 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / December 2005Transitioning to Nikon D50 from Nikon F4 and accessoires
Hi, I've been scouring usnet for answers to a number of these questions but still need some clarification on a few points. I understand that plain Nikkor AF lenses will work with the D50 except for "3D color matrix metering and iTTL balanced Fill-Flash." Fist, I do not know what 3D color matrix metering is -- what would I be missing?. Secondly, I don't know what the "iTTL" means here: assuming that I upgraded from my SB-28 to an SB-600 or SB-800, would I have ANY fill-flash mode available to me at all, or would I have only plain TTL? Also, regardless of whether I upgrade to an SB-600/SB-800 or continue with my SB-28 in manual mode, I would like to mount it externally on my Stroboframe bracket. Two questions here: Aside form the SC-28 cable, which I already have, is there some kind adapter that I need to get the flash talking to the body? Also, according to B&H's website, the Stroboframe anti-twist plate for the F4 will also work with the D70 (there was no anti-twist plate I could find for the D50). Does the D50 have the same footprint, such that it would work with the same anti-twist plate? Or is there some other solution? I am unable to divine from the B&H website whether the D50 comes with a memory card and, if so, whether it is a realistic amount of memory. I recall reading somewhere that the price of the D50 takes into account the fact that folks can use the less expensive SD memory cards, counting on consumers upgrading from less expensive point-and-shoots. But it's not clear to me what to do if you don't have an SD memory card, and whether the price difference with the D70 might work out to be lessened if it comes with a better memory configuration. Are there any other hidden costs I should be aware of? (I already have a computer and photoshop and printer, and am aware of the focal length issues from the size of the CCD). I currently use my F4 with three AF Nikkor lenses, the SB-28 with the stroboframe bracket, and numerous filters for black and white and color. Aside from the issues I've already raised, are there any other transition issues I need to think about? Thanks for your help! --Phil glaserp@sustainsoft.com skrev: > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > do not know what 3D color matrix metering is -- what would I be > missing?. Probably nothing at all. D is for distance info. But since sb600 and sb 800 in i-TTL mode measures that, the D info is of less importance Secondly, I don't know what the "iTTL" means here: assuming > that I upgraded from my SB-28 to an SB-600 or SB-800, would I have ANY > fill-flash mode available to me at all, or would I have only plain TTL? i-TTL balanced calculates available ligt into the flash´s power i-TTL "normal" doesn´t  SignatureMed venlig hilsen, Ole Larsen. New Images And Design 2005-11-17 http://home.tiscali.dk/muggler > Are there any other hidden costs I should be aware of? (I already have > a computer and photoshop and printer, and am aware of the focal length [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > already raised, are there any other transition issues I need to think > about? Apart from the far slower autofocus, inferior metering, flimsy construction, miniscule viewfinder, swapping a highend professional camera for a lowend consumer camera, loss of quality of the final product (especially in black and white, but also a tremendous loss of colour saturation in colour and an overall far lower resolution compared to quality scans)? No, nothing to worry about. The ONLY digitals I'd even consider if I were shooting an F4 now are the D2x and D2h, maybe the D200. Anything else is throwing away money and quality for the fad of "going digital". JT > The ONLY digitals I'd even consider if I were shooting an F4 now are the > D2x and D2h, maybe the D200. > Anything else is throwing away money and quality for the fad of "going > digital". As a photographer whose 35mm camera bag includes a digital D70 and two film SLR's (F100 & N90s), I have to disagree. There are times when I feel that all I need from a particular shot is the (admittedly) limited resolution of the digital image and that having instant feedback on the exposure and composition is an overriding consideration (and yes, I can and sometimes do shoot both digital and then film images of the same subject). On a recent 12-day trip I shot about 2000 digital (2/3 of them raw) images and 13 36-exposure rolls of 35mm film as well as a few rolls of 120 film. Both digital and film cameras are tools and like hammers and screwdrivers, not particularly interchangeable ones. But I rarely if ever go out without both. Norm >> The ONLY digitals I'd even consider if I were shooting an F4 now are the >> D2x and D2h, maybe the D200. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Norm Ah, but you're not thinking of REPLACING that F100 with a D50 now are you? Because that's what the OP is thinking of doing. Jeroen Wenting skrev: > Apart from the far slower autofocus, Autofocus on my 28mm, on my 50 mm and on my 18-70 mm couldnt be faster > inferior metering, equals my Dig Pentax Spotmeter > loss of quality of the final product (especially in black > and white, but also a tremendous loss of colour saturation in colour and an > overall far lower resolution compared to quality scans)? Have read most of those fantasy-calculations that try to prove that the "photographic earth" is flat, but remember the film is digital ( any grain is either black or not ) and then calculate again, please. And if you dont like calculations, you might take a look at a 30x40 cm print of a properly exposed 8-12 mpx dig. "negative" > No, nothing to worry about. But phanatics SignatureMed venlig hilsen, Ole Larsen. New Images And Design 2005-11-17 http://home.tiscali.dk/muggler > Apart from the far slower autofocus, inferior metering, flimsy > construction, miniscule viewfinder, swapping a highend professional > camera for a lowend consumer camera, loss of quality of the final > product (especially in black and white, but also a tremendous loss > of colour saturation in colour and an overall far lower resolution > compared to quality scans)? I can agree with some of this, but "tremendous loss of colour saturation in colour" is nonsense. One place where digital cameras win hands down is colour -- unless you actually like the artificial fluorescence of Velvia. Andrew. > I understand that plain Nikkor AF lenses will work with the D50 except > for "3D color matrix metering and iTTL balanced Fill-Flash." Fist, I > do not know what 3D color matrix metering is -- what would I be > missing? It really only matters for fill-flash and flash metering. > Secondly, I don't know what the "iTTL" means here: assuming > that I upgraded from my SB-28 to an SB-600 or SB-800, would I have ANY > fill-flash mode available to me at all, or would I have only plain TTL? The SB-600 and -800 do iTTL, fill-flash, multi-flash, pretty much everything you'd want. > I am unable to divine from the B&H website whether the D50 comes with a > memory card None of the SLRs do. > Are there any other hidden costs I should be aware of? You're switching from an F4, a high-end pro camera, to the absolute bottom of Nikon's digital line. You may find that you're not happy with that kind of change. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > > I understand that plain Nikkor AF lenses will work with the D50 except > > for "3D color matrix metering and iTTL balanced Fill-Flash." Fist, I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The SB-600 and -800 do iTTL, fill-flash, multi-flash, pretty much everything > you'd want. Do you mean that if I use the SB-600 or SB-800 on the D50, but with a plain AF lens, I will have no fill-flash capability at all, only plain TTL? Rich wrote: > Just out of curiosity, how come you are going from > a premier film SLR to an entry level DSLR and not > a flagship DSLR? This is a great question. I really love the F4 and have gotten into a film/scanning workflow that works for my big projects (I am not a professional, but am a serious amateur photographer). I have a Cannon A60 point-and-shoot for family events and other situations where the overhead of film development and scanning is not necessary. My 10-year old daughter wants her own digital camera, and I am sick of not being able to have SLR functionality in the situatioins where I need digital. So, rather than dump any money into another point-and-shoot digital, I'd rather just give the point-and-shoot to my daughter and get the D50 for myself. If I had an unlimited budget, sure, I would get a top-of-the-line DSLR. But for my budget, even the D50 will be a bit of squeeze. Thanks! --Phil > Do you mean that if I use the SB-600 or SB-800 on the D50, but with a > plain AF lens, I will have no fill-flash capability at all, only plain > TTL? No, you can still use fill flash. The D information improves the metering somewhat. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > Rich wrote: >> Just out of curiosity, how come you are going from [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > top-of-the-line DSLR. But for my budget, even the D50 will be a bit of > squeeze. I'd rather wait then, until you can afford at least a D200. You WILL be disappointed with the D50. I thought I might maybe replace my F80 with one (and keep the F100 as my main camera) but on seeing the thing decided against it. It's inferior to the F80 which itself is inferior to the F100 which is inferior to the F4. Jeroen Wenting skrev: > I'd rather wait then, until you can afford at least a D200. > You WILL be disappointed with the D50. Well - only he can tell. I guess D50 about equals the D70. And the D70 hasn´t dissapointed me a bit after 20 years with Pentax slrs, tlr Rolleiflexes and a Horseman Field. But of course - I can only speak for myself. SignatureMed venlig hilsen, Ole Larsen. New Images And Design 2005-11-17 http://home.tiscali.dk/muggler > Jeroen Wenting skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I