Nikon D60 Second Edition

B&H has a new D60 model on their web site: Nikon D60 SE CAMERA w/18-55 VR LENS (BLK/GOLD). SE like in Second Edition? Is this the "pimp" D60 Black Gold Edition that was released by Ritz few months ago? If that's the case, why they don't have it in stock yet? Note also that the model number NID60SEK is different that the regular D60 (NID601855).


This entry was posted in Other Nikon stuff and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Ivan

    Special Edition?

    • Anonymous

      “Black Gold” is the same name they gave to the special edition horror . Note the blk/gld tag to the camera.

      The beast just re-surfaced ! Warn your kids not to look or they might experience some trauma.

  • Anonymous

    It should come with free counselling by a trained psychiatrist.

  • Henry Nikon Fan

    I think that this is product that was originally directed to Ritz but because of the Ritz Chapter 11 issue, the product is being redirected to another retailer.

    So B&H is the most likely place to try and move that product.

    • CatSplat

      That’s a solid insight and could very well be what’s happening here.

    • I think you are right – it was suppose to be one of those Ritz “exclusive” deals.

  • mbd

    yep, when I see “SE” I think special edition too and wouldnt assume it’s a new model.

  • johnnybottoms

    special editions are like leftovers. the same thing, which just keeps getting older, and has been warmed over and possibly dashed with a sprig of parsley in an attempt to get you to eat it again.


    • Anonymous

      Yep, the kiss of death.

      • Anonymous

        As someone below has pointed out, the gold could be something to do with Nikon celebrating 50 years ? I think they just had a 75th for Nikkor (?) so maybe we can look forward to a diamond special edition too ?

  • Lee

    Perhaps they bought some or all of the “Special Edition” (pimped) D60’s from Ritz since they are now bankrupt.

  • Rockwellian News!

    Who cares about this? Digital is fine for quick snaps but real photographers are coming back to film in droves. Most of us have finally tired of throwing money away at digital, and prefer the better results from film for photos that matter.

    Why film all of a sudden? Because unlike 2002 when we all went digital, today it’s trivial to get great digital files directly from film as we shoot it, for a lot less money with a lot less hassle than hauling all the laptops and chargers and cords and blank DVDs and everything else digital cameras need to keep them running in the field.

    The only reason digital cameras became popular was for convenience, never for ultimate quality. Now that it’s trivial to get great scans along with our film, and that film requires a lot less junk to carry out in the field, why was it again that we want to shoot digital?

    Film? My camera runs for years on the same battery, and when I pick up my film at the lab, it’s already backed up to DVD before I bother loading it into my Mac. My laptop and all the other junk stays home; my $220 pocket-sized iPod Touch gives me all the online computer power I need while traveling.

    Screw digital for anything other than current events; in fact, I may have discovered a new photographic Messiah, the Minolta CLE, which may let me get my entire RealRaw camera and lens system to just under two pounds (900g), complete with three lenses, all of which can still run rings around a D3X.

    Digital was fun while it lasted, and still the best for shooting in low light and for news, sports and action (which is what most of us shoot most of the time), but when quality matters, it’s film for me, now that its trivial to get all my film scanned as its developed.

    Film just looks better. Can digital capture get these colors? No. Digital gives bright, cartoonish colors, but not colors that are both vivid as well as distinct from one another. With digital capture, everything heads towards a few primaries, but doesn’t get bold for colors in-between primaries. Not only does scanned film look better on-screen, original transparencies look out-of-this-digital-world on a light table or projected direct-from-film.

    Sure, I always shoot my Nikon DSLRs for photos of my kid because he moves too fast, I shoot digital for photos of the products I shoot in my studio to illustrate my articles because I want them online NOW, and I shoot digital if I want to shoot in the dark without a tripod.

    If I want the best quality for something I might hang in a gallery, it’s always been film. Nothing has changed these past 10 years for me; I’ve just gotten to shooting a lot more film now that I’ve finally torn down the wall between my film and getting it into my computer without having to scan each frame myself.

    Having it all scanned as I shoot, and cataloging the scans in my Mac, makes my original film a lot easier to find than flipping through file pages.

    Digital is best for what and how most people shoot, but for the whacky stuff I shoot out in the field, I prefer film.

    • Anonymous

      “Digital was fun while it lasted.” I stopped reading after that. You’re obviously high on your own opinions.

      • Why comment?

        If you only read to that section, why comment? You may have found something in the article that was interesting or perhaps the very last sentence of the article reads “This article is a joke and if you comment you are a banana”. Who is a banana now if the article had stated that?

        Also, I think you have mis-spoken (or written in this case). You write, “I stopped reading after that…” Really, did you go on to read much more or even all, OR did you mean to write that you stopped reading at that point?


    • Ken Elliott

      >> Most of us have finally tired of throwing money away at digital, and prefer the better results from film for photos that matter.

      Most of us????

      My D700 blows away my film cameras, with the possible exception of B+W film. But if you really prefer film, that’s cool.

      • Anonymous

        try shooting your D700 at ISO 3, 6, 12, 25, or 50, unlike any film SLR’s.

        • David Chu

          Try shooting film at ISO 6400.. :shrug:

          • Johnny Cash

            … or ISO 25600.

    • Maxime

      Guys, that’s just a Ken article. The guy is just joking… I think.

    • Amazing, it’s been rumored that Ken was really just running a hoax site (heck, he even admitted as much), but still people listened to him like a messiah. I guess Rockwell has officially jumped the shark, and gone straight to parodying himself.

    • Ciao

      “If I want the best quality for something I might hang in a gallery, it’s always been film.”

