The Busker and the Fishmonger St. Lawrence Market, Toronto

[RBSinTo]

I decided since I was going to go Digital, I’d jump in with both feet, so the other day I catalogued all my film gear, and went to my favorite bricks and mortar camera store, Downtown Camera with an inventory list of most of my film cameras, and all of my manual focus zooms and one rangefinder prime, and discussed trading them for two Nikkor auto focus zooms: 24-70 2.8, and 70-200 2.8, two bread and butter lenses that I've used for years in manual focus versions for my street photography.
I packed up all the gear we’d talked about plus a lot of other odds and ends I’d collected over the years and took it all down.
It took a couple of hours to catalogue everything but in the end I walked out with the two lenses, an AF-S VR ED Nikkor 70~200 2.8 G, and an AF-S ED Nikkor 24~70 2.8 G. These coupled with the Sigma 12~24 f4.5-5.6 I already own give me virtually all I need for street shooting.
I kept my motorized F and F2 as well as my SP, S3 and Voigtlander R2S rangefinder bodies and all my Nikkor and third party primes, and my rangefinder lenses so I can still shoot film as the mood strikes me.
Yesterday I visited the St. Lawrence Market just to wring out the two lenses and have some fun indoors.
I still tend to shoot very sparingly and over the course of a few hours only came away with about 20 shots. These are the two I liked best:
The Busker
Nikon D3
Nikkor 70~200 2.8 G
2.8 @ 1/100 ISO 3200

The Fishmonger
Nikon D3
24~70 2.8 G
2.8 @ 1/800 ISO 3200

[Rent]

Robert When I went digital several years ago now, I too found I was being very careful. After a week or so you will find that you will be filling memory cards like there's no tomorrow.
Good shooting and a happy new year to all
Roy

[RBSinTo]

Robert When I went digital several years ago now, I too found I was being very careful. After a week or so you will find that you will be filling memory cards like there's no tomorrow.
Good shooting and a happy new year to all
Roy

Roy,
It never has been about being careful or frugal with film, but rather that I've just never found it necessary to take five or ten shots when one will do.
And good shooting and a happy and healthy new year to you as well.
Robert

[Donald]

Robert When I went digital several years ago now, I too found I was being very careful. After a week or so you will find that you will be filling memory cards like there's no tomorrow.

That was not my experience.

Even now when I go out to shoot, I will only take a maximum of two of each scene (the second one being for 'insurance').

I find it amazing that some people stick to film, "because it makes me slow down and take less frames".

That isn't the 'fault' of digital v film, that's how the person using them treats them. You can take as long with digital as you do with film.

[Manfred M]

+1 to Robert and Donald’s comments. I generally still shoot very much like in the film days and try to shoot frugally. While the incremental cost of a shot is quite low, I see no reason to spend hours going through virtually identical shots to decide which one is best. That is not a good use of my time.

The only exception to that approach is when plan to use digital techniques that require multiple exposures that are later assembled into a single image, but here the shots are not identical as I either bracket the shots or take shots over a time interval.

[rpcrowe]

Nice shots... How does it feel to be able to use ISO 3200 and expect very decent imagery? That, and being able to switch ISO on the fly is one of the aspects of digital photography in which I am still in awe...

I attended a seminar presented by a National Geographic photographer in the 1980's. I was absolutely astounded at the amount of film shot on any one assignment.

As far as my numbers of shots, I will shoot greater numbers of images when I am shooting people or dogs than when I am shooting inanimate subjects. Sometimes the eye direction or mouth expression changes everything in an image. This is true with both people and animals...

When shooting my rescue dogs, the number of exposures varies due to the cooperation of the dogs. I am always aiming to get a good eye expression and to have the eyes in focus. Even with the great focusing of today's DSLR cameras, a rambunctious puppy will take more shots than a calmer and more sedate older dog. However, I prefer shooting a lively dog or puppy rather than a fearful one.

I always need three shots to post on my rescue sites. Sometimes I can achieve the three shots with less than ten exposures and sometimes I go through 30-40 images to get what I need. It all depends on the dog. Of course, making friends with the dog and plying it with treats and toys helps...

[DanK]

I avoid excessive shots because I hate culling, but I definitely take more than I did with film. As Richard suggests, it depends on what I am shooting. When I have a lot of control, I shoot less. For example, when I do studio macros of flowers, I typically will shoot between one and three series. (Each stack requires a series of images, so I am counting each series as 1.) When I do night photography, I keep the number of shots relatively low because they take so long, but if I am uncertain about exposure--which I often am with urban night photography--I will often end up repeating a shot a few times. When I do candids of kids, I shoot far more than I will keep, for precisely the reasons Richard suggested. Facial expressions in particular change very rapidly. Moreover, since I am shooting candids, some backgounds will be worse than others. The bottom line for me is that I avoid excessive shots because I hate culling, but I find no reason to constrain the number of shots when there is a good reason to shoot more. Whatever works.

