Just today I was looking for some info on Nikon cameras for a friend (NOT FOR MYSELF!), And I found this link with a very complete user manual of the Nikon D1X. The thing is so long to look at, that any Leica user will get bored in just five minutes. It is so ridiculous to see all those buttons and gizmos , just to get a photograph? Oh no, I find all that electronics interfering with the creative process of taking a photograph. And the reliability of Leica bodies and lenses let them be M or R. If any Leica user wants their images on digital it si still better to concentrate on picture taking and after that, scann the best. Well, if you want to laugh a little take a look at this aberration.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond1x/

-- Marco Hidalgo (marco_hidalgo@hotmail.com), March 05, 2002

Answers

It reminds me of an old Far Side cartoon where the kid in the classroom raises his hand and asks the teacher if he may be excused because "my brain is full".

-- jeff (debontekou@yahoo.com), March 05, 2002.

The D1X manual is certainly daunting. The level of control provided by the D1X, however, solves problems encountered with less-capable digitals aimed at professional applications. The D1X certainly represents a different way of making images.

There may be some benefit, however, in having both Yin and Yang. ;-)

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), March 05, 2002.

I agree the operation of not only digital cameras but AF SLRs in general involve a huge commitment to memory if you want to operate them fluidly. I take issue with the statement regarding the reliability of Leica bodies, though. The top-end digital SLRs seem to be relatively trouble-free at least from everyone I know who owns them, whereas in my own experience Leica R bodies' reliability has been spotty. I also have found (and spoken to others more adept at digital that I am) that I get sharper images from my 3+ megapixel D30 with a Leica R lens than I get from the same lens on a film body, using a 4000dpi scanner. Perhaps with an old-fashioned enlarger with a Leica lens, or a Tango scan, it's a different story.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 05, 2002.

" Oh no, I find all that electronics interfering with the creative process of taking a photograph "

What is that supposed to mean ? Autofocus, a durable body and a good built in meter suck away your creativity ? Are you even familiar with this camera and it's uses ?

-- leonid (kotlyarl@mail.nih.gov), March 05, 2002.

The current crop of high end digitals are more computer than a camera. It takes some getting used to if your backround is more with traditional film equipment. My problem with these cameras as a casual shooter is that I end up forgetting what everything does if I don't use the camera for a while. If you use them every day, I am sure its different. The other thing is that unless you have a specific need for this type of camera, the depreciation is killer becausue next year's model is always way more improved. One day I will probably get a digital camera, but not yet.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), March 05, 2002.

I get sharper images from my 3+ megapixel D30 with a Leica R lens than I get from the same lens on a film body, using a 4000dpi scanner. Jay, I'm no expert, but if this is really true you may need a better scanner or need to calibrate the one you have.

Autofocus, a durable body and a good built in meter suck away your creativity? Leonid, for some people, myself included, I believe it can. Creativity is often influenced by our state of mind -- and our state of mind can be influenced by the gear we use. Hence for some, I think the statement is valid. And in fairness to the poster, he did preface his remark by saying "I find"... But your point is well taken that creativity is not necessarily linked to equipment for everybody. I am right-brained (left-handed) and it is VERY difficult for me to get into a creative mood. I can calculate my gas mileage to two decimal places in my head while still at the pump, but have trouble "seeing" an image sitting right in front of me. Sometimes I need to get into the mood, and gear that makes me think helps. The best thing I ever did for my photography was get a view camera. The second best thing was getting the Leica M. All that said, I still think that my images leave a lot ot be desired artistically, though more often than not they are technically excellent...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 05, 2002.

I didn't believe it either, until I saw for myself. My scanner is a Canoscan 4000US, maybe not the best but not bad either. I don't suppose those $30,000+ drum scanners would have a market if the 4000dpi desktop scanners were in the same ballpark. Images from a digital camera get downloaded straight into the computer (or printer in some cases) whereas desktop scanners have the same issues as an enlarger: film flatness and cleanliness and quality of optics. Or so the explanation I was given. I'm no expert either but it does at least seem logical.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), March 06, 2002.

