Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 71 of 71

Thread: MFD ... Emperor's New Clothes?

  1. #51
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: MFD ... Emperor's New Clothes?

    Except not all the backs have microlenses...

    As for 'randomizing' the pixel patterns for images, there are already ways to implement this after the fact digitally -- and at least one method I'm working with actually works quite well; I have used the technique for a few *very* large prints to amazing effect. I am still in the research stages of my idea so not ready to share it, and add it is relatively time-consuming in it's present form, but at least actionable in CS so maybe has some promise.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  2. #52
    Senior Member bensonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,416
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    819

    Re: MFD ... Emperor's New Clothes?

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Yeah, that love for the CFV is predicated on one main thing isn't it? ... It looks more like film than most other digital solutions ... at least the color files do
    Hi Marc,

    Ahhh....so the CFV is the best of both worlds.

    The convenience of digital and that "almost like film" look. I'll take it! Now if Hasselblad would only make a full frame square sensor CFV-III back, I might be able to retire my A12 film backs. I know, not likely.

    To tell you the truth, I still don't see that "film is inherently better". Either in BW or color. I guess my eyes are just not that good. In which case, I'll continue shooting both, because it works for me.

    I will say this....in my own work, I've yet to surpass the look of my scanned 4x5 film with anything I have in digital capture. The CFV-II comes so close I can almost taste it. If I had the money for a better Leaf, Sinar or Phase One back then I really think digital would equal the best that I have personally ever gotten from scanned film....with the caveat....I'm not using an Imacon scanner like Marc, which I'm sure must up the ante considerably.

    Gary Benson
    Eagle River, Alaska

  3. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    534
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD ... Emperor's New Clothes?

    Marc,

    I 100% agree with you. That's the reason I shot my new book on breakdancers with medium format film (Neopan 400), a seemingly crazy thing to do considering the cost and difficulty of shooting live action with MF (and it was all out of pocket). But when you look at the images they really look larger than life, and the tonality is esp nice - and forgiving as I was using a flash. And it sets it apart from the rest of the pack. All scanned for the book on my Imacon with 8.5 x 11 match prints on my 4800.

    I don't know why, but most MFD I see leaves me cold. But then I'm not shooting product, etc and have no need for it. A few rolls of film MF here and there and my trusty Imacon come in a lot cheaper than investing in a MFD system. I'll admit I am hooked on the M8 and D3 and my M7 sits and gently weeps.

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Seattle, USA
    Posts
    400
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD ... Emperor's New Clothes?

    Apropos?

    Not exactly medium format digital, but certainly a very large print...

    Parallels some opinions on this thread...

    http://fwd.five.tv/videos/challenge-blow-up-part-3

    Regardless of the outcome of this amusing little test, I still say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and feel that is far more of the answer than any of the objective differences between the media.

    Enjoy,
    -Brad

  5. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Reykjavik, Iceland
    Posts
    2,310
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    9

    Re: MFD ... Emperor's New Clothes?

    Not that I will necessarily disagree with the results of the test, but who would choose 400 iso 35mm film to make a 100 foot tall print? Anyway, I agree with Brad here.
    My photos are here: http://www.stuartrichardson.com and more recent work here: http://stuartrichardson.tumblr.com/ Please have a look at my book!
    My lab is here: http://www.customphotolab.is and on facebook

  6. #56
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD ... Emperor's New Clothes?

    A quality per dollar per kilogram test would be interesting. You could get a really nice, compact, light, cheap, high-quality MF film system for the same price as a 35mm DSLR, and that comparison would hardly be as lopsided. 35mm film was always a compromise.
    Carsten - Website

  7. #57
    Member beamon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    southern Arizona, USA
    Posts
    209
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD ... Emperor's New Clothes?

    Thanks, all, for a good and fun read. Though it will be discussed for as long as there is basically different and competing methodology, this exploration has been particularly well done. The fact that no animosity has crept into the thread has made it even more enjoyable.
    Roger
    Leica M6, M8.2 & assorted Leica glass

  8. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD ... Emperor's New Clothes?

    I have been contemplating a D700 for a bit lately, but it makes zero economic sense for me.

    I buy my 35mm film in big lots off of eBay for about $1/roll and then I process them at home (if B&W) or more likely at Target for $1.08/roll. That's about $2/roll for 36 exposures, but we'll even hedge and say $3/roll.

    I can scan these with a Canoscan 4000 at 4000dpi and get a 12" x 18" file @360dpi which is about the largest I print outside of my 4x5 shots.