      “might” or “do”, wannabe? Links to exhibition details, please. I bet you don’t have any.. Put up or shut up,

      • The poster isn’t the one making these statements, they’re just the latest “news” up on Rockwell’s site. What I find even funnier, is his post from March 1:

        “Newswatch: Nikon D5000 expected Tuesday, and the D700x/D770 are possible, but less likely, too.

        If these become real, I should have my hands on them late Monday.”

        So Ken is implying that Nikon will toss him the new toys a day before the release date. Of bodies that weren’t released.

    • Henry Nikon Fan

      He is correct, that is why we now see so, so, so many new film cameras and most all digital SLR cameras are being discontinued. Not to mention all of the newer DX lenses for digitial only that have been all discontinued.

      Well, most all of us are aware that this is not the case, but if people do enjoy film over digital then more power to them. I think that is great, but I do not think we should be so quick to be criticle of other’s choices.

      • Naked Lunch

        Cutting through the photographer’s sarcasm that you write with, you forget though that the production and discontinuation of products relates the the new market only. There are so many film cameras out there for sale and in use that there is no need to keep producing more.

        Remember, there are still more film cameras still in active use, than there have been digital cameras ever made.

        • Henry Nikon Fan

          You are correct, but remember when Ford stopped manufacturing Ford Pintos there were many of those on the streets and now where are they?

          They are gone and whenever something goes out of production it is only time until the remaining are dated and/or beyond repair.

          • Vertruvian Man

            You’re funny. You’re comparing apples to oranges. I have and anyone can buy camera gear from 40 or 50 years ago that still works perfectly and is serviceable – at a local dealer – if not any longer by the manufacturer. Cars have engines and moving part (hundreds if not thousands of them all moving all the time) which are constantly wearing out and when it goes wrong it is often expensive to repair. Even if you were smart and bought a German car eventually it is going to stop or the body is going to fall off; though when I was in navigating in Africa you see some very old Mercedes still going after 40 years and not a bit of rust or find others with 3million miles on the clock and on the original engine – not really common faults with cameras. I don’t see many Nikon F’s with bodies falling apart due to corrosion.

            Perhaps it is more like cars than I thought. Maybe if you bought a cheapo SLR all those years ago it does fall apart. But perhaps the old film SLR Nikons/Canons/Pentax/Olympus/Minoltas that I see everytime I go to my local dealer just happen to be built like those Mercedes. Afterall, I notice they are almost all the pre poly-carbonate bodies… they are metal and feel like they will last.

            Anyone else miss those bodies? When you didn’t need to buy a D3 to feel like you had something solid in your hand instead of a kids toy.

    • Jeff

      Okay, the vast majority of hwat you say is true, except digital is here to stay for commercial work as well, because people want those results now, and properly processed RAW images do not exhibit the cartoonish look you described (though they do lack the vividness of chromes). So, where are you getting your stuff developed, and then wet scanned for a cost that’s low enough to make that practical? Because believe me I tried, I really really did. But I can’t get the quality Chromes deserve out of any normal flatbed, and scanning services are like $10 per high res, so where are you going to get this done?

      • Vertruvian Man

        My friend shoots for commercial clients including Harpers magazine and he does all his commercial work on film. A colleague of his does the photographs of the ‘Scottish Widows’ life assurance giant model that has been running for years and they have to change the girl every few years. He does all that on film too. The people I know who shoot commercially on digital are PJs – whether they be for the newspapers or for sports websites or magazines.

        Digital is really just for playing around and having fun which is fine but I know of nobody that uses digital for commercial purposes outside of the aforementioned and I suppose wildlife shooters (though don’t know any so can’t really comment.)

  • John Sevigny

    Judging by the offerings at this week’s PMA Show, the digital photography juggernaut has come to a screeching halt. Blame it on the “economic crisis” if you like. Whatever the cause, neither Nikon nor Canon, the only two dSLR manufacturers that matter, released a relevant body. There’s nothing to replace, for example, Nikon’s D40x, which is two years old now.
    Nikon’s point-and-shoot digital cameras are crap. Canon released 10, new, digital happy-snappys, none of which do anything that my $100 PowerShot A470 can’t do. And today, just like a decade ago, there’s no digital camera, at any price, that can do what my Mamiya C33, built somewhere between ’64 and ’69, can do. I got mine for $250 used more than 10 years ago at an antique store in Homestead, Florida. It’s still grinding out 6 x 6 centimeter negatives at a cost of about two bucks a roll.
    Not even a $7,999 Nikon D3x can outperform a 40-something-year-old Mamiya medium format film camera.
    Further proof of digital photography’s 8-track-like demise is the fact that many of the film oriented products introduced at PMA are far more interesting than anything digital that bothered to show up to the party. Kaiser has announced a new, optical enlarger for $1,600 US. If film is dead, somebody better tell Kaiser.
    Kodak has announced that its new 100 asa Ektar film will soon be available in 120 size to fit medium format cameras.
    Leica, which makes cameras that are too expensive to be worth buying, offers up a new 18mm lens which will likely sell for $4,000 US.
    Zeiss, meanwhile, is offering package discounts on its Ikon camera/lens combos. A Zeiss Ikon, which shoots 35mm film, will cost you far less than a Leica and do the same job with equally good lenses. Here’s a used one for less than $1,200 bucks and you’ll still be using it when your dSLR has gone to Goodwill.
    Or you could keep all that money, get a Nikon FM2 for $250, a pair of excellent lenses for another $250, and be on your way out of the digital photography quagmire for less than $500 US.

    • “And today, just like a decade ago, there’s no digital camera, at any price, that can do what my Mamiya C33, built somewhere between ‘64 and ‘69, can do.”

