Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Should I upgrade to a D7000?


thewilliam 6 4.7k
1 Feb 2011 11:26AM
Leftforum, if that camera that took your mugshot back in the 1950s had face recognition and auto-focus, the face might have been sharp.

Without the benefit of the latest Nikon matrix metering, the slightly incorrect exposure has caused loss of detail in the shoulder part of the shirt.

With fast motordrive, the wee lad might have been captured with his spade at exactly the right angle!

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

strawman 10 22.0k 16 United Kingdom
1 Feb 2011 11:28AM
Good point William. Its a trap, people buy lots of cameras they gear up to make lots, the price falls but to keep the factory happy they need lots of sales so they need something new every couple of years, and so it goes. Or people buy fewer cameras the price goes up.

Me I want people buying every model so I can buy one when I want to at a decent price Wink So come on you lot upgrade.
User_Removed 4 4.6k 1 Scotland
1 Feb 2011 11:43AM

Quote:Leftforum, if that camera that took your mugshot back in the 1950s had face recognition and auto-focus, the face might have been sharp.

Without the benefit of the latest Nikon matrix metering, the slightly incorrect exposure has caused loss of detail in the shoulder part of the shirt.

With fast motordrive, the wee lad might have been captured with his spade at exactly the right angle!



Ah - but who "needs" any of that?

(Actually, some of the imperfections were caused by me "enlarging" the image from a 127 contact print to a size that could be seen on the forum. I wish I could find the negative.)

And look at it another way. That contact print has been displayed in a silver frame for the past 64 years. How many of the technologically advanced "digital masterpieces" I take today will still be on display in 2075?


Wink
filmforever 7 695
1 Feb 2011 11:43AM

Quote:
In 1960 I did not know that I needed colour film.
In 1965 I did not know that I needed an exposure meter.
In 1970 I did not know that I needed a built-in exposure meter.
In 1975 I did not know that I needed AE.
In 1980 I did not know that I needed motor drive
In 1985 I did not know that I needed AF
In 1990 I did not know that I needed a digital camera


In 2000 I did not know that my new Nikon D1 costing 3,500 would be worth just 200 by 2010....
In 2005 I decided to transfer brain back from camera to head by re-investing in all mechanical Nikon FM2's.

keithh e2
10 23.2k 33 Wallis And Futuna
1 Feb 2011 12:00PM

Quote:How many of the technologically advanced "digital masterpieces" I take today will still be on display in 2075?


I would say when you see some of the washed out sunbleached grubby excuses for a photograph that were taken and framed by Mothers and Grannies the world over and taken on film - about the same.

Wink
filmforever 7 695
1 Feb 2011 12:12PM

Quote:
I would say when you see some of the washed out sunbleached grubby excuses for a photograph that were taken and framed by Mothers and Grannies the world over and taken on film - about the same.



Yes, but provided the original negative were kept in good order, you could always re-print them anew.
keithh e2
10 23.2k 33 Wallis And Futuna
1 Feb 2011 12:14PM
And I reckon there are as many original negatives around now as there will be retrievable digital files in 50 years time - and if there is - you can always re-print them too.
What you really want is one of these: Wink


img-1059--2--box-brownie-umask-epz.jpg

thewilliam 6 4.7k
1 Feb 2011 3:45PM
Mono negatives and prints, if properly processed, do last a very long time. Some of the earliest photographs ever made are still in perfect condition, in the collections.

Not so with colour: when I cleared out my father's archive, most of the Kodachrome and Ektachrome trans from the 1950s had faded to a smudge and these had been in cool, dark storage. Colour prints fade in a couple of years, when exposed to light. Epson K3 inkjets last much longer than RA4 as we found out with our studio signage.

The older films used the Technicolor process with three colour-separation mono negatives. Disney's "Snow White" was shot in 1946/47 and is still on release today. When the projection copies fade, they just go back to the negatives and make another print. A normal colour negative would have faded long ago.
filmforever 7 695
1 Feb 2011 7:51PM

Quote:And I reckon there are as many original negatives around now as there will be retrievable digital files in 50 years time - and if there is - you can always re-print them too.


Whether digital files will be retrievable in years to come, is at present, unknown. Some have found that images saved to CD's just ten years ago have gone "corrupt". Obviously extension hard discs are a better bet, but how better?..will they still work 50 years from now?

There has always been a problem will colour longevity, but a black & white film negative, correctly fixed and stored should last a lifetime or more.
thewilliam 6 4.7k
1 Feb 2011 11:03PM
If you really want digital files to be archival AND accessible, you need to make a trio of colour separation mono negatives or positives and preferably on glass plates.
7 Feb 2011 11:23AM
Back on the original topic the D7000 is in stock and down to 900 at RGB.
With the UK gradually improving against the yen and euro since early December - the price could get down to 850 - especially as a "deal" at UK Focus in March.
MikeRC e2
9 3.5k United Kingdom
7 Feb 2011 7:56PM

Quote:[Back on the original topic the D7000 is in stock and down to 900 at RGB./quote]

.....'yep, I've lost 50 quid already and not used it yet Smile

filmforever 7 695
8 Feb 2011 3:52PM
.....'yep, I've lost 50 quid already and not used it yet Smile



Bit like buying a new car....
Consulo 10 768 10 Scotland
17 Feb 2011 3:55PM
I'd forgotten about this thread, thanks to all who've replied.

I fully intend to upgrade at some point soon. Perhaps by the time I get around to doing it (most likely around autumn time) there may be a newer Nikon model that is a D300 replacement that trumps the D7000, and which I can afford by the time I'm done saving.

A few people are of the opinion that it is perhaps a waste of time and money, or that perhaps I should shoot exclusively on film and just get on with it. I happen to shoot with both film and digital and I'm not a tech 'geek' who lusts after every new model available. My D70 is still a very good camera and when you stick a good lens on it, you get great results. This doesn't change the fact that the camera is now starting to lag behind more recent models. Noise is a huge issue at high ISO's, and this is incredibly frustrating sometimes, as I know I can't shoot a particular way in low light due to the results being poor.

The camera is only a tool, as the old adage goes, but it helps to have tools that don't restrict you.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.