Robert, since you have made the transition, you are now free to enjoy one of the major benefits of digital: far easier editing. When I shot black and white film, I probably would have dodged to lessen the shadows around the busker's eyes. When I shot color film, I didn't do my own darkroom work, so I couldn't edit, which I found very frustrating. With digital, it's simple. I just did a very quick and dirty edit of your busker in photoshop. It's a messy edit, but it shows what I would do, and with the full-sized image, one could do this properly in a matter of a few minutes.

[RBSinTo]

That was not my experience.

Even now when I go out to shoot, I will only take a maximum of two of each scene (the second one being for 'insurance').

I find it amazing that some people stick to film, "because it makes me slow down and take less frames".

That isn't the 'fault' of digital v film, that's how the person using them treats them. You can take as long with digital as you do with film.

Donald,
I agree completely.
Robert

[RBSinTo]

Nice shots... How does it feel to be able to use ISO 3200 and expect very decent imagery? That, and being able to switch ISO on the fly is one of the aspects of digital photography in which I am still in awe...

I attended a seminar presented by a National Geographic photographer in the 1980's. I was absolutely astounded at the amount of film shot on any one assignment.

As far as my numbers of shots, I will shoot greater numbers of images when I am shooting people or dogs than when I am shooting inanimate subjects. Sometimes the eye direction or mouth expression changes everything in an image. This is true with both people and animals...

When shooting my rescue dogs, the number of exposures varies due to the cooperation of the dogs. I am always aiming to get a good eye expression and to have the eyes in focus. Even with the great focusing of today's DSLR cameras, a rambunctious puppy will take more shots than a calmer and more sedate older dog. However, I prefer shooting a lively dog or puppy rather than a fearful one.

I always need three shots to post on my rescue sites. Sometimes I can achieve the three shots with less than ten exposures and sometimes I go through 30-40 images to get what I need. It all depends on the dog. Of course, making friends with the dog and plying it with treats and toys helps...

Richard,
Thanks for commenting.
Truly the ability to change ISO from frame to frame was the only argument in favour of Digital that I could never refute during the seemingly endless debates with my photobuds over the last 20 years.
As for my own shot quantities, for the most part I'd just see something and visualize what I want and then take the shot. Rarely do I take more than one of a particular composition. That is not to say that I only take one shot of the subject, but only of a particular composition. Always done it that way, and really can't see myself changing. Tough to teach an old dog more than a few new tricks.
Even with autofocus lenses for example, I still hold them as if I'm manual focusing, which is to say left palm under the camera with thumb and middle finger on the focusing ring as opposed to how many Digital photographers hold their cameras: with two hands holding the body. Just not my style. A couple of professionals were my first two mentors and they taught me many good habits which I still practice to this day, whether I'm using Digital or Film.
Robert

[RBSinTo]

Dan,
Thanks for commenting, and I appreciate that you took the time to do the "quick and dirty" edit.
However, unlike many of my photobuds who literally spend hours working on a particular picture, I derive little or no pleasure from the activity, and tend to do very little to my shots after the fact, whether they were scanned from Film or taken directly Digitally. This is part laziness, and partly because my pictures aren't "pretty" so I don't feel the need to dress them up, but rather, show them as they appeared to me.
So, the darker eyes of Busker don't bother me, or seem to be a shortcoming to the story, and in truth, for me your edit doesn't improve the shot.
Actually, one of the reasons that I took the shot was to show of the condition of his guitar, which because it lacks a pick guard, and has obviously been played a great deal, has the same kind of damage as Willie Nelson's Martin N-20, "Trigger", and I wanted to show the shot to our seven-year-old Grand-Daughter who I take for Guitar lessons and who knows about Nelson's guitar. The shot was taken wide open and the point of focus is the guitar, and not the Busker himself.
Robert

[Tronhard]

Old habits die hard:

Even after using digital for over 17 years I have not changed my conservative habits and take WAY less images than many of my contemporaries who have known nothing but the digital age...

If you want the sense of using a film camera but have a great digital body, I recommend trying the Nikon Df. It stole me away from Canon after all these years...

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Robert - I'd be interested to hear the story of how you ended up with a D3 to embark on your digital voyage.

[Tronhard]

Robert you may have to consider a slight modification of your byline to recognize the fact you are now a digital user!

[RBSinTo]

Robert - I'd be interested to hear the story of how you ended up with a D3 to embark on your digital voyage.

Alan,
It's a long story, but due to the generous plotting and scheming of a photobud who was cutting down on his heavy DSLRs, and finally made me an offer I couldn't refuse, I reluctantly ended up with a Canon 1D MK IV and two lenses (none of which I had the slightest intention of keeping) which I flipped for a Nikon D3. Then I got an excellent deal on another with extremely low mileage (about 16,000 actuations), so now I have two.
From what little I knew about Digital bodies, coupled with my love for the rugged, reliable and relatively simple Nikon pro film bodies (I've used F, F2, F3 SLR and SP & S3 rangefinder bodies for years) the 12.1 megapixel D3 seemed to have all I'd need for my street photography and because they're not the Latest and the Greatest I got two bodies for far less than I would have spent for one newer model.
Robert

[Tronhard]

Great story Robert: and welcome to the world of digital.

I assume that your reluctance to go Canon was because you have a long and happy history with Nikon?

