Just out of curiouslity, does the focus hexagon appear when you think
its in focus?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/1/2004 12:37:27 AM
MF for landscapes, probably
pre-focussed MF for many sports and full MF for portraits
too. Gotta get those eyes sharp, sayeth all the masters.
Am I the only person
. Gotta get those eyes sharp, sayeth all the
masters.
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message -
From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
That is simple, because 99
In fact the first time it goes sharp is the sharpest focus you are going to get.
The reason for that is because at the same time you are fiddling with the focus,
your eye is also fiddling with its focus trying to get that blurry image sharp.
By the time you have rocked through the focus point
To adjust the diopter:
Point the camera at something moderately bright that has noting to focus on. A
evenly lite wall works well.
Adjust the diopter until the viewfinder screen, not the wall looks sharp.
Luckily modern cameras always seem to have all kinds of distracting things on
them to
Amita asked:
AG Am I the only person here who has a hard time focusing manually with the
AG istD's matte screen? I rarely get it right, but could that be because
AG I've only had the camera for a couple of months? I do just fine with my
AG older cameras and my ZX-50.
and Bruce replied:
, July 28, 2004 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
That is simple, because 99% of their customers have no interest in
learning how
to use a camera. Hence cameras that use themselves. Great for fairly
sharp,
fairly well exposed images of the kids. Whis is all that 99
MF for landscapes, probably
pre-focussed MF for many sports and full MF for portraits
too. Gotta get those eyes sharp, sayeth all the masters.
Am I the only person here who has a hard time focusing manually with the
istD's matte screen? I rarely get it right, but could that be because
I've
Hmmm, I focus manually about 95% of the time. I have no problems at
all with the matte screen. Wonder what the difference is? What
lenses are you using? I wonder if the speed of the lenses has any
impact?
Bruce
Saturday, July 31, 2004, 9:37:27 PM, you wrote:
MF for landscapes, probably
- Original Message -
From: Amita Guha
Subject: RE: To AF or not to AF: was Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe:
Pentax is Dying?
MF for landscapes, probably
pre-focussed MF for many sports and full MF for portraits
too. Gotta get those eyes sharp, sayeth all the masters.
Am I
Some of that cost is offset but lower flim use. With the larger format you tend
to work far more carefully and once you are experienced enough to really know
what you are doing film use can approach 1:1. I usually think of it in film
units. e.g. 1-8x10 = 2-5x7 = 4-4x5 = 8 t0 12-120 = 36-35mm.
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, graywolf wrote:
which punch holes in the negative. (Maybe there is a business opportunity there?
No, not in a town as small as this one.)
Mail order?
Kostas
Gonz wrote:
graywolf wrote:
Look, here, us folks in the boonies are already reduced to buying
BW, 120, and 4x5 via mail order. As long as there are a few stores
someplace in the world selling the stuff at anything near reasonable
prices, I and probably the other 10-15 serious photographers
One should never eschew an opportunity to use eschew. It's another
excellent word.
John
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 10:08:56 -0600, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are talking discipline in one post, and eschewing it in another.
William Robb
I knew someone would pickup on that. It's because the
This is much more information than we needed.
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Shooting a landscape with an SLR on a tripod is useful for the same
reason
as putting any camera on a tripod... stability
and
then adjust in any direction using the ball head. I have the grip ball
heads which makes the adjustment a one handed operation.
Tom C.
From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date
I've gone to digital and all manual focus by using A and M lenses with the *istD.
Nick
-Original Message-
From: Tom C[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 27/07/04 18:57:58
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Followup
William Robb wrote:
Tom, if you want discipline, find a dominatrix. :`)
My wife? :)
Seriously though, Rob is correct. You can take a disciplined approach
no matter what format of camera you are using, but you have to refuse
to take the shortcuts of convenience.
I agree.
However, you can do
- Original Message -
From: Peter J. Alling
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
This is much more information than we needed.
Sorry.
WW
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
I typically shoot in
two veins... one might be a landscape where everything is at
infinity... but
I also like wide angles where everything from 1 ft. to infinity is
in focus
(speaking in 35m
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
This is the heart of it. If I'm packing photo-kit for a a few weeks
or months
away and I envisage encompassing long bush treks, plane trips and
I'm not going
to be able to process film
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
why bother with MF (67)?? It is way too expensive.