      Try shooting fast moving subjects, and get back to me.

      • Naked Lunch

        Don’t think John really shoots fast action. Doesn’t he largely do social commentary photography, particularly in the second and third world? (or the USA as it will soon be known).

        Some is really great photography – not surprising if he is shooting film though. Slows the process down and makes the creative person think and create an image rather than just hit the shutter at 11 f.p.s. and get couple of good shots out of 100. Five year olds can do that. Hang on. A Toddler could do that and they’d get a few good shots – just needs to be able to pick up the D3 first.

        • Jeff

          no AF past 9 fps w/ D3, needs to focus too

  • D300 Owner

    Looks like Adorama has the same SE model listed with the same manufacturers part number as B&H. Looks like it is just the blinged out Ritz camera version. I was hoping for a D60 + 3″ screen! That D90 screen is beautiful.

  • D90 Owner

    Yes it is a very fine screen on D90, but those two articles above have me thinking today. I was thinking of trading up to a D700 but you know what? I was offered a trade in price of less than £200 on my D90. Even on the web they are not selling that highly used – even though it is almost better than mint condition.

    Know what else? I have a treasured Nikon F3T/HP (in black) owned by me from new and in mint condition, all boxes, instructions… everything that it came with all those years (decades) ago, even some Nikon UK servicing documents – not that it has ever needed any repairs or anything… I even have the original receipt. The same dealer will do me a stright swap he said – my F3T/HP for a D700! That says something about my F3 and the real classic 35mm cameras from the film era.

    I still use my F3 whenever i am not shooting action. Of course, nothing will part me from it… he could offer me a D3x and I would still walk away.

    My point anyway is that those articles above are not untrue. When I want speed and need to cover action or events, digital is great but every other time I use film and my manual F3. There is of course a place for both – afterall, some artists prefer to paint in oils and others in watercolours and others chose another medium altogether. Not that I would suggest a photographer is a true artist anyway, not in the purest sense. A photographer is more an observer – there to document rather than create… but anyway whilst digital does have some advantages over film, there is a quality in film – an atmosphere, a purity that is not and never will be reproduced on digital mainly because digital cheats creating the colours from the primaries… whereas film actually records the entire range.

    To the poster above. No, your D700 doesn’t blow your film images away at all. You are telling yourself that but unless you made some very poor film images, your argument won’t stand close scrutiny. I would accept that the D3x CAN if USED PROPERLY produce images similar to film – BUT STILL LACKING THAT ULTIMATE FINISH, QUALITY, PURITY, ESSENCE AND MOST OF ALL ATMOSPHERE THAT IS EVER-PRESENT IN FILM.

    I am not – before the film bashers start posting hateful responses – anti digital – indeed it is a saviour for me in many situations but I would never claim it is BETTER than film because it simply isn’t.

    • Could you pass me on the contact information for your local dealer? I mean if I can buy an F3 for under $500 and trade it for a $2500 D700, I’ll take two!

      • D90 Owner

        I don’t think you’d pick up one like mine for $500. Its from the first production run of the black version of the F3/T HP and has all its pedigree papers. There probably is not another in the world still in this condition with everything as it was sold even the receipt. Thats why he was offering that type of exchange. Bear in mind these were the pro cameras of their time – photographers for National Geographic, Time Magazine and every other authoritative publication used these so they tend to have been in and out of war zones etc and beaten up though they could take it. (Remember Steve McCurry’s Nat. Geo. front cover image of Sharbat Gula – the Afghan girl with those piercing eyes? Shot on a Nikon F3).

        I doubt there is even one other in the world like mine. It is unmarked and from the first production run.

    • Digital Observer

      Thanks D90 Owner for putting a little perspective here. I see all of these discussions as analogous to owning only flat blade screwdrivers or only phillips blades. The flat blade guys slam the philips blade guys and vice versa. Well, I own both. At times a flat blade is appropriate and at other times it’s the phillips.

  • D70 and F3 Owner

    Film has and probably will always have its place, but you’re got to be either joking or delusional to state that digital photography is headed toward an “8-track-like demise.” When digital audio was introduced via CDs, people said things like it lacked “QUALITY, PURITY, ESSENCE AND MOST OF ALL ATMOSPHERE,” too, and there’s some truth to that, but digital now holds nearly all the market. Vinyl and film are still around but they’re more of a niche for people who still use terms like album and “100 asa.” 🙂

    • MattM

      Being a professional musician, I get into arguments with some amateurs all the time about tube vs solid state amplifiers. It very much reminds me of this film vs digital debate. At the end of the day it really is just a matter of taste. There is no *better* medium, but both have their advantages. A buddy of mine spins, too (Disc Jockey), and he prefers the sound of records, as do I. But again it is all about convenience and taste. Digital will never be able to capture the dynamic range and resolution of an analog format. This goes for electronic amplifiers, recorded audio, and visual media. “But we’ve got 24 MP!!!11!!!11” you say. Sure you’ve got some high resolution, but that is nowhere near the resolution that film is capable of, not to mention that because of the noise floor, CCD’s will never have the dynamic range of film. But what digital lacks in quality (and this is arguable still), it makes up for in convenience. I shoot digital because I know I suck in comparison to the greats. I am attached to my preview screen. I like being able to blind fire at a hard to reach location and know that if I fire off enough, one of the shots has to be good. Maybe one day, if someone actually wants to use my pictures for something and there is a gallery for them, I’d switch to film, because it IS superior (for you action people, are you really saying that digital is *better*? It may be EASIER to take action shots, but the end result certainly isn’t better.)

