Is there a camera which stands out over the other? ... a Perfect 10!

Discussion in 'UK Photography' started by aniramca, Jul 31, 2007.

  1. aniramca

    Tony Polson Guest


    They were cameras of their time. There really wasn't much in the way
    of alternatives. But some truly iconic images of the 1950s and 60s
    were taken using Rollei TRLs, plus of course the more prosaic weddings
    and portraits.

    I know a pro who shoots weddings with three Rollei TLRs, a standard, a
    wide angle and a tele, at least two of which are less than five years
    old. He also uses Leicas for the candid shots, M2 and M3 bodies with
    period lenses. His results are outstanding, yet he isn't even 40
    years old.

    It wasn't until the 1970s that Hasselblads (and various Japanese SLRs)
    took over from Rollei in medium format, but what really killed off the
    TLR was the availability of fine grain, reasonably fast 35mm film and
    excellent 35mm SLR cameras.
     
    Tony Polson, Aug 2, 2007
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. aniramca

    Pat Guest

    If no camera is perfect, this has to be close:
    http://www.adorama.com/HSCF39MSH2K.html?sid=11860628272826597
     
    Pat, Aug 2, 2007
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. aniramca

    bugbear Guest

    I suspect wildlife and sport photographers might
    not agree.

    I don't believe there ever was or will be
    a "single perfect camera". Not as long as requirements
    can vary.

    BugBear
     
    bugbear, Aug 2, 2007
    #23
  4. From the webpage:

    The CF-39 MS backs capture an extended set of metadata and then perform
    an automated correction for color aberration effects with every shot.
    This feature is referred to as "digital APO correction" (DAC)

    In plain English, "It's a Bayer sensor array and we use extra sensors and
    software to [try to] correct it."

    IMHO it's still a Bayer sensor and software can only make it look better,
    but can't fix it.

    Just because color TV works that way does not make it right, only what
    people are used to.

    An array that size of 39 million Foveon three color sensors would produce
    something much better and much closer to film and reality, but as long as
    Sigma owns the distribution rights, it will never happen.

    That's why with a decent scanner, a 39mp scan of a color negative that
    size will be a lot better in terms of color rendition, resolution, etc.

    Geoff.
     
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Aug 2, 2007
    #24
  5. aniramca

    Allen Guest

    Tony Polson wrote:
    Everything you wrote applie4s to today's equivalent of box
    camera/Instamatic users--not people who want to learn anything. If you
    or they don't want to take advantage of the shortened learning curve,
    ten don't. But for those who do, it's great. Do not apint every person
    in the world with the same brush.
    Allen
     
    Allen, Aug 2, 2007
    #25
  6. aniramca

    Allen Guest

    My history is approximately the same, but a good cheeseburger was a
    dime. I was very happy when I got a changing bag--it made cartridge and
    tank loading much, much more convenient. Lord, I haven't heard the name
    "Adox" in decades.
    Allen
     
    Allen, Aug 2, 2007
    #26
  7. aniramca

    Les Stewart Guest

    Les Stewart, Aug 2, 2007
    #27
  8. aniramca

    Tony Polson Guest


    Anyone who thinks that digital automatically offers a shorter learning
    curve than film is misguided.

    Digital's deficiencies compared to film involve a lot more learning,
    and there is the whole new topic of post-processing in an image
    editing program. Plus there is colour management, which 99.9% of
    digital photographers are either ignorant about or don't do anyway.
    Finally, there is printing, which needs much greater involvement than
    was ever the case with film.
     
    Tony Polson, Aug 2, 2007
    #28
  9. aniramca

    Allen Guest

    If you don't believe what I wrote, or don't want to believe it, that is
    your prerogative, and you certainly won't be taking advantage of that
    better learning curve. And you must not have done much printing from
    film if you think it is easier than digital. I will no longer answer
    your responses.
    Allen
     
    Allen, Aug 3, 2007
    #29
  10. aniramca

    Pat Guest

    You'd better go get a job at Hasselblad and tell them how to make good
    cameras that you can take to the moon and such.
     
    Pat, Aug 3, 2007
    #30
  11. aniramca

    silvercelt Guest

    You need camera for your own needs... you can get the best camera in
    the world but if you not use it right can get crap results..
     
    silvercelt, Aug 3, 2007
    #31
  12. aniramca

    Tony Polson Guest


    That's because the "better learning curve" does not exist, except in
    the mind of those who have allowed themselves to be indoctrinated.
     
    Tony Polson, Aug 3, 2007
    #32
  13. Define "better". Do you mean steeper, shallower, what?
     
    Richard Polhill, Aug 3, 2007
    #33
  14. aniramca

    jdear64 Guest

    Now there's a man with an open mind. *not*
    What deficiencies?
    Set the camera to sRGB and shoot jpg. No more need for post
    processing than for film.
    Most photographers don't do color management because they are happy
    with their results. Those that are pickier about color do color
    management. And it's not exactly hard to do.

