I've been taking a lot of photos again. I've been interested in photography for a long time now, but I go through phases where I don't take a lot of photos to where I'm constantly taking photos. There's been a lot of interesting things going on and I've shot a lot of pictures from the recently opened 360 tower.
I've been using my trusty Nikon D70 for 4 years now. It has been a workhorse for me, and I've shot over 10,000 images with it so far. One cool thing about Nikon DSLR's is that they embed how many pictures the camera has taken so far in each photo. You can get this information with an EXIF reader such as
EXIF Viewer for the Mac.
However, I've been thinking of upgrading my camera for a while now. A few reasons I'd like to upgrade are:
- In my attempt to clean the sensor, I slightly scratched it. These show up as dust spots when I'm shooting against a light background at small apertures. It's not a big deal to retouch, but it does get annoying.
- I don't have an ultra wide angle lens for it. I need one of those special DX wide angle lenses in order to get wider than 18 mm (or 27 mm equivalent in 35 mm). However, full frame sensor cameras will be affordable within the next few years, so I hesitate on buying on of these lenses. I've been shooting my 35 mm film on my F100 with a Tokina 20-35 mm lens.
- The newer cameras such have much better high ISO performance. I find that I am shooting a lot at night as well. DSLR's have been a boom for night photography. The quality at ISO's above 800 far surpass anything that is available in film. It is also incredibly convenient to be able to switch ISO's shot to shot instead of having to wait to finish the entire roll of film.
- It would be nice to be able to shoot faster than 3 fps sometimes. I shoot sports and fast action occasionally.
I already have a large investment in Nikon equipment. There's no compelling reason for me to switch to Canon at this point. The question is do I go with the D40, D300, or D700? To answer this question, let's look at what I actually do with my photos.
The vast majority of my photos are viewed only on screen. This means the number of mega pixels is basically irrelevant in most cases. Sure, I have printed a 20x30, but it is extremely rare. I look at photos on either my computer screen or my 42" 1080p plasma TV. I also use photos for my web page and to send pictures to friends. None of these require anything above the 6 mega pixels I'm currently getting out of my D70.
The D40 is cheap and basically does everything my D70 does for much less money. The only thing it doesn't do is wireless flash. If I am happy with my D70, I can basically get a better camera for $450. It's much better than the $1,300 I paid for the D70 and its 18-70 mm kit lens.
The D300 is a much better camera, but it is still a DX sensor. I will need to buy a wide angle lens such as Nikon's 12-24 mm or the Tokina's new 11-16 mm. What I'm really eyeing is the D700 that was just recently announced. It is Nikon's first full frame sensor in a prosumer camera body. The reason for getting this is much better high ISO performance and the ability to use all my 35 mm lenses. However, it's $3000 for the body only! That's nearly double the price of a D300. Also, Nikon does not make a do it all lens for a full frame sensor like the 18-200 mm they have for DX sensors.
So I'm thinking I should do one of the following.
- Get the D40/D300 and a DX ultra wide with it. I would also probably get the 18-200 mm AFS VR lens.
- Get the D700 and Tamron's 28-300 mm lens. The bigger sensor will mean I get much higher ISO's or much less noise at the same ISO.
I'm hesitant on buying any DX lenses since I believe full frame sensors will become standard over the next few years. The D700 looks very tempting because I can use all of my lenses the way I use my film camera, but it's so much more money.
Now I still have 30+ rolls of film sitting in my freezer that I bought 6 years ago. I probably will stop shooting film after these are done. Digital is so much more convenient. The results are immediate and there is no need for developing, scanning, or figuring out how to store and organize the large quantities of it (which I tend to lose after several years). The quality is the same at low ISO's, but very different compared with 35 mm. Scanned film has high resolution, but is much grainer, while digital photos are cleaner. It is very easy to tell if a photo was shot on film or digital because of this.
Labels: cameras, photography