    I would have to shoot 30,000* images with the D700 before I broke even and that's not including the CF cards, extra batteries, and more hard drive space (I don't scan every negative shot) I would have to purchase while my Nikon F3hp is already bought and paid for and runs on rechargeable batteries I already own. I am also not a shoot everything and let the editor sort them out type of shooter, but much more contemplative. I have no need for instant review as I turn off the LCD anyway on the digital cameras I use and I don't need the extra speed as I'm already shooting at f/1.2. Instead I'm going to funnel this money into saving up for a Mac Pro.

    I have a feeling that I could probably print larger images with the D700 than my 35mm scans, though it would be close, but if I want to go large I can wetmount 4x5 or 8x10 and make some ridiculous non-interpolated files.

    Of course, this is just for me where I don't have any turn-around windows as I'm firmly in the fine art camp and not commercial. Everyone's needs differ, but lots of times for those without the need for quick turnaround the math, IMO, doesn't work out in favor of digital at the higher quality threshold.

    * D700 priced at $2500/$3 per roll of film = 833.33 rolls of film * 36 exposures/roll = 30,000 exposures.

  9. #59
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    163
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: MFD ... Emperor's New Clothes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    I have been contemplating a D700 for a bit lately, but it makes zero economic sense for me.

    I buy my 35mm film in big lots off of eBay for about $1/roll and then I process them at home (if B&W) or more likely at Target for $1.08/roll. That's about $2/roll for 36 exposures, but we'll even hedge and say $3/roll.

    I can scan these with a Canoscan 4000 at 4000dpi and get a 12" x 18" file @360dpi which is about the largest I print outside of my 4x5 shots.

    I would have to shoot 30,000* images with the D700 before I broke even and that's not including the CF cards, extra batteries, and more hard drive space (I don't scan every negative shot)

    * D700 priced at $2500/$3 per roll of film = 833.33 rolls of film * 36 exposures/roll = 30,000 exposures.

    Wow ... that's perspective. I have been thinking about getting a Phase One back for my Hasselblad H2. I did your little math thing and worked out that I would have to shoot and process somewhere in the neighborhood of 700 rolls of film (11,000 frames) to break even. As I don't yet shoot commercially yet, this is a no brainer.

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Reykjavik, Iceland
    Posts
    2,310
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    9

    Re: MFD ... Emperor's New Clothes?

    While I don't mean to deny your conclusion, it is not necessarily as clear cut as it sounds. If I am going to be a bit of a devil's advocate, I would say that that kind of calculation assumes equal results and equal effort expended. For example, the D700 will dramatically outperform film from a high ISO perspective. It also has many different features which may or may not mean anything to you (Auto ISO, live view, instant review). Film may look better in black and white. Also, how easy is it to get the files you need? Scanning is a time consuming process, while modern programs like Lightroom, Aperture and Capture One can allow you to process many files at once.

    They are really different things and it is hard to choose one over the other for anyone other than yourself.
    I find that I generally prefer working with film for my own photography, but when I am doing something professionally or under the gun, the digital really adds a sense of security.
    My photos are here: http://www.stuartrichardson.com and more recent work here: http://stuartrichardson.tumblr.com/ Please have a look at my book!
    My lab is here: http://www.customphotolab.is and on facebook

  11. #61
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: MFD ... Emperor's New Clothes?

    On the economics of MF digital capture...

    First, I think you really need to compare 4x5 film to MF direct capture for 'detail' equivalence. If you do the math for sheet film, the per shot costs go up significantly especially if you cannot develop it OR scan it for yourself.

    Note that a good MF film scanner will set you back $2000 minimum, and a good 4x5 scanner will start used at around $3000. Used drum scanners can be had for around $3000 or $4000. New Imacon X5, as much as a used BMW X5 (). With any of these you'll be lucky to complete 6 scans per hour on 4x5. Service bureau scans of 4x5 are pricey -- $50 to over $100 for the best.

    Scanning costs aside, a sheet of 4x5 color tranny or neg emulsion will cost around $3 for load your own, or $4.50 in readyload trim. Add $4 per sheet for lab processing PLUS mailing costs if there is no local lab.

    Finally, if you do all this for yourself, add something in for the time you spend, unless it isn't worth anything to you

    Now, don't forget to amortize that digital back over three to five years, and remember it has residual value at the end of that period. So a new $20,000 back today should still be worth at least $5,000 in 3 years and probably more, so your sunk cost for the DB is about $5K per year REGARDLESS of number of frames exposed.