      On a side note, I kind of like Ken Rockwell, I don’t take his word as gospel, nor do I treat it as anything other than what it is, someone’s opinion. dpreview, bythom, etc are all the same, someone’s opinion. KR is kind of amusing though, he’s like the Sean Hannity of photography, satirical, overblown, and ridiculous.

      For the record, as a musician, I use tube amps because I work in an environment where I do notice the difference and the quality is required. In this world, there are a lot of questions about “modeling amplifiers.” I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the next step in the digital photography world, although I never hear anyone talk about digital clipping or anything like that in the photography world.

      • Zoetmb

        You may be a professional musician and you may think you like analog over digital sound, but I would maintain that you know little about the physics of analog and digital sound and that you are basically quoting stereotypes (sic) about each:

        >>>Digital will never be able to capture the dynamic range and resolution of an analog format. This goes for electronic amplifiers, recorded audio, and visual media.

        While not always used because producers want their recordings to sound “the loudest”, so digital recordings are heavily compressed, digital media has the capability of a far greater dynamic range than analog. A Redbook CD is capable of 90 db of dynamic range. An LP is capable of about 35db. Similar numbers are true for stereo channel separation.

        As far as frequency response is concerned, digital also kills analog. While Redbook audio can never reproduce anything over 22,050 KHz and analog can always be “tweaked”, most often, analog audio isn’t reproducing anything much over 15K (and that’s before it gets to the loudspeakers).

        Analog recordings made without Dolby noise reduction have incredible amounts of tape hiss. Analog recordings made with Dolby almost always have Dolby tracking problems because few engineers bothered to get the levels right. When the levels aren’t right, you can hear the Dolby “pumping”. All this goes away in digital.

        Furthermore, everyone thinks they prefer analog until they take a double-blind A-B test. Then they always pick the CD. And I say that as a former recording engineer who still has a 700 LP collection and a working turntable in my living room. We think we prefer analog because we remember how thrilled we were when we first opened that new LP in the technology available at the time. But like the paisley shirt or the bell bottom pants that we thought were so beautiful at the time, it just doesn’t hold up. Every time I listen to a CD of an old album and the CD just doesn’t give me the thrill that I remember from the album and I go back to the LP, the LP sounds far worse.

        The “warmth” often associated with analog recordings and/or tubes actually comes from 3rd harmonic distortion. You take a rounded wave, you record or play it back at too high a level, , the system runs out of steam and “squares” the top of the wave (or you get analog tape saturation), making it into a square wave. This is exactly what a fuzz box for a guitar does. We love that sound. But it’s not accurate. It’s distortion.

        (Compressed formats, such as MP3s, are another story. While they may sound okay on small systems, plug them into a high-quality, large amp and speaker system and they sound like crap. Luckily, Apple and others are moving closer towards “lossless” formats.)

        As far as theatrical presentation is concerned, digital and analog each have their advantages and disadvantages, but I would maintain that the rock-steady, dust & scratch free and evenly lit digital images would be judged superior over almost any analog presentation by just about anyone, even if film still does theoretically have better dynamic range in the color and higher resolution . (Although color dynamic range is almost a moot point as virtually all color movies made today are purposely desaturated. If the Technicolor 3-strip process every comes back, then yes, I’d far prefer to see those movies on film.)

        It’s not that traditional projection can’t be great, but it rarely is. In fact, in most movie theatres, even in prime cities like New York and Los Angeles, the film projection, and if you don’t see them on the first day, the film prints, completely suck. I would agree that 70mm projection was superior to current digital projection, but the last film actually shot in 65mm was in 1992 and the last film presented in 70mm (aside from IMAX) was in 1994. In all of U.S. film history, there were only 64 films shot in 65mm and approximately only 279 films that were “blown-up” from 35mm to 70mm and there were usually only around 20 70mm prints released of each film. I think the most 70mm prints ever made were around 200. Everyone thinks they first saw Star Wars in 70mm, but unless you lived in a large city and sought out a 70mm theatre, you didn’t.

        And digital projection is constantly getting better. The new 4K systems are supposed to be really amazing.

        Where I would agree with you is television. Analog broadcasts (although those are going away soon) presented on digital TVs are incredibly awful. Even DVDs look awful in my opinion. Blu-Ray looks amazing, but it’s clarity takes away the believability of most motion pictures: it seems to turn movies into the look and feel of soap operas, although this can be corrected on the better sets. And there definitely are still movement artifacts, especially in long shots and even on TVs that have 120-Hz refresh rates, although I believe this issue is a technical issue in the sets that will be solved over time as it is not a storage or format issue, but a screen issue.

        So-called HD presented over the web has its own problems. Look at a night scene in an episode of Lost on the web and you see all kinds of horrible digital “blocking”. But I would suspect this is because the streams are over-compressed. But that’s a moot point too because you can’t send analog over the web.

        But analog television has its own set of artifacts: ghosts, screen distortion, noise, etc. And most people have their analog TV sets adjusted to completely the wrong color temperature anyway.

        But on balance, from both a physics standpoint and from how the art and science is practiced, digital is superior to analog. I would love to believe otherwise because my “emotion” is tied to analog, but it’s simply not true.

        • MattM

          You’re right, I know little about the physics, I only have a Masters in it and am working on my PhD. I don’t really see how you were disagreeing with me, the point of my post was that it is all a matter of taste.

          • Zoetmb

            And I would maintain that it’s not a matter of taste – it’s a matter of perception that’s heavily controlled by preconceived biases. And if you really have a Masters in physics, you should know better.

