lubrication'. It also assumes the f stops are accurate on each.
Dave.
|
|
Doug T.
Lifetime Member
Pettin' The Gator
Posts: 1,199
|
Post by Doug T. on Dec 28, 2011 18:27:31 GMT -5
The next one ;D
Doug
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Dec 28, 2011 18:35:21 GMT -5
Andy
Interesting observation from your studio shoot. Just a couple of questions to clarify things for me. When you say the film was over exposed by at least a stop, do you mean the film stock or commercially done prints? Did you incident meter the scene with a hand held meter or rely on the D5000's matrix metering? Have you had the Rollei's shutter checked for accuracy? It may be running a tad slow causing over exposure.
I have had a different experience with digital. I had thought that my first Fuji FX10 was wonky in it's metering. I incident metered an outdoor scene with a hand meter and the reading I got with it matched what my D700 gave of the same scene. Sadly the FX10 reading was out to lunch. Set the FX10 manually to the hand meter/D700 reading and got a good exposure. I have to say too that the D700 has a permanent exp comp of -.03 set in the menu so even with the cameras VF display showing 0 exp comp it is really -.03. I do this to try and keep highlights from being blown. I believe that the matrix metering in the D700 errs to slight overexposure to keep noise down in the shadow areas. I also found that the matrix metering needs to be slightly over ridden on occasion for side and back lighting as well as a scene that is predominately darker or lighter than average.
Bob
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Dec 28, 2011 18:51:27 GMT -5
I was going to add on my previous post that measuring exposure is like measuring temperatures - no two measurement systems give the same answer. Another thing is that digital is more akin to reversal film (expose for the highlights) rather than film (expose for the shadows). What is the correct exposure for one type isn't necessarily correct for the others.
|
|
|
Post by andys93integra on Dec 28, 2011 22:39:18 GMT -5
Yes for the studio time, and most other times, I use a hand held light meter for digital and film. And that particular time in the studio I had the cameras set to the same settings. The shutter being slow could be a contributor to the but I think it is axiomatic that film requires a little less light than digital. That is just what I have noticed.
Andy
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Dec 29, 2011 8:28:59 GMT -5
Andy
When you use your hand held meter are you using it to take an incident or a reflected reading?
Bob
|
|
|
Post by andys93integra on Dec 29, 2011 11:56:51 GMT -5
I use it for incident readings.
Andy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2011 13:49:53 GMT -5
I sometimes underexpose about 1/3 stop on the D300 and D 50 (about the same as I did with Kodachrome in the old days). But I shoot mostly RAW so I really don't worry about blown highlights as Capture NX2 will tone them down as well as pull detail out of the shadows. I do wish my D300 was the size and weight of the Nikon FA.
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Dec 29, 2011 13:54:56 GMT -5
Andy
Oh well, strange things happen I guess. I still can't see that the Rollei was out at least a stop with an incident reading unless you are looking at a print and not the neg or the shutter was off. Prints can come out many different ways just like a digital file that is PP'd. In any event I don't doubt that was your experience when comparing film to digital.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Dec 29, 2011 13:57:52 GMT -5
Wayn
You and me both on the size thing only I would like it comparable to an FM2n which is so close anyway. Maybe the new mirrorless cameras will allow for that.
Bob
|
|