    Using the 4x5 example above, you average $8 per sheet for film and processing. Forget your time, and thats about 600 4x5 film frames per year to break even with digital -- I'll shoot 600 frames a DAY on some shoots! (In fact, I suspect I'll average over 200 frames per day on our Moab workshop alone, and I'll be teaching much of the time!) Factor in even $10/hour for your time spent scanning, and it is significantly fewer to break even.

    Cheers,
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  12. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD ... Emperor's New Clothes?

    Jack, I think your numbers are very off compared to my experience and for my workflows. I'm setting up a Betterlight shot (museum art reproduction) and once my multi-minute scan starts going I'll add up my numbers for shooting 4x5. Obviously, these numbers are different than for someone else as I definitely bargain shop and have specific requirements.

  13. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD ... Emperor's New Clothes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Richardson View Post
    If I am going to be a bit of a devil's advocate, I would say that that kind of calculation assumes equal results and equal effort expended. For example, the D700 will dramatically outperform film from a high ISO perspective.
    That's assuming I need high ISO. I'm shooting at f/1.2 so Kodak 400CN and Fuji Acros 100 cover 99% of my uses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Richardson View Post
    It also has many different features which may or may not mean anything to you (Auto ISO, live view, instant review).
    Haven't needed them when I was shooting film pre-digital and don't find I need any of them now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Richardson View Post
    Film may look better in black and white. Also, how easy is it to get the files you need? Scanning is a time consuming process, while modern programs like Lightroom, Aperture and Capture One can allow you to process many files at once.
    If you are going from the standpoint of being able to batch things then there is no reason to think you can't do the same with film scans. Kodak 400CN scanned in Vuescan with a "Image" scan which captures all of the information the scanner can capture (and can batch scan each strip of frames, but I proof with a scan of the whole neg sheet on an Epson 700 and then choose the individual images to scan). A photoshop action or Lightroom preset is made for each film type and they can be batch processed just as easily as digital files. Individually working up the images takes just as long for digital originals as with film in my experience. Yes, digital is faster in this regard, but I've already said I'm not on a deadline timeline that makes this an issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Richardson View Post
    They are really different things and it is hard to choose one over the other for anyone other than yourself.
    I find that I generally prefer working with film for my own photography, but when I am doing something professionally or under the gun, the digital really adds a sense of security.
    Agreed on all accounts, but many of the people here don't need that turn around and I feel that if I must rely on an LCD to make sure I got the shot then I probably wasn't prepared to do that shoot anyway. This is of course, as you said, for me, not for anyone else.

    Okay, I really need to get the Betterlight going, but I had missed Stuart's post and wanted to respond in order.

  14. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD ... Emperor's New Clothes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    On the economics of MF digital capture...

    First, I think you really need to compare 4x5 film to MF direct capture for 'detail' equivalence. If you do the math for sheet film, the per shot costs go up significantly especially if you cannot develop it OR scan it for yourself.
    I might disagree if 6x7 were used with a high-end setup like the Mamiya 7ii, but let's go with 4x5. Of course, in my previous post I was just pointing out the thoughts behind why I decided not to buy a D700. The price point of MFDB is entirely outside of any personal feasible limit for me (recently married in graduate school with my wife about to also enter graduate school).