          • MattM

            Are you really arguing that the phrase “matter of taste” is different than “a matter of perception that’s heavily controlled by preconceived biases”?


          • Vertruvian Man

            Just a small point. Film is NOT analogue. Just because we now have cameras that are digital, does not mean that everything that went before is analogue.

            I am NOT a physicist and can barely spell the word but my partner is (Cambridge – Graduate and PhD). Many months ago I was reading an article from AP to her about the digital versus film debate and she pounced on me when I read the letter commenting on “digital v analogue” and explained why it is not. I am afraid I cannot remember the exact technical reason but it really isn’t – I bow to her private education, Cambridge PhD and last but by no means least the fact that she is a woman so must be right!

          • Stephen

            It’s actually not a matter of taste. It is likely that you can not hear a bit of difference, you have just convinced yourself that there is a difference. Your ear likely can’t hear the “dynamic range” that analog can provide. I think gizmodo just had a post with different frequencies. I was surprised at how limited my hear has become in my old age (I’m 30).

            What you probably like about analog is the warmth of the recording. Records are far from perfect. They process of laying down a record track and transferring it to a record introduces a lot of errors. You hear those errors and assume it is part of the music. It’s kind of like taking a cheese cloth image. It softens the edges and to some it gives a more beautiful image.

            This issue came up in film a while back. It’s still argued today though technology is such that it’s pretty much stopped. DP and directors all said digital is too perfect it doesn’t forgive. That is why you like analog it allows the rough edges to be smoothed. More and more are moving to digital filming. They are the minority, but they are growing. The reason why, is the realization that there is nothing wrong with perfection.

            I have seen test after test that prove digital photography in it’s current state is better than film. I hear people talk about dynamic range, but when have you been able to print a picture in high dynamic range anyway. So what does it matter. But if DR is of great concern, do what I did, buy and S5 Pro. Hey for the first time the someone has beat it. You can throw down the money and get a D3x.

            Okay, enough arguing. Just realize that it is not likely that you can even tell difference and you are just thinking there is a difference.

        • Anonymous

          Digital isn’t 100% digital. It’s an analogue signal that has been digitised. This is true of music too. What matters is the sampling rate and bit depth. One day, digital will exceed the fine detail in the original analogue and the whole film vs “digital” debate will be moot. SACD and DVD-audio is a good example – and they haven’t really caught on because the masses can’t hear the difference between a CD and an SACD. So, for the masses, film is dead, because they just can’t see a difference.

  • D90 Owner

    Where did I state that “digital photography is headed toward an “8-track-like demise.”?

    They will both be around forevermore along with whatever new technologies come along. However, if you go to or are invited to any professional shoot for the glossy magazines for example – I recently was invited to one with various high profile people and some music artists like Lily Allen – and there was not a single digital camera in sight – all film… and that is what produces the images you see in all the glossy mags.

    Digital is amateurish in its style and nature. In the same way that 35mm is only really a ‘toy’ format to mess around in. Most people used the term ISO 100 by the way not ASA – how very quaint and American! Also, for everyone ISO is pronounced EYE ESS OH – its an acronym not a word NOT THE LUDICROUS EYESO (word) that I heard in a local shop this week FROM A MEMBER OF STAFF… I laughed so much I dribbled!

    • Oh, how wrong you are sir.

      “ISO” comes from the agency which laid out it’s requirements: The International Organization of Standards or “ISO” – “The organization’s logos in its two official languages, English and French, include the word ISO (pronounced /ˈɑɪsəʊ/), and it is usually referred to by this short-form name.”

      Oh, and just because you decided to make a smug comment about “ASA”, I thought you should know that ISO adopted their standard directly from the ASA numbers.

      Pip, pip, cheerio!

      • Kitty Shark

        Think the poster knows that. They said it is an acronym and were just telling how to say the acronym.

  • Standard Marketing

    Totally agree. Film is infinitely better and digital is only really for PJs or people who want to impress people with gadgets. Digital photography is gadgetry gone mad – true art is found in film. Have you ever watched a movie in the cinema shot digitally?

    No, wait, think before you answer, I had this argument recently where someone was convinced all the movies today are shot digitally, argh!!! under which stone did you crawl? ALL MOVIES ARE SHOT ON FILM. Why? Quality of course, quality.

    • I’m sorry, you’re incorrect, more films are now being shot on digital film cameras that standard.

      As a matter of fact, “Slumdog Millionaire” was shot mostly on digital, and among the Academy awards that it won besides “Best Picture”, were “Best Cinematography” and “Best Editing”.

      • Jo de Benedictus

        Ho hum! I said I might find something else to comment on re your prolific replies. I just did not expect it to be the next thing I read.

        Well, I work in the movies and most movies are definitely not shot digitally. Quite the opposite in fact.

        Correction. Slumdog was only partially shot on digital. Though incredibly some of the scenes were actually shot on a digital compact camera, so that they could obtain those shots ‘under the radar’ as it were.

        However, Slumdog won its awards more for the feeling it produced in the viewers rather than outright artistic content or for being a particularly great movie. As one colleague put it, “Sometimes there is a movie that is just right for the time and it can’t do anything wrong in the eyes of the people…” Slumdog, well, Slumdog is one of those movies.

        We have a saying in the industry about movies generally – but the Oscars and such like are a microcosm of the same and it carries over – we say,

        “There are fun movies and there are handsome movies”

        The ‘fun’ movies, even when they land an Oscar never go on to be remembered as great movies while the ‘handsome’ movies whether they win an Oscar or nothing at all, always are destined for greatness.