Some remarks about the use of digital cameras: ( even some pro photogs are doing this ) I see people all the time taking pictures with their digital cameras with their arms extended to be able to see the back screen, violating the basic picture taking technique for sturdiness and movement free shots. And five seconds later they are pressing buttons on their cameras to see how their picture was captured. Leaving unattended their surroundings for more precious picture moments. People worry about the battery status, the memory card. they start deleting photos before sitting down and study their images; and the list goes on and on. But this world has everything for everybody, and I like to be able to choose what I like.

-- Marco Hidalgo (marco_hidalgo@hotmail.com), March 06, 2002.

The f5 manual was'nt any better. I have the D1x and did'nt really read the instructions because I'm very familiar with the f5. For anyone who has never had a 'do everything...top end digi' they are in for a lot of reading. For anyone new to photography and interested in digi capture it's now all about 'how big is ya CCD?'. Interestingly...I was looking through a few digital photography magazines and i could not believe the poor quality of images taken by the 'readers'. The magazines were generally more interested in camera and software reviews. I don't think they were bothered at all that the standard of photography was s---! The D1X really is a great camera...recently on a shoot for two weeks I only used for about 5% of the time though when I had to get pics back to the UK. I'm more than happy with my M6 thanks....

-- Stewart Weir (photosw@hotmail.com), March 06, 2002.

Marco, I absolutely adore my 2 Nikon D-1Xs. They are lightening fast. Produce stunning images that Art Directors and Ad Managers of major accounts cannot tell from 4000dpi scanned 35mm film ( whew, you people think you're picky ). BUT BEST OF ALL...after paying for themselves, they've supported my considerable ADDICTION TO LEICA equipment and the pictures they help me make. In one day those D1Xs earned enough to let me call my pusher in NY, and order a M7. Gee, I just got another assignment for the Nikons, wish they made a black paint 90 APO to round-out that outfit. Did they ever make a black paint 90? Seems to me Leica could do it since they've recently made a Titanium 90/2 APO. Pant, pant, wheeze, wheeze...somebody stop me... Your friendly Leica junkie--Marc Williams

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), March 06, 2002.

This is like saying, "personal computers suck... my calculator can add and subtract just fine, especially since it is gold plated" - Both devices deal with zero's and one's - just like both cameras use film. If all you want to do is add, subtract, multiply and devide a small calculator is great... and ultimately this is what i want in my free time - something simple. If it were a job i would want a computer.

-- Matthew Geddert (geddert@yahoo.com), March 06, 2002.

that should be "just like both cameras make images" - obviously they don't both use film.

-- Matthew Geddert (geddert@yahoo.com), March 06, 2002.

Jay, your information is not correct. For quality digital work, the recommendation is to shoot neg film (not tranny) and then use a scanner to digitize the image. You haven't given us resolution figures, degree of enlargement and other factors, but I cannot see how a 6mb from an SLR file produces a sharper, better image then an over 20MB file (from a 2700dpi scanner). Things just don't add up. May be you can enlighten us.

-- sait (akkirman@clear.net.nz), March 06, 2002.

For quality digital work, the recommendation is to shoot neg film (not tranny) and then use a scanner to digitize the image

Sait, why do you feel this is so? You don't think chromes scan as well as negatives?

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), March 06, 2002.

I agree the operation of...AF SLRs in general involve a huge commitment to memory if you want to operate them fluidly.

Once that is done, however, their power is extraordinary. I challenge any Leica M user to a duel: he/she with an M of choice and a 75mm Summilux, me with an EOS-1v HS and an 85mm f/1.2L. It would be like taking candy from a baby. I could hit 10 perfectly focused, perfectly exposed shots--wide open at f/1.2!--before the M user could twist the focus ring one-quarter of a turn.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), March 06, 2002.

sait, maybe my maths is totally off, but a 6 megapixel uncompressed 24 bit RGB file is around 18 Mb in size, which is very comparable to the 20 Mb tiff you mention. At PS jpg 12 setting, which is not perceptually different from a tiff, that same file will run around 9 to 11 Mb depending on the complexity of the data, so a slight further compression will take it to 6Mb, with almost no perceptible fall off in quality. The two files will be indistinguishable in practice (publication or exhibit).