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    Note that a good MF film scanner will set you back $2000 minimum, and a good 4x5 scanner will start used at around $3000. Used drum scanners can be had for around $3000 or $4000. New Imacon X5, as much as a used BMW X5 (). With any of these you'll be lucky to complete 6 scans per hour on 4x5. Service bureau scans of 4x5 are pricey -- $50 to over $100 for the best.
    I have access to the following scanners on a daily basis, the Canoscan 4000 previously mentioned, Nikon 8000, and an Imacon X5 plus a handful of Epson flatbeds like the Epson 700, 750, and 10000XL. Additionally, I can get drum scans at a fraction of the price you state, but this is due to a friend having an Aztek drum scanner. I can wetmount to my Epson 700 (of course, mine was free as the lab couldn't use it due to a dead pixel, but it's outside the frame of a 4x5 so it's not an issue) using a piece of sheet glass with a brass reservoir glued to it to make it easier/cleaner to fill, some 3M extra delicate tape, mineral oil (though I'm switching to Kami just because it cleans easier), and 4 Sacagawea gold dollars which place the scanning plane at the best plane of focus for my 700. At 2000dpi (which is within the optical resolution of the 700) I get a 20" x 25" file @ 360dpi. Since the majority of my work is palladium printed with digital negatives I don't need/can't handle a print larger than this anyway so this is a perfect size. Most of my work from 4x5 is 12"x15" or 16"x20". If I were going larger I would scan them on the Imacon. So far we're looking at $700 for the 4x5 scanner with the piece of plate glass, brass shims, $4 in coins, and mineral oil being negligible. Also, I still have my original that can be rescanned at a much higher resolution on an Aztek @ 8000ppi if need be, but I don't need that big of a file anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    Scanning costs aside, a sheet of 4x5 color tranny or neg emulsion will cost around $3 for load your own, or $4.50 in readyload trim. Add $4 per sheet for lab processing PLUS mailing costs if there is no local lab.
    But you're talking color. I shoot solely b&w where the cost is $90/100 sheets of FP4+ so it's ~$1/sheet and I process at home in a Jobo expert tank on a unicolor roller (say $350 for this setup, though I just kept watching on eBay until I found one for $150). I develop in homemade Pyrocat-M and make my own fixer from scratch, so processing is on the order of pennies to develop 10 sheets in the tank. So $350 to get the stuff to develop and tack on an extra $100 which will make enough chemistry to last years, so we're at a total of $1150.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    Finally, if you do all this for yourself, add something in for the time you spend, unless it isn't worth anything to you
    I think this isn't even an issue as I am not a professional in the sense that I must make/sell work to provide for my family, I have a day job. Photography is my escape. Do you tack on the cost of your time to the price of a ticket to the movies? Unless the work your making is part of a business plan I think this part of your argument is an argumentum ad populum fallacy for most people because photography is their hobby and a hobby by definition is meant to be a leisure activity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    Now, don't forget to amortize that digital back over three to five years, and remember it has residual value at the end of that period. So a new $20,000 back today should still be worth at least $5,000 in 3 years and probably more, so your sunk cost for the DB is about $5K per year REGARDLESS of number of frames exposed.
    Seriously, how many of you are still using the same digital equipment you purchased 3 years ago? Additionally, all of the files shot with equipment shot now cannot be increased in quality while I can always have my 4x5 drum scanned at a later date or on an individual basis if I need a 40" x 50" print. Plus, scanner prices are dropping--I see a Creo or Eversmart in my future at some point for under $1000.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flesher View Post
    Using the 4x5 example above, you average $8 per sheet for film and processing. Forget your time, and thats about 600 4x5 film frames per year to break even with digital -- I'll shoot 600 frames a DAY on some shoots! (In fact, I suspect I'll average over 200 frames per day on our Moab workshop alone, and I'll be teaching much of the time!) Factor in even $10/hour for your time spent scanning, and it is significantly fewer to break even.
    With my example it's $1150 for the scanning and processing equipment/supplies, $800 on my camera, $250 on my lens (135mm Sironar-S MC f/5.6), say $150 for the 3 grafmatics, $150 for my Harrison Changing Tent, and say another $150 for random things like a loupe and dark cloth and such, though that's probably overestimating. The tripod is a wash as you'll need one either way. That's $2650 and for me it was really only $1950 as my scanner was free. Now if we go with the cost of $5000/year I can buy everything listed above and still have $2350 to buy 2,350 sheets of film for that year and even if there is an outlay for some extra consumables you could still easily say $4000 for 4000 sheets every year after that with $1000 in the coffer. I don't shoot 4000 sheets of 4x5 in one year and I doubt I ever will because a very productive day for me is all 18 sheets in the grafmatics or one some occasions I'll do 36. I could shoot 3600 sheets if I did 36/day for 100 days, but that won't happen because I have a day job as many others do, too. My keeper ratio is also very high as I will scan/print about 80% of my 4x5 shots and I'll just make the crass assumption that you don't print all 600 images you're shooting. Additionally, the cost for me to add more lenses to my system is dramatically reduced compared to the costs for a MFDB, a 210mm f/5.6 APO Symmar-S at Keh.com in EXC condition is under $500. Finally, I LOVE shooting 4x5. Yes, you could go the technical camera route, but then that's NOT the same as composing on a complete 4x5 ground glass; as a matter of fact, I have 75 sheets of 8x10 coming that I can wetmount to the Epson 10000XL, scan at 2000dpi and get a 40" x 50" at 360dpi without even trying hard--not the goal, though, I'm doing portraits with big, old brassie lenses and contact printing them in palladium.

    Obviously, these are the numbers I came up with for me and they don't really apply to others, but I thought I would just go ahead and throw my thoughts into the thread.

  15. #65
    MBohrer
    Guest

    Re: MFD ... Emperor's New Clothes?

