Learning and knowledge are the best tools no doubt. As for the pixel thing, I'm not into counting pixels just to say there are more. Pixels frame resolution and the ability to provide a clean and subtle image. Shadow detail and highlights are critical in providing a look, which is comparable to film. Finally, if you make big prints on an Epson 9600 or Lightjet, resolution and pixel count play a role. I guess I need to say I have D1x’s and love them. I’m also enthralled by Canon’s1Ds, which produces a phenomenal image. At some point the cost is incidental; if you can produce a 48” print in an hour for 10 dollars compared to several hundred and days from a lab.


The real question is why can’t Nikon lead this game with better sensors built into their superior camera frame? I hope we’ll all be surprised when Nikon hooks up with Carver Mead and comes out with a camera based on Foveon or something like it.

Everybody has to make his/her camera decision on his/her own needs.
My prints are usally 11x14 and I could not see a difference from my D1
to a Velvia slide, which was print in the same process.
Now, when I want to decorate the Empire State Building I use my Mamiya 645 Pro.;-)
Seriously, take pictures, have fun and "Carpe Diem".


Styx

To get back to Larry's original question -- without offering any juice to the rumor mill -- of course, Nikon engineers are working on a replacement for the D100, just as they are on follow-on models to supercede the D1X and D1H models. Truth is, replacement designs were in the works the day those products hit the streets. Companies with major-technology products -- be they cameras, computers, airplanes, engines or refrigerators -- never stop their development processes...the time and technology involved requires pretty much a constant flow of work to keep the teams engaged and busy, as well as to meet projected release dates for the newest models.

We, out here in the user/consumer arena, should always expect our suppliers to someday offer improved versions of what we bought today. The smartest companies -- and I count Nikon and Canon among them -- try to strike a balance between ticking us off by too quickly superceding our new gear and ticking us off by letting our brand trail by too much what competitive brands offer. Witness this debate: Canon's EOS 1Ds has a bunch of us salivating over the prospect of an 11 Mp, full-frame Nikon D somethingoranother, while the guys who just got a D1X are sweating out the thought that they should have waited a few more months.

It's enough to drive us crazy. If we're first in line for a new camera, we run the risk of getting stuck with the unexpected bugs that usually arise. If we wait too long for a new product's bugs to get resolved, we begin to push the day when that product is replaced.

Regardless, it's also a tough act for the manufacturers to balance...but ultimately, we generally benefit by the improved quality of these tools we use. And we get to spend hours fanticizing about that ultimate camera that someday will grace our bags. ;->

FWIW.

Dave Higdon
PhotoProse Productions

Addressing Styx when you printed your photos & comparing the D1 images to your velvia, were you referring to dye or inkjet? It interests me that so many are not in favor of digital because interpoling files are tricky above the 11x 14 size, and that film clearly has the advantage when files begin to pixalate.

Amen to that information. I've seen several postings over at Nikonians.org and DPReview.com regarding what a replacement to the D1X will be. It was advanced that the D1X will not change much, but that a software upgrade will give the camera true 10 MP capability - and that the design for this was already built in. I'll tell you, the rumor mill regarding any followup models are working overtime. What I do not like to see are those individuals who are waiting to purchase due to what they perceive to be the next latest model that comes along!

Larry,
I don't know how you call this processing in English, I am still struggling with
special terms. I would call it chemical process, you know, with developer-stop bath-fixer etc. But I did not make a side by side comparison.
But I would guess that nobody, who visits my house and sees the pictures on the wall, could tell that it is digital. The most people are just astonished.

And I want to point out here , that I have to thank Moose for that.
My D1 was laying for almost 2 years in the corner until I went to http://www.moose395.net and my whole digital experience started.

Thank you Moose.

Styx

styx,

My reference pertained to your digital file prints and the comment of people who view your film prints vs. digital prints are indistinguishable (is this how we discribe it?). When you print your digital files, do you use a personal printer i.e. kodak 8500 dye-sub printer or inkjet, or do you allow your digital files to be enlarged at your proshop where they have commercial equipment to "interpolate" or enlarge your files to print above 11 x 14, without using consumer software as photoshop image re-size function or General Fractals?

The observation and comments from photographers have always leaned towards film in this regards, and shy away from truely using digital because of the costs involved with getting larger nikon CCD sensors, unless you can utilize hasselbad digital backs, or the capability available with the Hassey H1 645. So regardless of how far we have come with bells and whistles for prosumer & professional D1 series, or continue with the wait & see nightmare, the bottom line finding the unending resources of money to digitize prints, be proud, and not look at the guy next to you who shoots film, and laughs at your hanging empy pockets.

Larry,
yes, this would be the proper way to describe it.
After all this is my personal opinion and it fits my needs.
I guess if I would make a comparison with a test chart,
the results would be different. But I don't hang testcharts on the wall.;-)
Besides, Velvia would be the wrong slide film.
One should rather take another 200 ISO slide film, like Sensia, for a comparison.
That is, what the most people forget.;-)

My files go direct from the camera/Compact Flash to the pro shop.
I only use Photoshop for resizing and the copyright info when I publish files to the web.

Styx

Another observation, wouldn't it be interesting if our USB turns out to be USB 2.0 with another firmware upgrade?

Styx struggled to find a way to describe traditional processing when discussing the pros and cons of digital.

When we went 100 percent digital in Jan 2002, we started using "wet-lab photography" as the term for traditional film and processing -- and in discussing digital and film, our friends and clients immediately understood the connotation...so it sticks with us.

FWIW, we think it's an easy, handy, quickly understandable term: web-lab Versus Digital.

"Is that 'wet lab' or digital?"

Of course, the goal is to make them understand that the digital can best the wet lab...so, with some of our prints, our clients often mistakenly think the digital is, in fact, a wet-lab shot.

And we love it when that happens!

Dave Higdon
PhotoProse Productions