        It may change over the years – though I have my doubts – but at present almost all movies are still shot on film. I would love to take you to a screening or even show you some dailies on a set and do some takes with a digital camera too just to let you compare. I think even you would be forced to eat your hat. Truly, it is like comparing chalk and cheese, night and day or anything else that is so obviously different as to ordinarily need neither discussion nor comparison.

        • Artisan

          Yes but some of it was on hand-held digi-cams so they could get the some of the slum scenes without being rumbled.

          Canon WAS claiming – or someone from Canon was claiming in the press – it was a G10? (not sure what the canon p &s range are called) and a 5DMII but I would be surprised at that.

          • Anonymous

            Minority Report was shot entirely on digital because it gave the movie a particular look the director wanted. It’s horses for courses.

    • matthew

      As someone who works in the film industry, I can tell you that much of it is still shot on film because thats what the DP’s know. Its how they work. They don’t understand the properties of digital as well as film. In fact most people agree that digital is far better quality, but like I said, its mostly because the DP knows how their film stock reacts to certain lights/etc.

      • Kitty Shark

        Really? where do you work? I am in the industry and would take issue with the reasons you imagine DPs use film. Please enlighten me. I would be delighted to be enlightened.

        • matthew

          wow. way to come off as a know-it-all jerk. i was simply stating my experiences in the rare chances ive gotten to talk to a DP or from what others have told me. sorry if i did not clarify that. and i said film industry pretty broadly, i should have been more specific. i work at a VFX house, so there is a good chance you do know more about the actual camera work and DP’s than i do. you win, youre the best! anything else you’d like to jump down my throat about?

  • shivas

    as an amateur, I started with my D40 x (and btw, the replacement for that was the D60, someone queried a little farther up). . .but I recently bought a N75 and have been LOVING the quality of pictures I get out of it with the 50mm 1.4G I have.

    I think for me, especially being restricted by film ISO, I keep either 100/200/400 in my film body and use it for shots during the day, primarily landscapes and anything well lit.

    I don’t trust my skills enough in low-light situations, and that’s where I tend to rely on my dSLR.

    So they both have a purpose, and I have been, except for the 35mm 1.8G I have on order, purchasing lenses that work on both.

    • Jo de Benedictus

      Yes, its the one thing I miss when using film in my stills photography. ISO versatility of digital is its big plus for me. I hate tripods (something to do with the monster pods we have to haul around on sets sometimes I think, so I hate even small ‘light’ carbon fibre models).

      If there was a 35mm film camera that I could have variable and high ISO I would be sold – Nikon? Listening? OK, go build it for me…. or maybe that’s more a task for the film companies… Kodak, Fuji??????

      • Jeff

        You can set with custom functions leaving film leader out when rewinding (F100 and F6, etc…), and then record the number of shots taken so far, so you can exchange film rolls to vary the ISO, but high ISO film of good quality is a fuji/kodak/ilford/agfa issue. And since the primary market for that is PJs and that is GONE, it won’t happen, sorry. They’re making good 400 speed chromes now though. : )

  • Bebe

    I just bought a film camera – a four year old Nikon F100 in mint condition for $160. That is insane.

    I’m currently shooting a bunch of rolls of pro BW film I’ve had sitting around. I’m loving it. Heck, for that price, it kills the D3x!

    • Recession Effect?

      Not sure whats going on, but everyone I know is shopping for, just bought or scouring the internet for 35mm film SLRs. My initial thought is that it was just coincidence but reading the posts here and on a few other sites I read, there is a definite pattern.

      One thing for certain, and I am not a Ken Rockwell devote or disciple, but there is something in what he says about the expense of digital. Not just the initial outlay but the monumental depreciation of the product value in only 12 – 18 months you are losing 65 – 70% of the value – and that is on a decent product. Horror of horrors if you have bought junk as I think it will be unsaleable.

      I have both digital and film and think that I will be using film far more (I just prefer it – not knocking anyone else or their choices but I like it more) and certainly do not think I will buy another digital body for at least 2 gens, maybe 3… so if current trends are followed my next purchase might be say a D900 or wherever they go with the numbers after that. On the other hand I just saw a mint – and I mean mint F5 the other day for $399 and a boxed as-new F6 for $650. These are great tools and if you even think you might shoot film, they are bargains. Yeah, I could see myself with an F6 before a D700X or D800 or whatever.

      • Zoetmb

        >>>Not sure whats going on, but everyone I know is shopping for, just bought or scouring the internet for 35mm film SLRs. My initial thought is that it was just coincidence but reading the posts here and on a few other sites I read, there is a definite pattern.
        That’s total B.S. and the danger of interpreting comments made on specialist websites like this one as typical of the market as a whole. If that were true, film cameras would be commanding high prices on sites like eBay. But they’re commanding incredibly low prices: you can get a Nikon F3 for $100-$300. F4s go for $100-$400. And many go without being sold. You can get an N80 (F80 outside of the U.S.) for as little as $30 with a lens. Those prices do not signify a demand for these cameras.

        Furthermore, even before the recession, did you look at Kodak stock prices? Kodak is hardly selling any film and they have been continually discontinuing film formulations, although they did just recently release a new Ektar 100. Kodak is down to only 28 35mm formulations. They used to have over 100. Agfa has only 8 (if you can find them) and Fuji has about 26, but all three of these companies are in deep trouble, at least in the photo divisions. I’d say by the end of this recession, two of them won’t be in the business of making film anymore.

        You cannot judge the market by looking at “fanboy” websites. If you read sites like this one, you’d think the potential market for Nikon and Canon to sell incredible numbers of lenses is enormous. The reality is that according to CIPA stats, only 1.59 lenses are sold for each body sold. And for Nikon, the number is even lower: for the first 3/4 of this fiscal year, it was only 1.39 lenses sold for each body (including the kit lens).