    My first serious camera was Grandpa's 1954 Leica M3 - I found it in my parent's basement in 1968. I've used Canon F1n and FD lenses, Nikon N90, F5, D1H and Nikkor lenses. Today I use Canon EOS and EF lenses for wildlife. I use Leica M6 TTL, M8, 90mm Tele-Elmarit, 50mm Noctilux, 35mm Summicron ASPH, 21mm Elmarit ASPH for people, events and travel.

    With digital files, the choice of white balance / color temperature and tone in your raw converter make a huge difference.

    Comparing Leica M8 digital to Kodak C-41 or E-6 film with Leica lenses at ISO 160/200, it's hard to tell which is digital and which is film with corrected white balance.

    Digital and film are two different media. It's possible to make digital mimic film if you work at it, but they should be appreciated as different media. Your clients will appreciate your work regardless of media if it meets their needs on time and on budget.

    Look at the vinyl versus CD debate of the mid-1980s for similar arguments. The first CD players sounded pretty gritty with then-available media. Today's players and disks sound very good, unless you're a purist with a $20,000 audio system.

    The same points apply to digital images. After the first awful generations of digital, the present equipment makes pretty good images while it shows all the flaws of your optics. Even with very high-quality MF digital backs, you won't see much difference from film at low ISO. Even then, it can be a matter of taste.

    Compare images at ISO 640 or higher on film versus late-model digital. The digital image's color, contrast and lack of 'grain' will blow the film image away.
    Last edited by MBohrer; 16th January 2009 at 13:30.

  16. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Reykjavik, Iceland
    Posts
    2,310
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    9

    Re: MFD ... Emperor's New Clothes?

    Jeremy, I don't think people were thinking about YOUR specific workflow, which is obviously very particular to you, just that there is more to comparing film and digital than running a few numbers and saying X makes more sense. And of course film makes a lot of sense for you if you have easy access to a tens of thousands of dollars of scanning equipment! Personally, I would shoot a lot more film here if E6 did not cost 15 dollars a roll to process and come back in 3 days, invariably very dusty. I am lucky to have an Imacon, but I am fairly certain that there are only one or two others in the country. And the dusty E6 I get back means that I have to spend a very, very long time spotting my scans, because I am not lucky enough to have a 949 or X5. There is no lab that processes 4x5 in the entire country, except by special arrangement with a custom lab. Then they can do a maximum of 12 sheets at a time, and it is around 8 dollars a sheet for JUST the processing. But anyway, it all comes down to what the realities of your situation are.
    For Iceland anyway, digital most certain IS a more economical, and frankly necessary requirement for every pro shooter in this country. There simply are not the labs available to allow you to shoot film on a commercial basis. I suppose it is possible if you are willing to do it all in house, but seeing as you cannot even BUY E6 in the country, and B&H, Adorama and Freestyle will not ship the kit overseas means that you need to reach a special arrangement with Kodak or Fuji. Then you pay massive shipping fees. At the end of the day, you will have sunk thousands of dollars into supporting a film infrastructure that could have been spent towards a medium format digital back that allows clients to watch as you shoot tethered, receive files immediately, and be sure that you got "the shot".
    But anyway, the situations are so subjective that it is rather pointless to argue about it.
    My photos are here: http://www.stuartrichardson.com and more recent work here: http://stuartrichardson.tumblr.com/ Please have a look at my book!
    My lab is here: http://www.customphotolab.is and on facebook

  17. #67
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD ... Emperor's New Clothes?

    Jeremy, once you finish at school and move somewhere else, get back to us Your numbers will be really different. I also must say that you appear to have spent a very large amount of time and effort keeping the price down, which isn't time that everyone has to spend. That should somehow also be valued in the equation.
    Carsten - Website

  18. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD ... Emperor's New Clothes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Richardson View Post
    Jeremy, I don't think people were thinking about YOUR specific workflow, which is obviously very particular to you, just that there is more to comparing film and digital than running a few numbers and saying X makes more sense. And of course film makes a lot of sense for you if you have easy access to a tens of thousands of dollars of scanning equipment!
    Oh, I know, Stuart, but I thought it might be a good springboard to continue the discussion. Plus, I always enjoy hearing about and better understanding the rationales and workflows of other photographers.