I had been using both Nikon and Canon back in my film days, and have to admit it was for me a tough decision to have to stick to one, but in the end if was not the bodies that made me choose but the Canon glass, which I believe to be excellent and had the widest range at that time, if not now...

I am a firm believer that there are no really bad cameras out there, but some suit certain users more than others. I have always considered the weakest element in the system to be me...

[RBSinTo]

Great story Robert: and welcome to the world of digital.

I assume that your reluctance to go Canon was because you have a long and happy history with Nikon?

I had been using both Nikon and Canon back in my film days, and have to admit it was for me a tough decision to have to stick to one, but in the end if was not the bodies that made me choose but the Canon glass, which I believe to be excellent and had the widest range at that time, if not now...

I am a firm believer that there are no really bad cameras out there, but some suit certain users more than others. I have always considered the weakest element in the system to be me...

Trev,
Thanks for commenting.
I've been a Nikon user since 1977 and have always been happy with their gear.
My first photo mentor was a Canon user and he was kind enough to lend me bits of his kit so I could try out different lenses and accessories that I did not own, so I was also familiar with the Canon manual focus line at the time, and for a very brief instant, I considered switching because I liked the Canon A-1 so much. In the end I didn't, and never regretted the decision.
Over the years I've accumulated about 25 Nikon F-mount and S-mount (their rangefinder lens mount) lenses which I liked very much, and so keeping the 1D Mk IV meant having to replace all the Nikon glass with Canon which to me made no sense. Additionally, the Canon was not an FX camera and seemed extremely heavy. So in the end, I stayed with the system I love and trust.
I agree about the quality of the cameras, and am reminded of the salesperson's comments when I bought my first camera. He put five down on the counter: Canon AE-1, Minolta X-700, Nikon FE, Olympus OM-2, and a Pentax ME Super, and told me hold each one and play with it. One he said would probably stand out from the others based on how I liked the way if felt in my hands, the position of the controls, and even simply the way it looked, and whichever one that was, was the one to buy. And my life would not change regardless of which one I chose, as they were all good cameras. All choices were the right choice. And despite we Nikon guys giving the Canon guys the gears over the years and vice versa, I always knew that to be true.
Robert

[Manfred M]

One he said would probably stand out from the others based on how I liked the way if felt in my hands, the position of the controls, and even simply the way it looked, and whichever one that was, was the one to buy.

Nicely saiid, he was suggesting that you look at the ergonomics of the camera. To me this was ultimately the factor that resulted in my choice of camera body. When I was looking at my first DSLR, I had things narrowed down to two makes, neither of which I had owned before. One felt comfortable in my hands and the control layout it my hands well. The other felt like it was slippery and easy to drop and the controls seemed to be in the wrong places. I went with the one that felt right.

[DanK]

One he said would probably stand out from the others based on how I liked the way if felt in my hands, the position of the controls, and even simply the way it looked, and whichever one that was, was the one to buy.

Good advice, but I would add two caveats. A brand distinction, e.g., Canon/Nikon, is not a very good indication of this, for two reasons. One is that the layout and controls have changed dramatically over the years. My Canon 5D III has no more in common in these respects with my first Canon SLR (an FTb) than it does with my first SLR, a Mamiya/Sekor. A cousin of mine who has been a professional photographer all of her life used nothing but Nikon and Hasselblad during the film days but switched to Canon some years after she went digital because she found the Canon DSLR controls more intuitive. That's not to say that Canon is better for all folks, but just to illustrate how much cameras have evolved in different ways. The second is that some manufacturers--this is true of Canon, but I don't know if it is true of Nikon--have very different ergonomics and controls in different lines of cameras. For example, both the feel and the controls of the Canon Rebel cameras are fundamentally different than those of the 7D II/5D IV line. In fact, two of the main reasons I upgraded years ago from a Canon XTi to a Canon 50D were the very different feel of the camera and the much better controls.

So the version of this advice I give to newbies is to handle a variety of current models and to give a lot of weight to what feels right and that they find easiest to control.

[lovelife65]

Hi Robert, nice images.
only comments from a "technical" standpoint that is nit picking is the crop on the fish mans head is a little tight.
Happy shooting. On your Busker, too bad for the hat, would like to see more of the eyes.
(I'm in the same camp as you, editing is not something i enjoy and thus for me results in less than stellar skills to get the job done).

[AlwaysOnAuto]

Alan,
It's a long story, but due to the generous plotting and scheming of a photobud who was cutting down on his heavy DSLRs, and finally made me an offer I couldn't refuse, I reluctantly ended up with a Canon 1D MK IV and two lenses (none of which I had the slightest intention of keeping) which I flipped for a Nikon D3. Then I got an excellent deal on another with extremely low mileage (about 16,000 actuations), so now I have two.
From what little I knew about Digital bodies, coupled with my love for the rugged, reliable and relatively simple Nikon pro film bodies (I've used F, F2, F3 SLR and SP & S3 rangefinder bodies for years) the 12.1 megapixel D3 seemed to have all I'd need for my street photography and because they're not the Latest and the Greatest I got two bodies for far less than I would have spent for one newer model.
Robert

Thanks for the story. Hope you enjoy using them and look forward to seeing more of your work.