        I still have an F3 and an N80 and I won’t get rid of them, but the reality is that it’s very, very rare that i use them. I will give film cameras one advantage (although it really has nothing to do with film vs. digital): it’s that there were a lot more fast (1.2, 1.4) lenses. My favorite setup was shooting with an Olympus OM-1 and a 50mm 1.2.

        • Vertruvian Man

          You are a very aggressive poster and why all the swearing “B.S.” If I was running the site you’d be banned. You sound like a school bully who thinks that if he talks enough , loudly enough, everyone will think/do as they say.

          Lesson for you – lifes not like that.

          Second lesson – ebay, et al, is about mass market. Of course the market is now digital and will never revert back to the minority share. However, that is not to say that many talented true artists won’t and don’t shoot film. Nor that many enthusiasts introduced to photography by digital want to expose themselves to a new medium. There has been a huge up-take to film over recent months from newbies to photography – digital babies as some in the industry call them who have found a love and talent for their art and want to expand their horizons.

          I like digital but love to go away with just my old Nikon body and standard lens and some B&W film.

          The depressed prices for film SLRs just make them a bargain for those that want to make the switch/expand their use of photography as a medium.

  • Bebe

    Just because a few posters on a few boards all say – on the same day – that they still like film and still want to use it, does not mean that the digital juggernaut is winding down. I just bought an F100, but I also have a D3 which I love. I previously had a D70 and a D200 – both of which I found to be sub-par for my needs. But I had come from an F3, an F4s, and an F5. My D3 experience has shown me that digital is finally in the same ballpark as 35mm film. Are they the same? No. But they’re on the same team and in the same ballpark.

    Just wait to see what digital cameras will be able to do in twenty or thirty more years. Advances like ASSORTED PIXEL filters will increase dynamic range exponentially. Super-light-sensitive black silicon will make chemical emulsion seem very slow. Digital sensors outfitted with micro-lenses will soon allow photographers to REFOCUS a shot after it has been taken. 360 degree digital panoramic cameras – made possible with orb-shaped digital sensor arrays and incredible image remapping software – will completely redefine our relationship to the captured image – both still and moving. Digital camera technology will allow us to interact with our environment using computer-controlled holographic projection displays in real time. Liquid lens technology will eventually make our fastest best prime glass look amateurish.

    Just wait. I’m not even joking.

    All that said, I just like shooting a roll of film now and then. Don’t get me wrong. I love film, but I believe film is mostly dead for consumer purposes.

  • Recession Effect?

    Never said it did. Given what you post now and what you posted earlier i am left thinking you are just a sock puppet or a shill if you will. when someone replies you berate them and write oodles of nonesense. Who cares what will be around in thirty years – many of us may not be. Enjoy what you have now and stop worrying about the next thing. I have looked at a few sites lately and have concluded that they are mostly full of techies more interested in the gadgets being launched than taking pictures. I wonder how many of you really take pictures. about none me thinks. i think i will save the host some bandwidth and stop browsing this site as everyone on it seems to be an ‘expert’ with bad attitude and we all know what they call an expert in Boston eh?

  • Tomas

    Film is dead most sensible people. Any 8mp+ APS-C camera gives far better results than film, instantly, and much cheaper. I have no sentiments for the filmzilla.


    • Vertruvian Man

      Well, as I mentioned above, I know many commercial photographers – fashion/glamour etc – that all still shoot on film and when their clients see the difference they insist upon it thereafter.

      No, a 8mp APS-C camera does not go anywhere close to film – LET ALONE BETTER!!!! YOU ARE SO FUNNY BUT THEN I REALISED YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU TYPED!

      I would suggest you are a newbie to photography generally to make a statement like that. The only digital camera I have seen that reaches the heights of film is the NEW D3x for the better part of £6K. Any old F100 will still match it though – for just £145 (almost MINT) in my local second-hand dealership.

      Careful what you type – lots of people visit this site – someone who knows you might read your thoughts!

    • Vertruvian Man

      Cheaper? Really? Have you had your digital camera valued recently? They are almost worthless after you walk out the shop. Do your sums. work out how much film you would need to use and print before you reached just the purchase price of your DSLR. I can go get a used F80 (brilliant, plastic fantastic camera – film equivilent to D70/80/90 level) for £50 including a standard lens. Oh, yes you can delete on digital. Big deal, never deleted a digital image. I get it right before I press the shutter – just like we had to with film.

      I think the worst thing that happened with digital is that it allowed a lot of people who really can’t create great images, think that they can. A lot of people buy DSLRs that I wouldn’t let near a compact… but they have decided that the purchase of an expensive toy means they can comment with gravitas.

      In fact I wouldn’t have let these people out of the asylum that is their own lives.

  • Jeff

    Film will never totally die, just look at all those still doing large format, but when you can’t walk in somewhere in town and get it processed you’ll know it’s down to those that will always shoot film (and are shipping it off for processing). That said, last time I noticed every other business in town still processes film. They aren’t still offering the service out of nostalgia you know.

    As for Black and Gold, well it is Nikon’s 50th anniversary (as in Golden)

    • Anonymous

      As for Black and Gold, well it is Nikon’s 50th anniversary (as in Golden).

      Thanks for that – I couldn’t understand why Nikon had pimped a bottom end camera.

  • Anonymous

    Hey admin, how about a word limit on posts ? Almost everything here is off topic.

    Film – can’t chimp – no video – no thanks. Step into the 21st century grandad.