guess D50 about equals the D70. And the D70 hasn´t > dissapointed me a bit after 20 years with Pentax slrs, tlr Rolleiflexes I've had a D50 for one week now and although I've not used it much, I can say that it is certainly not disappointing. I'm not new to digital, I also have a Sigma SD9 which produces incredibly sharp photos that I am very happy with. Again, thus far from what I have seen, the D50 is more than a capable camera that I am not at all disappointed with. Would I rather have a D200? Sure, who wouldn't but I'd also like to keep my wife from killing me so I can't spend the money on a D200 :) Just out of curiosity, how come you are going from a premier film SLR to an entry level DSLR and not a flagship DSLR? -Rich > Just out of curiosity, how come you are going from > a premier film SLR to an entry level DSLR and not > a flagship DSLR? > -Rich Nikon D2X = $5000. Nikon D70 < $999 For really high quality images I use film. For things where I'm pretty sure that I'll never want anything bigger than 8x10 at 300 dpi the digital is sufficient. Since I'm not a professional, I can't justify the more expensive models -- but that doesn't mean that I don't covet them. Norm > Nikon D2X = $5000. Nikon D70 < $999 Nikon D200 = $1700 > Since I'm not a professional, I can't > justify the more expensive models -- but that doesn't mean that I I'm pretty certain that even amateur (especially one accustomed to F4) will appreciate ergonomics and build quality of D200 . On the other hand, looking into viewfinder of D50 is going to be like looking into deep and dark tunnel. B. >> Nikon D2X = $5000. Nikon D70 < $999 > >Nikon D200 = $1700 About the same as the old F4 body I think. -Rich >>> Nikon D2X = $5000. Nikon D70 < $999 >> >>Nikon D200 = $1700 > > About the same as the old F4 body I think. > -Rich I'm quite happy with my F100 & N90s as film cameras. And I don't think that the D200 has that much to offer that it's worth $1000 over my now-used D70. Norm >>>> Nikon D2X = $5000. Nikon D70 < $999 >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that the D200 has that much to offer that it's worth $1000 over my > now-used D70. It does. Maybe not enough to replace that D70 with a D200 but more than enough to choose it over the D70 if you're making a purchase decision right now. Faster, better metering and AF, higher resolution (for what it's worth, most people don't need more than the D70 can supply), larger viewfinder (though still small because of the 2/3 crop factor), better construction, larger and heavier (which I greatly prefer), etc. etc. >> Nikon D2X = $5000. Nikon D70 < $999 > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > B. If I didn't already own the D70, I'm pretty sure I'd have fought to get a D200. BUT ... I don't think that the D200 has that much to offer that it's worth $1000 over my now-used D70. The increase in resolution is only 30% linearly -- so I could make as good 11x14 as I can 8x10 now -- and I don't use the LCD enough to think that the increased size is worth the extra money right now. And if I really need to make BIG enlargements, I can always use my 2-1/4" sq Bronica or the 2x3 Speed Graphic. Norm > If I didn't already own the D70, I'm pretty sure I'd have fought to > get a D200. BUT ... I don't think that the D200 has that much to > offer that it's worth $1000 over my now-used D70. The increase in > resolution is only 30% linearly -- so I could make as good 11x14 as I > can 8x10 now -- and I don't use the LCD enough to think that the > increased size is worth the extra money right now. And if I really Certainly D200 has a lot to offer when it comes to ergonomics, build quality and viewfinder, especially compared to D50. Resolution and LCD are not issues that someone moving from F4 to digital will care most, but viewfinder and ergonomics might be. B. In article <uYzqf.181166$qk4.143195@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, > If I didn't already own the D70, I'm pretty sure I'd have fought to > get a D200. BUT ... I don't think that the D200 has that much to > offer that it's worth $1000 over my now-used D70. If the D200 had been available when I bought the D70s, I would still have bought the D70s; the D200 is not worth the extra money to me. But it is worth it to others. That's the reason Nikon makes models at so many different price points. >> Just out of curiosity, how come you are going from >> a premier film SLR to an entry level DSLR and not [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Norm You can do much larger than 8x10 with a DSLR. A good 3MP digicam can produce very good 8x10s. It is the photograpoher that makes the photograph, the camera is only a tool with which he/she takes the photograph - there are very few poor cameras available these days. Any of the currently available DSLRs will produce perfectly acceptable images. I sometimes wonder if camera snobs ever take any pictures? > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > --Phil |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.