*ist DS announced

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Alan Browne, Sep 13, 2004.

  1. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. Malcolm Stewart, Sep 13, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alan Browne

    Mojtaba Guest

    Mojtaba, Sep 14, 2004
  4. Brian C. Baird, Sep 14, 2004
  5. Alan Browne

    Bandicoot Guest

    "Switch" - absolutely not. Film is still so much higher quality and is what
    my market demands.

    But that said, I'll probably be buying one, just not "switching" in the
    sense of using it instead of film. It'll be a great teaching tool, and good
    for images for the web. Not to mention all the pictures Sharon always wants
    me to take of her with this group of friends, with that group of friends,
    with the dogs, with...

    Bandicoot, Sep 14, 2004
  6. You'll come to the dark side soon enough, Luke.
    Yes. Digital is great for things you want to take a bazillion pictures
    of, but don't really want to pay the developing on.
    Brian C. Baird, Sep 14, 2004
  7. Alan Browne

    Paul Guest

    Paul, Sep 14, 2004
  8. Alan Browne

    Peter Chant Guest


    How long have multilayer boards been around, at least 20 years I'd guess.
    This is assuming double sided boards don't count as multi layer.
    Peter Chant, Sep 14, 2004
  9. And that was my point as I was specifying them for military equipment many,
    many years ago. Without thinking about it, I'd simply assumed that our
    (more expensive) modern gadgets used multi-layer boards, but for Pentax to
    make an issue of it (for the *st DS) may suggest that they know otherwise.
    Perhaps flexible multilayer boards are more difficult?
    Malcolm Stewart, Sep 14, 2004
  10. Alan Browne

    Peter Chant Guest

    Double sided fleximble boards are not new. Maybe, as you postulate,
    multilayer flexible ones are a new advance.
    Peter Chant, Sep 14, 2004
  11. Alan Browne

    Bandicoot Guest

    NO! You are not my father...

    Though once the market wants mostly digital, obviously I'll need to switch.
    I'm thinking about a digital back for my MF SLR within the next year or so,
    just don't like the prices - but that currently would only be for a few
    markets, and most of the time I'd be shooting on film and then using the
    digital back to take a digital capture as well. Most of my 'digital
    customers' currently want big files that are better produced by scanning
    film anyway.
    Yeah, I can see quite a lot of non-work photography being digital. But
    then, anytime I take a landscape that others would take for pleasure, for me
    it is (at least potentially) work, but these are the types of shot I would
    still prefer film for even if I was an amateur.

    Bandicoot, Sep 14, 2004
  12. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    It also claims to have a viewfinder... by your logic perhaps the
    others don't?

    (FWIW I can't find what you're referring to).
    Alan Browne, Sep 14, 2004
  13. It's under the Press Release section
    "Major Features
    1 Compact, go-anywhere design"
    "high-rigidity stainless-steel chassis, multi-layered electronic circuit
    boards and high-density"
    Malcolm Stewart, Sep 14, 2004
  14. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Malcolm Stewart wrote:
    r the Press Release section
    In the context of that paragraph, which is about how compact the
    system is, they enumerating the many design factors that allow
    the compactness. Referring to multi layer boards is not very
    sophisticated, but as a part of a list, acceptable. As another
    poster pointed, if the multilayering is part of a flexible
    assembly then extra kudos.

    Alan Browne, Sep 14, 2004
  15. Alan Browne

    Gordon Moat Guest

    I have rented some high end digital because some clients thought it would be
    better. Those were mostly medium format digital backs, which one could assume
    to be the highest quality in direct digital. Comparing some final scanned film
    images, the few clients whom have requested this type of work, thought the
    scanned 35 mm was slightly better. With the scanned medium format, they were
    then convinced that the scanned medium format film was the ultimate. I have
    never had a repeat client that requested direct digital imaging more than once.
    At the end of any assignment, they get a CD-R of images, so largely it really
    does not matter to them how the images were captured.
    You might be surprised that some of the earlier Medium Format digital backs are
    going for near $2000 on EBAY. There are not many of them, but they are starting
    to appear more often. The colour quality and lower noise are benefits, even
    with slightly older technology. Most are the 37 mm by 37 mm square chips, so
    quite a crop from the full film frame size.
    Funny you mention film sizes. That is what has developed from discussions with
    clients. When they find out that I can give them files so big that only three
    or four fit on a CD-R, they often realize that scanned film is still high
    quality. I think the basic idea is that they do not want to give up any
    possible quality advantage, which was the point of them hiring a professional
    Also that there is no real equivalent for panorama images from an Xpan, 612, or
    617 camera, in the world of digital. I would be surprised if any company ever
    makes a true (not cropped) panorama digital that is not a scanning (rotating?)

    The other huge issue is that an RGB sensor just cannot capture all possible
    colours. While films cannot capture all of them either, there are ways to
    choose a bias in one direction or another. Also, there are colours approaching
    some green, pure red, pure yellow, or especially cyan, that can be captured on
    film, but all Bayer pattern digital chips struggle to capture. Compounding this
    problem, is that most of these colour ranges don't display accurately, or at
    all, on a computer monitor. Having that piece of film with the proper colour
    really helps get the final printed item looking like it should.


    Gordon Moat
    A G Studio
    <http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html> Updated!
    Gordon Moat, Sep 14, 2004
  16. Alan Browne

    Peter Chant Guest

    Hmm, as opposed to the other manufactuers who have been adding
    RSJs to their cameras to make them less portable.
    Peter Chant, Sep 14, 2004
  17. Alan Browne

    Peter Chant Guest

    Hmm, reminds me of when certain high street chains were advertising
    cheap sterios (I avoid the term Hi-Fi) equipment which had 'Automatic
    Frequency Control' (or 'AFC') not mentioning that this had been a standard component
    of even the cheapest radio for the past 40 odd years.
    Peter Chant, Sep 14, 2004
  18. Alan Browne

    Bandicoot Guest

    Interesting - perhaps the reaction I would expect, but interesting
    I had seen one or two - still too many dinero per pixel for now, but I can
    see the time to pick up a used one is going to come within the next eighteen
    months or so - if only to be able to service the ocassional rush job.
    That would be a seriously expensive chip - especially given that anything
    more than Xpan size would need a wafer that is way bigger than current
    production sizes. I wish I could afford a Fuji GX617, but do make good use
    of my Xpan. Wondering about getting a 612 back for the 4x5 though, despite
    the inconvenience of working that way.
    One of the points about digital that is so often overlooked in the crazed
    pursuit of resolution - which I suppose is no less stupid than those people
    that think sharpness is the only thing that matters in a lens. It's a bit
    like the silicone augmentation industry: never mind the brains, look at the

    And there is 'something' about a big slide on a lightbox.

    Bandicoot, Sep 15, 2004
  19. Alan Browne

    Keith Whaley Guest

    I will. Gotta show up first... <g>

    keith whaley
    Keith Whaley, Sep 16, 2004
  20. Alan Browne

    Keith Whaley Guest

    Modify my last post.
    I'll not be "switching" anything.
    I already have two digi cameras. Three if you count the one I gave away to
    relatives. This will be in addition to.

    keith whaley

    Keith Whaley, Sep 16, 2004
    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.