    HiFi ? I have T-class bi-amped speakers from a DAC and DVD-audio player. Vinyl is just distortion and nostalgia. But I don’t take photos of it so it is irrelevant here.

    • johnny beck

      Or you could just stop reading when something doesn’t interest you.

      The poster about vinyl vs digital was making a comparison between those arguments and the film v digital argument. Probably beyond your understanding how a comparison of that argument is useful but hey everyone is allowed on this site and even allowed to post things.

      Admin… how about posters need to have a minimum IQ before they can post?

      • Anonymous

        What’s film ?

  • Looks like all the film Nazis are out in full force today.

    “Digital photography is a gimmick”

    Are you people out of your mind? Seriously? Digital is NOT a plaything. I shoot outstanding images for a local magazine on my D90, SB-600, and my cheap and cheerful 50mm F/1.8. To say that no professional uses digital is both ignorant and idiotic.

    Also, the fact that you film Nazis are implying that shooting digital nullifies any sense of artistry on behalf of the photographer leads me to think that you should go visit a proctologist. You may have anal-cranial inversion.

    • johnny beck

      Admin, I find that really offensive.

      With east european Jewish heritage myself being compared to a Nazi leaves me totally gob-smacked and disgusted too. I think you need to tighten up who posts on here.

      Maybe have a registration process? – most sites do.

      On the posters point though I notice that generally it is the digital enthusiasts who are blinkered in their comments and want to do little short of excommunicate or even banish film users. The film posters all generally have positive comments about digital but just prefer film.

      • Johnny – I don’t think he was referring to you – I think he was using the word “nazis” to describe the high tensions from the above comments.

    • Maxime

      The hell, guys. Every side has extremists. Just let the other be. Shoot film if you will, digital if you will. What does it matter? As long as you take pretty pictures it’s fine.

  • johnny beck

    What they post is true though. When you see a great image in a magazine or in a exhibition and then read the little blurb about it you find it was shot on film – time and time again. I recently sold my Nikon digital kit (pre-FX – got tired of waiting for nikon to do what they HAD to do in the end) and went back to film. Wish I had never put down my F4 in the first place. Spectacular my images are again without the hours of faffing about on computers. The cost is prohibitive. To match my F4 I would need a D3x and might get away with a D3 so either way the cost is ludicrous and as everyone knows DSLRS are worthless (relative to their cost) after 24 months – 36 if its a pro body.

  • A bit of vitriol on the boards these days.

    I think the D60 Black and Gold is simply hideous and I hope that it is not pushed into the market again as it appears it will be.

    On the other debate, I am a journalist, and I use digital at work because I do need the speed and I have put my equipment through enough actuations to justify the initial high buy-in for a digital system versus a film system.

    On the other hand, I just spent most of my Saturday afternoon shooting with my Mamiya RB67 and a few rolls of Velvia.

    If I’ve got to shoot for the news, including sports and indoor/high-ISO assignments, then digital is most certainly the daily fair. I do have to say, however, that I make a whole lot more money in the sale of prints from the 6×7 film negatives I produce with the Mamiya.

  • Rasher Basher

    Film is definitely making a comeback now. I think with the depression coming digital will be stopped in its tracks and the environmental problems associated with digital will mean we all revert to film within 5 years tops.

    I mean Ektar 100 print film soon comes in 120 size. New TMax 400 is out now.

    Kodak says that new TMax 400 has all the new tricks they’ve learned the past 20 years since the first Tmax 400 came out, and the new TMax 400 has about a stop less grain, similar to what an imaginary TMax 200 would have had.

    Kodak also tried adding all their new tricks to TMax 100, but it made so little improvement that they didn’t bother to re-do TMax 100.

    If you imaging the grain levels of original TMax 100 and 400, the new TMax 400 is right in the middle. TMax 100 is unchanged.

    Kodak says that Tri-X (400) is still their largest selling B&W film.

    Alex Webb, of Magnum and National Geographic still shoots film and Kodak makes all the fresh Kodachrome you can handle.

  • Rocky Road Ahead

    Yeah, digital is done for. Anybody else notice the very high profile showcase display of the Nikon 35mm SLRs, the extraordinary F6 and the FM-10.

    Extraordinary stuff and you have to say that with the costs of digital going up and and the environmental concerns over digital recently and depleting world resources, we will all be back to film soon. I will buy some bargains now and stockpile for the coming crisis. I reckon I can get 4000 decent used Nikons which I will be able to sell at huge mark-up come the crisis in the western world developing.


  • Maxime

    Maybe when Nikon starts making some sort of F80 or F100, I’ll believe that. I’m quite sceptical right now.

  • OK, I will be doing some housecleaning here – post with personal attacks to other readers will be deleted without warning. Please do not use ALL CAPS – this means you are screaming. Let’s keep it civilized here, otherwise I will be forced to introduce registration.

    • Stephen

      Admin, this only happens once in a blue moon, lets not jump to extremes. This kind of thing brings a little vitality to the board. So long as it’s not every day, I’m okay with it.

      • I am ok with that too, but people started to be nasty to each other.

  • Gustav

    For the record, when I look in magazines, I find a pretty even split between film and digital. I also find that the quality of the image is *not* correlated to either film or digital.

    Have you every walked into someone’s house and said “that’s a nice house, the builder must have used a hammer and not a nail gun?” I haven’t.

    Have you ever read a book and said “Wow, what a great story! This guy must have used a typewriter and not a word processor?”

    It seems we’ve all forgotten that it’s the photographer that makes the image, and not the equipment.

    • Richard Starkey

      I can tell when a house is built with a nail gun or the builders has been a true builder and used a hammer. Its easy!

  • Back to top