I am surviving. Thanks to my friends, and my friend, my D100. It was an interesting Wednesday evening. Den phoned just after 10 and while he biked over I walked round to the 7-11 (sorry, just watched Clerks again) to get some beer. And that is the sort of thing that makes it all OK for now.
His brother has blown just into
four figures on a new D200
body, as an upgrade from his D70
, and Dennis and I had chance to spend a little happy time over 1664 comparing some early shots from the D200 with my D100 and his from the Oly E-1
. So the D200 is a 10 megapixel camera, and I am not going to even try and give a comprehensive review, but I think it makes sense as the way to go from a D70. However we looked at some portrait shots taken with each of the three cameras that we now own, and from very different bodies come very different results - though not the ones some of us would no doubt like to see.
a D100, a tree
So actually the 10MP sensor did not seem to make that much difference, at least from the first pictures that we had to play with. I stand to be corrected, bring on the real shots and prove me wrong...
I am feeling at the moment that the camera I managed to pick up at the start of the year for a fraction of it's original cost (once upon a time this was a $2k camera) still has a whole lot of potential that I have yet to open up. 'Just' 6 megapixels and without some of the features of the new model, and indeed a far less sturdy CF card door, does not seem to hold me back to any real extent (yet?
And it is perhaps at this point that it is useful to step back and think a little. I think that the camera that I have, while not a full on professional model, was often used as a second body/back up by some pro's. And so then here I am thinking that there might be even the remotest of reasons for an amateur D100 user (like me) to upgrade. No, absolutely no, no need! I mean, these shots from the E-1 clearly demonstrate how good the thing can look, here is a typical D100 user just a few weeks ago:
A D100 user, somewhere, taking pictures
And despite it being a whole 4 years since it was launched, there is of course little really to differenciate it from newer models. There is a relatively steep curve in terms of dSLR R&D going on and new models appear to have more to differentiate them from outgoing ones in relation to film cameras. But both in terms of how the thing hangs on the end of an OP/TECH strap and how the pictures that come out of it look, only the eyes of a camera nerd would spot-the-difference when more than a few feet away. So the D100 can't do 5 frames per second, so it doesn't have the broader ISO capabilities of the D200 (but in terms of how I manage light, I feel that there is a lot some wider f-stop lenses could bring to my pictures. And while bodies come and go, the glass will remain the same...) and I don't feel the need for 6 more autofocus points. So who am I to complain, for there is little in my mind that gives one more of a sense of purpose in one's stride, than a high quality dSLR in one's hand?
Thank you to Puplet
for all shots featuring D100s and D100 users on this blog. He is a fine, yet small and soft (but not that way inclined) dog and it is always great to chat about cameras with Den and him.
my friend Puplet, pastis time, (the third beer is of course Den's)Yes I love my D100. We can stop the world in its tracks, controlling light and indeed darkness to make something that suits us. Is it real? Who cares? For no matter how much of a liar any camera is, what really matters is knowing what it is likely to fib about.