Well, I must say I'm really impressed with my D700. I have owned and used it for nearly one year, but almost never shot it for important personal work, always just for mundane paid work. I suppose as a consequence of not having shot anything other than boring subject matter with it I haven't tried to push it to its limits or got to grips with how best to process the files to satisfy some kind of personal vision. Lately I've been too hard up, both financially and with time, to shoot much for long term projects on 6x7cm film, as is my preferred format. So to try keep my eye in form I've been using the D700 in between jobs. I must say that the low light performance and shooting experience is amazing, especially now that I'm using LR3 over LR2. When I get the exposures right, the tonal and dynamic range in phenomenal. When I first got the camera, and occasionally still out of habit, I was / am off with my exposures and blow a lot of highlights by exposing like I would with colour neg. I've customized the settings now so that the camera pretty much operates like an AF FM2, using center weighted metering and with Active D-Lighting off. Once I flipped the meter readout "backwards" I found the camera a lot more intuitive to use. The only thing I'd like is more resolution.
I'm not sure why I feel a need to share this info other than the fact that it's got me thinking about trying to fast track a full migration to digital. I've always lusted after a MF digital system and from the files I've seen, and from personal experience with several test sessions, I see MF file quality is certainly better than 35mm in certain situations. I wonder though, thinking about how large I print and the situations I like to photograph in, if the D3x is not a better option - it has an in camera 5x4 crop mode and produces nearly 360dpi files @ 12 x 15". The largest I ever print is 18 x 22.5" for small editions. Although I'm very fussy about print quality, I'm also aware that image content and form is the most important part of my photography, not absolute detail or even perfect technique. Being able to safely and confidently use up to 800ISO would be a bonus too, although I haven't used anything but 100ISO in my Mamiya 7ii for three years! MF digi is getting better but even with the H4D-40 I'd not want to put 400ISO.
Having said all this, I think there are two things I would find weird about going back to 35mm. The first is having to deal with a larger depth of field and less spacial compression (if that's the right term?) I love the way the MF standard lenses draw. I know 35mm lenses are faster, but opening them up usually introduces many optical problems compared to say my M7 lenses. This leads me to my second worry, that every man and his dog uses a 35mm camera these days. In the game I'm in, sometimes it's the small, almost imperceptible visual differences that count. There's something about the combination of a bigger negative area and technically superior lenses that really contribute to a visual point of difference, even when shooting quick, more off the cuff images on the street. This is one area my Mamiya 7 really shines.
I guess I've got a lot of thinking to do :deadhorse: There are plenty of really well respected artists shooting with lesser gear than the D3X so I suppose that just goes to show me its somewhat of a futile discussion!
Sorry for the rant!
I'm not sure why I feel a need to share this info other than the fact that it's got me thinking about trying to fast track a full migration to digital. I've always lusted after a MF digital system and from the files I've seen, and from personal experience with several test sessions, I see MF file quality is certainly better than 35mm in certain situations. I wonder though, thinking about how large I print and the situations I like to photograph in, if the D3x is not a better option - it has an in camera 5x4 crop mode and produces nearly 360dpi files @ 12 x 15". The largest I ever print is 18 x 22.5" for small editions. Although I'm very fussy about print quality, I'm also aware that image content and form is the most important part of my photography, not absolute detail or even perfect technique. Being able to safely and confidently use up to 800ISO would be a bonus too, although I haven't used anything but 100ISO in my Mamiya 7ii for three years! MF digi is getting better but even with the H4D-40 I'd not want to put 400ISO.
Having said all this, I think there are two things I would find weird about going back to 35mm. The first is having to deal with a larger depth of field and less spacial compression (if that's the right term?) I love the way the MF standard lenses draw. I know 35mm lenses are faster, but opening them up usually introduces many optical problems compared to say my M7 lenses. This leads me to my second worry, that every man and his dog uses a 35mm camera these days. In the game I'm in, sometimes it's the small, almost imperceptible visual differences that count. There's something about the combination of a bigger negative area and technically superior lenses that really contribute to a visual point of difference, even when shooting quick, more off the cuff images on the street. This is one area my Mamiya 7 really shines.
I guess I've got a lot of thinking to do :deadhorse: There are plenty of really well respected artists shooting with lesser gear than the D3X so I suppose that just goes to show me its somewhat of a futile discussion!
Sorry for the rant!
