Hey All! Long Time No Talk! - But I have a question I hope y'all can help me out with. I have been a long term, hard-core film shooter - the the growing inconvenience of shooting transparencies (labs shutting down, the whole expense of it, and the loss of resolution from "second generation" scans for web and digital production) has thrown me from the enjoyment of shooting in the first place. I'm considering going digital. After a bit of research, I'm leaning towards the Nikon D100. After reading several reviews and comparisons, I have to admit that Canon has a superior camera (believe me, it took a lot to get me to admit that) - but the difference doesn't merit a complete system change (I've got a slew of Nikkor lenses, TTL Speedlights, etc.). So, my question isn't so much "which digital camera" so much as "anyone here have any opinions about the D100". Is it worth it to go up to a DX1? (with less resolution...?) Anywho - this coming from someone who used to feel comfortable with photography - but now is a babe in the woods. Marc

Marc - I'm a Canon guy from way back and I absolutely love my 10D. Having said that, the D100 is a great camera. I shot with it for a few days a while back. In my opinion, the 10D is a better camera, but more because of the added features it gained being the newer camera (the DIGIC processor itself is what really pushes it ahead). But I don't think, as you said, the difference is enough to merit a complete system change. If you already have good Nikkor glass, then I wouldn't hesitate to buy the D100. Once you experience the convenience and clean frames that digital offers, it'll be hard to wipe that smile off your face. For me, digital also increased my love of film. I can shoot digital but then, when the mood strikes, shoot film and it doesn't feel like as big a pain in the butt to work with anymore. :) -=>Donald

another one bites the dust...

I feel like the only one..... I'm all alone..... does no one shoot film anymore? I used my digi for 2 years solid, shot well over 6000 images with it, love it..... but yet there is still something so special about film that I have shot pretty much nothing but film for months, I'm on a film kick, digital be damned. Plus I find the rate that digi's become obsolete to be a total pain in the rear.... my camera.... 2 years old, they've come out with 3 upgrades to my original.... at least I know my Nikon will still be usable, nor obsolute in 10-15 years, it will still be taking great pics, nor will the software that runs it (on a digi), be unable to work on the PC's of the future..... This makes me depressed..... OK maybe someday I'll actually buy a DSLR.... and like you Wolfsnap I would by a Nikon rather than going out and having to buy a whole new system.

I still use film, 'chelle. At about $10US per roll for materials and processing, the digitals are starting to look real attractive. And now, with a digital camera in every cell phone, film and good processing is going to get harder to find. At 6000 shots/two years it sounds like even with obsolescence your digital has given you good value. Still, I too, have always looked at a camera as sort of a lasting, quality investment. It is somewhat sad that the digitals get old so fast, but I guess that is a funny way to look at it. Maybe should stary collecting 3-year old models on e-bay for the museum?

You and me against the world....eh Misha? ;~)

More than anything else, the cost and time factor of film just took all the joy out of it for me. I'd shoot an event and there went $100-150 in film and processing costs. Then I get the shots back and I want to take them to my gallery so I start scanning the negatives and there goes 2-4 weeks of "scan, dust clean-up, post-process .... scan, dust-clean up, post-process". I still shoot film, I just don't seem to have the "film is magical" feeling that many people seem to have (not saying it's a good or bad thing, just don't have it). I have yet to hit a situation where I can't make a shot I took look exactly like a film shot if I want, down to the gamut and grain of a particular film (from the high saturation of Provia to the warm neutral tones of Astia to the high contrast/grain of Ilford Delta 3200). Maybe if my Photoshop skills were less than they are, I'd feel a little different ... hard to say. -=>Donald

i posted a message here earlier but it seems to have got lost in the ether...lol i also use film most of the time. i have a little digi which i use when the slr is inconvenient. most of the b&w stuff in my gallery is film. my sentiments on digital is the same as what michelle mentioned in her post. i would also stick with the nikkor lenses if you are going digital.

I only have 2 Nikkor lenses for my N6006 but still I am going to the D100. I love my Nikon and I have heard great reviews on it. Yeah the Cannon is a slightly better camera but then again there are many photographers that are slightly better than me. Ok more than slightly but hey... I was at our annual fundraiser last Saturday night (www.DiaboliqueBall.org if you want a tax deduction!) and we had 4 photographers there. One I don't like his work, one I have never seen and the other two were both shooting Nikons. One was the F100 and the other a D100. Now I may be a bit bias, in the fact that I love Nikon, but the one shooting the D100 also is one of my idols, Barbara Nitke. I love her work and she also happens to be a great person too. www.barbaranitke.com (Warning! Adult content!) I just love her work. Rather unique. I have been looking at DSLR's since before I got my Sony 707, since the beginning Nikon has had my attention and that was BEFORE the D100 came out! Once I saw the D100 it was lust, now it is love. I was supposed to get mine this week but one little word stopped me, wife. Although she can't stop me next week! I get paid from the last shoot I did and that puts the D100 piggy bank over the top of that $1499 price! Personally I can't wait! I want it NOW! But that four letter word is making me wait. So until next week I have to make do with the Sony. I love film, but I just can't do with film what I can do with digital. I can't afford a darkroom in this house and the instant gratification that I get from digital helps with the fixer withdrawals. (OK I am weird I love the smell of fixer) Donald said it to me awhile back, Barbara said it to me last weekend and I will say it to you, you are going to LOVE the D100! Just hope my love for my wife holds out until that client pays her bill! Magick Michael

Not so weird, Zhounder - I kinda like the smell of fixer too - not to mention all of my favorite CD's sound better in the dark! I'm not really planning on "ditching" my film systems (not with an F4, F3 and 8008 plus a couple of reliable Nikkormat's in the bags!) - but the time spent in the darkroom is less enjoyable - not to mention time consuming. (and Cibachrome materials are getting hard to find 'round here!). I still enjoy working in B&W in the darkroom - but for the majority of what i shoot, it's gotta be color (crop in as tight as I like to and the "color" becomes a major part of the composition). The "waiting for film to be processed" and the pain of tracking down printing materials (to print from film" and the fact that you are loosing detail and resolution the more generations that are introduced into the final image - to me, all leads up to a "digital" solution (especially now that the majority of my audience is digital). As far as camera selection - why the D100? After doing a bit of research, the D1X, although the "top end" camera from Nikon, actually has a bit LOWER resolution then the D100 - 6.1 MP vs. 6.3 for the D100. Heavier built, yes - but I don't plan on bouncing my camera along a sidewalk! Other than the body construction (and the slight advantage in consecutive image buffer), I really haven't seen any "earth-shattering" features to merit the $2,000 additional expense....? If there are any that anyone knows of (aside from a viewfinder shutter) - please let me know. I'm not planning on abandoning film altogether - but being locked into a film media has kept me from shooting things that otherwise I would have been shooting - if that makes any sense. Wolf (If this got posted twice - sorry)

Wolf - D1X has: - Better build quality, of course (D1X is mostly based on the F5, D100 on the F80 - enough said there) - Better autofocus system - Higher max shutter speed (1/16000 vs 1/4000) - Built-in PC sync socket (D100 has a hotshoe adapter for it) - Bigger buffer (you mentioned that) - 2" LCD instead of 1.8" - High-speed Firewire port I'm sure there are other differences, but those are the ones that I consider significant Worth $2k more? shrug -=>Donald