    Film has color management issues also, which film to use for the
    lighting.
    Yes, it much harder to print your own digital photos than printing
    your own film photos in a darkroom. *NOT*

    What's that you say, you don't print your own film photos and have
    someone else do it. That's completely unheard of in the digital
    world. *Not*

    And with digital you don't have to worry about your one and only
    negatives getting lost when set out for printing.

    Your arguments are quite hollow.

    I have nothing against film, but the fact is that for 35mm, film is
    the LP of photography.
     
    jdear64, Aug 3, 2007
    #34
  15. aniramca

    Tony Polson Guest


    Nothing you could have written better demonstrates prejudice combined
    with an extreme lack of knowledge.

    You are an advertiser's dream, receptive to anything and questioning
    of nothing,
     
    Tony Polson, Aug 3, 2007
    #35
  16. aniramca

    Tom Delaney Guest

    My LPs are worth a lot, so hopefully my film will now also increase in
    value.

    Digital has taken over the consumer level of photography, but there is still
    a lot of film being used at the professional level. How many full frame or
    medium format, low-noise, high-megapixel, sensors are available at prices
    that a professional can afford? How many full-frame digital SLRs are
    available that an amateur can afford? One. I'm still waiting for a Nikon
    full frame camera, something like the 5D from Canon in terms of price. I
    like my D200, but it still is a compromise, an interim step. The closest
    thing to perfect 10 these days would be the EOS-1Ds Mark II. I had too many
    Nikon lenses to make the switch to Canon, but at the high-end Canon
    completely dominates digital.
     
    Tom Delaney, Aug 4, 2007
    #36
  17. aniramca

    smb Guest


    I think you'll find that all the above cameras give similar results in
    terms image quality. Colors and sharpness can largely be a result of
    post-processing and/or how each camera's particular settings affect
    the results. At the end of the day, the best camera is the one that
    has the features you want and is easiest to use.

    You'll find a lot of opinions and brand name loyalty to confuse the
    issue. Some here like the good high ISO performance of the Canons.
    Others, like myself, appreciate the generally better build quality and
    ergonomics of the Nikons. But regardless of personal opinion on the
    gear, BY FAR the greatest factor in getting good pictures is the
    person using the camera.

    For example, you can spend a lot more money on a Canon 5D and get only
    marginally better image quality than you can with a Nikon D200, but
    only in some situations. Conversley, the D200 can do some things that
    the 5D cannot do. And to really take advantage of the better image
    sensor of the 5D you need to spend even more money on Canon's very
    pricy top line lenses. But anyone who thinks that spending all that
    money on top-line gear will give them better pictures is just fooling
    themselves.


    Steve
     
    smb, Aug 4, 2007
    #37
  18. aniramca

    jdear64 Guest

    Wow, with an argument like that, who dare question anything you would
    ever say!

    Why didn't you address any points I made? Not interested in sharing
    your wisdom?

    How many new film 35mm cameras been released in the last five years.

    Like it or not, digital *IS* the here to stay and film is dieing fast
    for 35mm and smaller. If you insist in using film, it's only going to
    get harder to find resources for it as time goes on. No amount of
    crying is going to change the facts.
     
    jdear64, Aug 5, 2007
    #38
  19. aniramca

    D.M. Procida Guest

    What's wrong with Instamatics or box brownies or whatever the
    point-and-shoot camera du jour is?

    Learning how to use a camera is not the same as learning how to take a
    good photograph. Some people are superb camera users who never produce
    good pictures. Some people understand little about camera and
    photographic techniques, but use their limited knowledge and their eye
    to take excellent pictures.

    Daniele
     
    D.M. Procida, Aug 5, 2007
    #39
  20. aniramca

    Tony Polson Guest


    Digital is the camera manufacturers' dream. It's new, it's cool and
    it's hot, all at the same time. And because it's new, and because it
    appears cool, people are rushing to replace their 35mm film cameras
    with digital.

    Many camera buyers see a digital camera as an extension of their PC.
    It's just another peripheral, and just another opportunity to play
    with their computer. These buyers may never even have been interested
    in photography before, but a digital camera is a must-have accessory.

    So for the camera manufacturers, digital is hot. They are selling
    huge numbers of cameras, vastly more than in the days of film. That
    is because people are replacing film cameras that lasted forever, and
    which they kept for 10 years or more, with digital cameras that will
    be out of date and replaced within 18 months. As far as the camera
    manufacturers are concerned, this is the best time they have ever had.

    The consumer's role in all this is to buy, buy, buy. And with the
    emphasis on always having the latest camera, lenses, image editing
    software and inkjet printer, the cost of photography has never been
    higher. The cost of going digital is collosal! It is many times more
    than the cost of buying a digital camera, but no-one seems to want to
    tell you that.

    What is happening here is that the photographic industry is peddling
    the illusion that digital is better than film. It is certainly better
    for the manufacturers, because they are making and selling more
    cameras than ever in their history. But is it better for the
    photographer?

    You obviously think it is. I don't. We disagree. That's that.
     
    Tony Polson, Aug 5, 2007
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.