I believe the pure digital capture file has the great advantage of being very clean, with highly saturated colours, and form what I've heard these files are actually better for scaling up than scans. I have no experience with digital cameras, though.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), March 06, 2002.

Mr Hidalgo,

I beg to differ: The Nikon D1x is far from being ridiculous. This camera is causing quite a revolution among professional phootgraphers, maybe as big, if not bigger dans the arrival of the Leitz camera 77 years ago...... The camera is not as simple as a Leica m, maybe not as user's fiendly, but it does a tremendous job! And don't worry, many pros still use their M's for (too often) personal work. But The Nikon D1 series are for professionnals and allow them to do their jobs.

-- Pierre Charbonneau (charbonneaup@videotron.ca), March 06, 2002.

I will reply first to Richard. I have test scanned Velvia v Reale and liked what I got from the neg film (both sharpness and colours). I now shoot all my personal work on 35mm neg film, mostly Reale or NPH, depending on the project. ( I have tried other Kodak and Fuji neg and tranny films). I think there has been a great improvement on neg films with scanability, colour palet, grain, sharpness, tonal range, etc. But these are all very subjective things, and you should do your on tests to see what you like. It is of course very important to get your film processed at a professional lab, this will all but guarantee that your film will be correctly processed and will be free of scartches and dust.

Now, if we look at Jays experience with Canon D30 v. Canoscan. First I will give you the technical data on these equipment: Canon D30 - chip size 15.1x22.7mm / pixels 2160x1440 = 3.1 megapixels x3 (RGB) total 9.3megapixels Canosan FS4000 - scanned area 24x36mm / pixels 3780x5669 = 21.4 megapixels x3 (RGB) total 63 megapixels

The chip size on the D30 is about 60% of FS4000 which makes the 9.3 megapixels of D30 equivalent to approx 6mega pixels in relation to FS4000 for a given reproduction size. Now if someone can explain to me how 6 megapixels produces a result sharper than 63 megapixels does I shall be delighted.

One possibility is that in-camera sharpening on D30 was turned on, but that the FS4000 scans were viewed without use of the unsharp mask.

Rob, regarding direct digital capture, with 35mm high end digital SLR cameras, the problems are dust particles on ccd chip (or whatever is protecting it), lack of shadow detail, lack of high light detail, narrow dynamic range, high price of cameras, list goes on. It all depends on ones needs. If I was a press pro I would only use.digital cameras, but if I need top quality 35mm digital results, I will shoot neg film and scan it, until someone can show me a better way of doing it.

-- sait (akkirman@clear.net.nz), March 07, 2002.

Counting pixels will not tell you whether direct capture is better than scanning film.

When scanning film what you are really doing is taking a copy picture of the piece of film through a second optical system. As such you are going to be limited by the quality of the lens in the scanner and the extent to which the scanner can keep the film flat and still throughout the scanning process.

When doing direct capture you don't have these problems. You are capturing what is in front of the camera lens directly, not making a copy.

That said, it's still unclear how things trade off. I'd be willing to bet that scanned 120 film will hold more detail and whatnot than 6mp direct capture. But from what I've read by people actually using the newer high end digital bodies, direct capture in practice is damn close to or better than scanned 35mm film.

-- Pete Su (psu_13@yahoo.com), March 07, 2002.

sait, I think you're mixing up your bytes and pixels a bit, but let's not argue.

Anyway, I think the premise of this thread is pretty pathetic - if you can drive a car or post to this forum, then you can probably learn to use a digital camera. Leicas have strengths, definitely, but to say that cameras which are used to excellent effect by pro photographers are ridiculous is stretching it a bit.

When the small coolpix 5000 type cameras start to provide good wideangle coverage, I'll almost certainly be migrating. The picture counts in the end, not the box or lens. And I can guarantee that I'll be getting the same quality of photograph (good or bad) with the digital camera as with the Leica, because it's still me taking the picture.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), March 07, 2002.