    Of course there is more to comparing film/digital than running a few numbers when looking at it from a non-personal/theoretical standpoint, but from a personal standpoint where you have a good idea of the goals with your work it can be very helpful. I was truly planning on tossing down (what is to me) a large chunk of change to buy the D700 until I actually ran the numbers and realized just how long it would take to amortize the costs. Since the unique benefits of digital don't really apply/matter to me (speed, review, individual image adjustable ISO) it was rather eye opening how much I would actually have to shoot before this break-even point was reached. Once this new batch of Nikon digitals drops to a much lower price (which will of course happen if I just wait it out) I'll most likely buy one. Additionally, if I ever needed one for a paying gig I could buy one and have it shipped overnight to me, but the longer I wait to buy the cheaper it will be and since I don't need it now.... Plus I could also just rent gear for a shoot, too.

    As you said, this really all has to be done on an individual basis for each person's needs, but since the market is always telling you to buy, buy, buy I feel like many people click the "Add to Cart" button before they've fully thought this out. I know I did as I spent a couple of hours checking into the D700 before I finally removed it from my cart and decided to just focus on shooting a ridiculous amount of 35mm with the gear I already have and am comfortable using as opposed to giving into my gear lust.

  19. #69
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    carstenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,530
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD ... Emperor's New Clothes?

    Jeremy, I must confess that given that you are not a pro, and that you don't even shoot part-time for money, and given that if you were considering buy the D700, you a) have the money, if you want to, and b), desire the camera in some way, I don't see why you even did the financial calculation.

    For me, if I desire a camera (and I am not a pro either), I look at my money situation, look at the camera, and decide with my heart, not ROI.
    Carsten - Website

  20. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD ... Emperor's New Clothes?

    Quote Originally Posted by carstenw View Post
    Jeremy, once you finish at school and move somewhere else, get back to us Your numbers will be really different. I also must say that you appear to have spent a very large amount of time and effort keeping the price down, which isn't time that everyone has to spend. That should somehow also be valued in the equation.
    Well, I'm looking at picking up a Nikon 9000 or Minolta Multi Plus to handle the 35mm/120 scanning once I no longer have access to the Nikon8000 and Imacon, but it's not that big of a deal as my access to the equipment is based on my full-time job and not the fact I'm a student.

    Honestly, I really haven't spent very much time or effort keeping the cost down outside of the time required to scan, but I scan while I develop. And honestly, I ENJOY just about every aspect of shooting film except for cleaning up the mineral oil, which is while I'll be switching to Kami or Prazio that cleans much more easily. I work 40 hrs/wk on a computer with digital cameras and images so getting my hands in chemicals is always a fun thing. This is 40hrs/wk of work on top of going to graduate school so I would say that my time is at a premium; once I'm done with school I'll actually have more time to devote to photography!

    I'm not saying this is for everyone, but for me it's something that meshes well with what I enjoy and what I can afford in both time and dollars.

  21. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MFD ... Emperor's New Clothes?

    Quote Originally Posted by carstenw View Post
    Jeremy, I must confess that given that you are not a pro, and that you don't even shoot part-time for money, and given that if you were considering buy the D700, you a) have the money, if you want to, and b), desire the camera in some way, I don't see why you even did the financial calculation.

    For me, if I desire a camera (and I am not a pro either), I look at my money situation, look at the camera, and decide with my heart, not ROI.
    Carsten, the reason I looked at ROI is because I thought the D700 might be cheaper than shooting the 35mm and scanning. Additionally, I have a Pentax K20D outfit and I feel that it's pointless to carry 2 different 35mm setups which is why I was thinking of selling that equipment and putting that towards the D700 and shoot that instead of the 35mm film, but after looking at the $ involved I feel I'm better situated financially if I sell the K20D and put it towards a new computer which will help with the digital side of everything (I still scan and then output digitally, though many of the inkjets are negatives to print in palladium). The Nikon F3 setup was a recent yardsale find which included a 50mm f/1.2 and 105mm f/2.5 and I have really come to love the signature of these lenses which is why I haven't been shooting the Pentax. Could I afford to buy a D700? Well, honestly, yes, but it would mean I would have to give up any other big purchase I was planning and I think a new computer would be a much better choice in the long run. The majority of my "serious" work (photographs for hanging in shows and for school--I'm working on my MFA in photo and MA in art history) is done with the 4x5 so this is a 2nd camera situation.

    I should add that I do sell work, but it's through gallery shows and the like. I don't have gallery representation and/or a required show schedule so there are no deadlines that I don't impose myself and I never have anyone looking over my shoulder to approve what I'm shooting.

    Anyone interested in a Pentax K20D setup? :-)
    Last edited by Jeremy; 16th January 2009 at 14:06. Reason: added info about selling work

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •