PHOTOgraphic Film Review, January Issue

Discussion in 'Photography' started by me, Jan 18, 2005.

  1. me

    Marc 182 Guest

    Not too sure about that. For point and shoot sure, but once you start
    to meet or beat the quality of your old film format, a digital SLR
    should have something of the same staying power as a film SLR. Maybe
    not 25 years!, but 5 to 8.

    Marc
     
    Marc 182, Feb 14, 2005
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. me

    jjs Guest

    For the OP's sake, I hope it is true. But my experience with digital cameras
    and compact 35mm has been just terrible. They break in no time at all or
    fail in bad conditions.

    But here's to the OP - Best of Luck! Sincerely.
     
    jjs, Feb 14, 2005
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. Be careful. Pixel size does matter.
    The FZ20 has only 2.2 micron pixels! That is 9% the area
    of a Canon 10D with 7.4 micron pixels, and since you must
    have some non-active area to keep the electrons
    produced by the photons in the pixel, the active area
    is even less. The signal-to-noise is horrible
    in comparison to a DSLR, or even other point and shoots
    with larger sensors. Check the noise in the review
    in www.dpreview.com.

    See also:
    Digital Cameras: Does Pixel Size Matter?
    Factors in Choosing a Digital Camera:
    http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Feb 14, 2005
    #63
  4. me

    John Guest

    Well considering that hasn't happened yet .....

    Digital cannot resolve on a molecular basis as does film.
    Digital CMOS/CCD chips are generally smaller than my Nikon negatives
    and certainly smaller than my RB67, Zone VI 4X5 and Linhof 5X7
    negatives. When it comes down to it there is no replacement for good
    ol' displacement. Shoot film -> Scan to file -> Print to RA4.


    Regards,

    John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
    Please remove the "_" when replying via email
     
    John, Feb 14, 2005
    #64
  5. me

    Kitt Guest



    I didn't mean any particular improvements were made to either type, but
    rather was referring to the makers putting out a "new" camera every
    year or two and telling us that we just *have* to have it. They tell
    us they're better and we believe them and we buy, buy, buy. So, in
    that respect, I don't see any change in store.




    Oh, I can't argue with your logic, since I thought the same things. I
    almost bought the Pentax for that reason. It's just that I don't find
    the inconvenience to be what I thought it would. Regarding the need
    for AA's anyway, you're right. But as far as my camera bag goes, that
    just means four extra AA's for the flash with another set in the flash.
    In many cases I'll use the pop up on the D70 since it does a pretty
    good job at close range, so two sets in the big gun should be enough
    for anything I'll do long range. With regard to the chargers and and
    spare batteries, they'll be in a wheeled case back in the hotel room or
    the trunk of the car. At the present rate of accumulation, I'll need a
    steamer trunk to hold all the cameras, lenses and accessories I'm pack
    ratting. Sometimes I think I'm less a photographer and more a camera
    collector. Speaking of which, what do you think this one will cost and
    what will it weigh?

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04092902mamiya_zd.asp
     
    Kitt, Feb 14, 2005
    #65
  6. me

    Chris Down Guest


    I am interested to read your post as I made the same step last year. My
    Pentax ME Supers from 1981 were still functional but I was finding that I
    was scanning a lot of the photos so I opted to cut out a step and try
    digital.

    First up your existing lenses will not fit any of the current crop of
    cameras so you will have a free choice of manufacturers.

    What I did was start off with a point and shoot, Canon A40 2MP, just to see
    how I got on with digital. If you go this way select a camera that has a
    good lens and a superfine compression option. Pixel count is far less
    important than these factors unless you plan to do a lot of cropping, and
    then Pixel count is as important but not more so.

    The downside of the compact was the lack of zoom range, quite restrictive
    after years of zooms and interchangeable lenses, slow zooming with the
    motorized lens, and slow shutter release. By slow shutter release I mean
    the delay between deciding to take the shot and the camera focusing,
    metering and exposing. The results were very good, 7x5 prints were as good
    as those from 35mm. I have done 10x8 prints at home and they are
    excellent.

    Having decided I liked digital I purchased the Canon 300D/Digital Rebel.
    This is as easy to use as the old Pentax, but adds shutter priority, Program
    and full Auto to the aperture priority and manual options of the old
    Pentax. The autofocus is quick and sharp, the shutter is as fast as the
    Pentax with a power winder and the 6MP output gives scope for cropping,
    enlargement and other edits.

    There is quite a lot to learn to get the best from a DSLR but it is worth
    it.


    I happen to have chosen Canon, but others will say "Canon bad, Nikon good".
    The truth is that all the major makers DSLR are pretty good and you should
    try them and see which you like.

    Good luck
     
    Chris Down, Feb 14, 2005
    #66
  7. me

    BillB Guest

    Well, they do list the weight, which is 1200 g (42.3 oz), not
    counting the battery. As big as that beast is, I'm surprised they
    equipped it with a lithium battery. After all, it looks like they
    had room for 4 D cells or a lantern battery. :) Its sensor seems
    pretty nice too, very large, so probably low noise despite its 22 M
    pixels. As for the cost, I have no idea, but as guesses don't cost
    much, I'll say somewhere between $20k and $25k?
     
    BillB, Feb 14, 2005
    #67
  8. Quote:"Point-n-click digitals run from $200-$500 US"
    I got the Kodak CX 7300 only for 99 euro.This camera sells in Amazon for
    $99.For 44 euro more I got an 128 MB lexar card and an orbit charger with 4
    sanyo ni-cd batteries.These cameras make excellent pictures, much better
    than I used to be making with my 20-pound Nikon-FM 2 SLR, complete with 3
    lenses, flash unit etc.
     
    Dimitrios Tzortzakakis, Feb 14, 2005
    #68
  9. me

    Stewy Guest

    I think comparing the FZ20 to the 10D is rather pointless. Just look at
    the price difference for one.
    Two friends have an FZ20 and they have nothing but praise for it. If
    you'd consider something equivalent to the FZ20, think about the Fuji
    S7000 - lens equivalent to 35mm makes it a 35 - 210 zoom. 6.3 megapixel
    with an excellent interpolation to 12.6 - a 3000x4000 pixel image.
    Electronic viewfinder, takes CF and xD cards.
     
    Stewy, Feb 14, 2005
    #69
  10. me

    dr bob Guest

    Not to dampen your spirits, but I still use a Pentax Spotmatic 45 years old
    and still operating perfectly.

    Truly, dr bob
     
    dr bob, Feb 14, 2005
    #70
  11. me

    Jeremy Guest

    I have 6 of them! Sp-IIa, ES, ES-II and 3 Spotmatic-Fs.

    I've accumulated 15 SMC Takumar prime lenses over the past 30 years, too.
    Strange thing is that now I'm so well-equipped in M42 gear that it makes
    absolutely no sense to start all over again (and there aren't many choices
    for brands with a wide range of prime manual lenses, either--unless I want
    to go with Leica or Zeiss--ouch!)

    Editor Mike Johnston quoted a Japanese camera executive who said that if the
    SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 lens could be manufactured and marketed today, it
    would sell for between $1200 and $1500 dollars!

    So we Pentax screwmount users ought to be happy. I could think of worse
    systems to be locked into.
     
    Jeremy, Feb 14, 2005
    #71
  12. me

    John Guest

    Lemme get this straight. You bought a CX7300 that has a lower
    resolution (3.1MP) than a 110 camera (4MP) and got better photos than
    you did with a FM-2 which is capable of resolving around 24MP ? Pardon
    me for paraphrasing Lance Armstrong but "It's not the camera !".

    Regards,

    John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
    Please remove the "_" when replying via email
     
    John, Feb 14, 2005
    #72
  13. me

    John Guest

    Geez that's nearly as old as my Linhof though only about half
    as old as my Kodak. Anyone know of a way to date a Speed Graphic ?
    Yep, works fine with my 150 APO-Symmar on it ;>)


    Regards,

    John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
    Please remove the "_" when replying via email
     
    John, Feb 14, 2005
    #73
  14. me

    Jeremy Guest

    If every purchaser were like us, the camera manufacturers would have gone
    out of business decades ago.

    The manufacturers NEED to sell the sizzle, rather than the steak, if they
    are to keep sales up. And some buyers will trade up an entire system over
    the slightest "improvement" in the newer gear. I remember 30 years ago,
    when Pentax introduced the Spotmatic-F, which had only three differences
    over the previous model, the Spotmatic II:

    1: The shutter button had a locking mechanism

    2: The meter came on whenever the lens cap was removed, rather than having
    to switch it on (I never thought of that as anything of an improvement--it
    means that I must take care that my lens is capped when not in use, or I
    risk using up the battery sooner).

    3: The lens could meter at full aperture.

    Big deal!

    But it seemed back then that EVERYBODY who owned a Pentax wanted to upgrade
    to the latest whizbang body.

    Look at digital today: Every time the manufacturers add another MegaPixel
    to the cameras' sensors, there are tons of people that feel the need to
    "upgrade."

    Look, I like progress as much as the next guy, but this upgrade migration
    thing can make a guy go broke! We pay big dollars for what is usually
    marginal increases in performance or functionality. Perhaps pros can
    justify this, but we amateurs have other mundane things to do with our
    money--like pay home mortgages.

    If I were going to get into photography all over again, I'd buy a good, used
    Rolleiflex. I'd pay to have it CLAed and I'd get another 50 years out of
    it.

    I've accumulated FIFTEEN prime lenses, and I find that 85-90% of my
    landscape work is done on the normal lens--yes, the lowly normal
    lens--because it does not introduce apparent perspective distortion to the
    image.

    Even when I shoot with my digicam, I zoom the lens to an approximately 50mm
    focal length (equivalent). Carrying a bag of other lenses around did
    nothing for me. Too bad it took me 25 years to realize that.

    A decent photographer can produce good results almost in spite of the
    equipment that he is using. The equipment part is of relatively little
    importance.
     
    Jeremy, Feb 14, 2005
    #74
  15. me

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Well said, and an excellent post. That's coming from a 100% digital
    photographer and tech geek who yearns for the latest and greatest. ;) But
    I like to hear the traditional sentiments, and I agree that the tools being
    used are secondary - it's the image that matters.
     
    Mike Kohary, Feb 15, 2005
    #75
  16. The OP said they were coming from a SLR film world and wondered
    what was best in replacing it. Then someone suggested
    the FZ20. The FZ20 produces poor images at high ISO,
    dpreview says the images are not useable (yes that is
    subjective) above ISO 200.

    Also, the color fringing is horrible, see:
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz20/page5.asp
    (other pages of the review show the high noise, especially
    when compared to other cameras).

    Then excuse me about the interpolation to 12.6 mpixels.
    You can do that with any camera. But if you have excessive
    noise, then you interpolate noise.

    The FZ20 camera can hardly be considered the best possible,
    which is what the OP was asking. There is more to a digital
    camera and quality imaging than simply megapixels.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Feb 15, 2005
    #76
  17.  
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Feb 15, 2005
    #77
  18. me

    John Guest

    Dunno. I think Zone VI probably made about $1000 on my 4X5 and
    I'm pretty sure that Linhof has a higher margin.
    Again, it depends on the clients that they're selling too and
    the margins. What you're observing is typical in 35mm but not so in
    the larger formats. Unfortunately the 645 format became very
    competitive and Bronica finally bit the dust after 12 years of pretty
    serious floundering and Mamiya introducing a AF POS that I'd gladly
    take an ETRSi over any day of the century.
    Yep. As if in-camera metering is even necessary. I use a
    Gossen Luna Star F2 and a Minolta Spotmeter F. Perhaps that's why the
    mercury cell in my Nikkormat FTN is still working after all these
    years ?
    Have to admit, I loved the LX. Simply the very best 35mm
    camera system ever built.
    Typical of computer hardware I'm afraid.
    And taxes. And gas. And medical bills.
    I think I'd stick with the FM3A or the D-3HP. Both are well
    built and offer a broad range of optics. Both have the features I need
    though the F-3HP doesn't have a very high flash sync.
    I have 5 lenses for my Nikon's. 28/2.8, 50/1.4, 100/2.5,
    135/2.8 and a 70~210/2.8~4.0. Each is extremely sharp and the 135/2.8
    is remarkable.
    Well it kept you in shape ! But it's not so good for the back.
    I have a Tamrac 747 bag that I'm hoping to sell someday. I used to
    carry two complete systems with me when I went for
    wildlife/backpacking photography. Thing must have weighed 80 pounds
    when loaded !
    I can't completely agree. It starts with the subject,
    lighting, composition then the camera and film. It all goes into the
    mix.

    Regards,

    John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
    Please remove the "_" when replying via email
     
    John, Feb 15, 2005
    #78
  19. me

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Like most tech advances and new features, it's not - but it's very
    convenient.
    Those things all make the job easier, but ultimately it comes down to the
    artist. Think of how many great photographs have started with unattractive
    subjects, compromised lighting, and subpar equipment - and yet they are
    great photographs nonetheless. A technician worries about such things like
    if their camera is good enough. An artist just looks at how to use the
    tools he has at his disposal.

    Of course, most artists prefer to buy the best tools when they can afford
    them. ;)
     
    Mike Kohary, Feb 15, 2005
    #79
  20. me

    BillB Guest

    Thanks for reminding me of my late Gossen Luna Six (and my earlier
    Sekonic something or other). But it might be good that you have
    other options. There aren't too many mercury cells available
    anymore, and those usually are unavailable to the public. Several
    years ago I read about some ways to modify the circuitry of old
    Bulova Accutrons that allowed them to use non-mercury button cells.
    If you ever start using the FTN again, it may quickly exhaust the
    remaining life in the mercury cell. Will it work with substitutes,
    or does it require voltages close to what mercury cells provided?
     
    BillB, Feb 15, 2005
    #80
    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.