Go to LF, it is way cheaper than P67 both cameras
and lenses and will blow away 67 for quality on
landscapes.
Huh? I recently checked prices for a LF system and it ways way out of my budged. The
67
On 27 Jul 2004 at 3:32, William Robb wrote:
I am in a fortunate position to have the choice of four formats,
depending on what I am shooting. If I had to choose only one, the
choice would be the 6x7. It isn't as strong in some areas, but is
very strong in others.
I have also heard it said
about the process (craft) as it is about the resulting image.
--
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
This is the heart of it. If I'm packing photo-kit for a a few weeks
or months
away and I envisage
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Tom C wrote:
You obviously have much more experience here than I. I typically shoot in
two veins... one might be a landscape where everything is at infinity... but
I also like wide angles where everything from 1 ft. to infinity is in focus
(speaking in 35m terms). How
Perhaps I will have to bribe you into coming to BC in September with
the offer to shoot both formats.
We could do our own little photo workshop...
William Robb
That might be doable... I'm close and and am always looking for an excuse to
go...
graywolf wrote:
Look, here, us folks in the boonies are already reduced to buying BW,
120, and 4x5 via mail order. As long as there are a few stores someplace
in the world selling the stuff at anything near reasonable prices, I and
probably the other 10-15 serious photographers here in town
Yep, except I would expect to pay almost 1/4 of the BIN for for the outfit in
that condition. Now if it had the Zeiss Ultima lens set (75mm Biogon, 135mm
Planar, 250mm Sonnar) that would be a real good deal. One of my life's regrets
is that I sold mine with the same lenses as this one back in
Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:39:46 -0600
From: John C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
4x5 is a far superior image quality SYSTEM, it is not because the
lenses are better, actually some of them are worse than the P67
lenses, it is just
-
From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 1:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
From: John C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
4x5 is a far superior image quality SYSTEM, it is not because
focus fast enough to action.
That is exact opposite of landscape photography.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 1:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Followup... actually I'd like
Hello Tom,
slowing down and thinking through the shot is a good thing to do. But
it doesn't require medium format to do it. Why are you using AF now? (at least
by your post, it sounds like you are) I only use AF in rare instances
no matter what body I shoot with. Fully controlling your shots
Allow me to aks the ultimate Mr. Clueless question. What's it like
doing color LF?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 7/26/2004 4:12:30 PM
Perhaps they are more gadget/equipment enthusiasts instead of image
enthusiasts?
Bruce
Monday, July 26, 2004, 12:35:59 PM, you wrote:
WR I still don't understand why
]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 2:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Allow me to aks the ultimate Mr. Clueless question. What's it like
doing color LF?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 7/26/2004 4:12:30 PM
Perhaps they are more gadget/equipment enthusiasts instead
... works especialy well with a ballhead IMO.
Tom C.
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:11:11 -0400
sure you CAN do landscape on a P67, but WHY?
LF is cheaper
Looks like the one a friend gave me that I then gave to my dad
Christian
-Original Message-
From: Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You mean like this one? :
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=30076item=3829210996rd=1
Its not a pentax, and it costs $3500 bucks so I hope I
. Therefore I'm looking for something different.
Tom C.
From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:16:38 -0700
Hello Tom,
slowing down and thinking through the shot
What do you scan with?
Tom C.
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:36:32 -0400
I'd like to comment.
I can say from experience it is great because with color
PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Autofocus works just fine for landscapes... more often so when focus is
at
infinity...
OK - here I'll argue a point just to hear myself...
Shooting a landscape with an SLR on a tripod is useful for the same
reason
as putting
What size prints are you making from the 4 x 5 negs?
Tom C.
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:36:32 -0400
I'd like to comment.
I can say from experience
: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:16:38 -0700
Hello Tom,
slowing down and thinking through the shot is a good thing to do. But
it doesn't require medium format to do it. Why are you using AF now? (at
least
by your post, it sounds like you are) I only use AF
, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
What do you scan with?
Tom C.
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:36:32 -0400
I'd like to comment.
I can say from experience
: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
What size prints are you making from the 4 x 5 negs?
Tom C.
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:36:32 -0400
I'd
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:52:45 -0400
SLR is less stable than non-SLR due to mirror movement.
That's why the mirror lock up feature exists. Any if
you are going to lock up mirror anyway, why bother
carrying
AF is for ACTION!! MF is for STATIC!
You buy AF to use it for ACTION, not landscapes.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 3:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Because I'm lazy
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
You are correct... I have never done LF firsthand, or MF for that
matter.
Here's the thing... let's say my personal Keeper shots/Shots taken
Ratio
is 1/36, or approximately one per roll (yeah
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Followup... actually I'd like to try 4 X 5. I do think one can
'craft' a
shot regardless of format. That's why I think going to a 67 and all
manual
focus will help in that regard.
Crafting
: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:52:45 -0400
SLR is less stable than non-SLR due to mirror movement.
That's why the mirror lock up feature exists. Any if
you are going to lock up mirror anyway, why bother
carrying around a big heavy camera with features you
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
I agree with your point but then again why buy an autofocus
camera body
and not use it?
Lets put this in perspective.
I bought myself a 600rpm 1/2 inch Makita drill, primarily for mixing
- Original Message -
From: Steve Desjardins
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Allow me to aks the ultimate Mr. Clueless question. What's it
like
doing color LF?
At the risk of sounding like an ass, much the same as black and
white, only with colour.
Seriously
: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 13:45:56 -0600
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
I agree with your point
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
It's the only other choice,
other than what
Frank does (does he ever focus a picture). snip
No.
-frank
PS: seriously, I'm thinking of buying a Holga. Do
away with focusing altogether. Why bother? g
=
The optimist thinks this is the best
From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The reason you buy an AF body is because that is the only way they
make DSLR's or 35mm SLRs or 645s.
Of course, why not leave the camera in P mode instead of controlling
it. You bought it with that feature, why not use it?
OK, that's fair based upon my
Tom,
Sorry for coming off the way I did. I have been reading the DPReview
forum too much recently and I get frustrated reading some of the
posts.
Having gone from 35mm to 67 myself, I am only trying to point out that
the things you are musing about MF/LF can be accomplished right now
with the
, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Autofocus works just fine for landscapes... more often so when focus is at
infinity...
OK - here I'll argue a point just to hear myself...
Shooting a landscape with an SLR on a tripod is useful for the same reason
as putting any camera on a tripod... stability
That's OK Bruce. Just keeping you honest. :) :)
You're absolutely correct that I could shoot that same way with the
equipment I have... I'm hoping that the reward of the larger format quality
combined with the forced manual operation will motivate me to improve.
Tom C.
Having gone from 35mm
with.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 7/27/2004 3:33:06 PM
- Original Message -
From: Steve Desjardins
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Allow me to aks the ultimate Mr. Clueless question. What's it
like
doing color LF?
At the risk of sounding like an ass, much the same as black
circumstances.
Tom C.
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 13:45:56 -0600
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
I
All you really have to do, Frank, is use a slower shutter speed. Motion blur
often looks intentional, out of focus seldom does.
--
frank theriault wrote:
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
It's the only other choice,
other than what
Frank does (does he ever focus a picture). snip
No.
un-camera
aided eye to determine what lens I want to use.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Autofocus works just fine for landscapes... more often so when focus is at
infinity...
OK - here I'll argue
On 27 Jul 2004 at 18:34, graywolf wrote:
In this day and age or zoom lenses you seldom see someone holding out their
hands as a composing device. However it still works quite well.
I still haven't got the new *ist D AOVs of my existing FFL lenses embedded in
my photo-preview system :-(
Rob
On 27 Jul 2004 at 11:57, Tom C wrote:
Followup... actually I'd like to try 4 X 5. I do think one can 'craft' a
shot regardless of format. That's why I think going to a 67 and all manual focus
will help in that regard.
I do think this format size vs composition argument is a placebo effect
I do think this format size vs composition argument is a placebo effect of
sorts, you can take the same time and care formatting a 110 film shot as a
10x8. I suspect it just boils down to what respect you have for the media
which
I guess is a function of cost per frame vs perceived enlargement
On 27 Jul 2004 at 17:28, William Robb wrote:
Not bizarre at all. In the context of what the conversation has
become, enlargement potential is pretty important.
The classic landscape photograph shows no grain detail as fine as the
eye can see, and ample depth of field.
While one could take
artifacts
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 7:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
On 27 Jul 2004 at 17:28, William Robb wrote:
Not bizarre at all. In the context of what
: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:31:59 -0600
I do think this format size vs composition argument is a placebo effect of
sorts, you can take the same time and care formatting
On 27 Jul 2004 at 17:50, Tom C wrote:
If AF is so bad... why are 99% of the cameras sold today AF? Why are there so
many abominable in focus snapshots (and there's nothing wrong with snapshots if
that's what one wants)?
Small f-stops mask imprecise focus. How many regular snapshots do you
: Pentax is Dying?
Responding to myself now... and I know someone will come in through the
back
door and beat me over the head with and how many of those photos do you
want hanging on your wall?.
If AF is so bad... why are 99% of the cameras sold today AF? Why are
there
so many abominable in focus
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:59:30 -0600, Tom C wrote:
I suspect that many times [AF] focuses better
than I would have/could have in certain circumstances.
I agree with that at the same time that I'm having a problem with where
it chooses to focus. I find that when shooting race cars, it often
the classic landscape photo is taken by someone who never enlarges the image
beyond 8x10.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Not bizarre
: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:31:59 -0600
I do think this format size vs composition argument is a placebo
effect of
sorts, you can take the same time and care formatting
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Bizarre yes... To me, if I'm going to spend a significant amount on
a camera
system... specifically to reap the benefits of a larger format...
with each
shot costing commensurately more... I
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Nobody said AF is bad, in fact it is great for some things
like action/sports, but for landscape it is best turned off
IMHO.
Twice in one day I am agreeing with JCO.
I think I have
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Responding to myself now... and I know someone will come in through
the back
door and beat me over the head with and how many of those photos
do you
want hanging on your wall?.
If AF is so bad
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
So you are alluding to the fact that the only way to present a
landscape is
large and grain free? I've personally seen some great landscape
images printed
quite large that were made
vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:13:19 -0600
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Not trying to be alarmist... it's just that *if* film dies out
quickly, I
will have wished I spent that money elsewhere
OH? I thought there were! But if you think $7-10K is too much for a camera, you
surely do not want to look at MF or LF digital. Which can only be afforded if
your customers are footing the bill, or you are truly wealthy.
--
Cotty wrote:
yeah but if MF had any future, there'd be a few MF digital
On 26 Jul 2004 at 22:05, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Yes the film holders can get heavy and bulky if you carry
dozens of them, but I have never shot more than about 20
exposures on an outing and that was all day. There is a
way around it though, carry readyloads or load film
holders in field, I
PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 10:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
On 26 Jul 2004 at 22:05, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Yes the film holders can get heavy and bulky if you carry dozens of
them, but I have never shot more than about 20
it depends on how many Sherpas or llamas you have with you.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 10:47 PM
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
This is the heart of it. If I'm packing
I wrote this about when film will die:
I think it will be when digital cameras can produce a sharper picture than
film can.
William Robb then replied:
That day has already arrived.
However, sharpness is only one criteria.
That day hasn't arrived in my experience. My experience is that if I
On 22 Jul 2004 at 9:33, Chris Stoddart wrote:
So are you suggesting that given a sufficient number of people, then even
in a saturated digital market there is still *SOME* room for film? Or is
it different math I have to do? :-)
Chris (happy 'cos there's ~60 million people in the UK!)
I
Wow...
A gelatine-based supermarket. Amazing!
Jostein
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
On 22 Jul 2004 at 9:33, Chris Stoddart wrote:
So
On 22 Jul 2004 at 9:50, Chris Stoddart wrote:
And I am honestly prepared to stand up here in a couple of years(?) and
say I was wrong if that's the case and I can't get film without
a struggle anymore. I'll be really, really disappointed that I can't
though.
I love shooting film (well that's
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Norm Baugher wrote:
Dude, there's around 20 million people in Tokyo. Do the math...
So are you suggesting that given a sufficient number of people, then even
in a saturated digital market there is still *SOME* room for film? Or is
it different math I have to do? :-)
Chris Stoddart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Rob Studdert wrote:
I think you also have to factor in the mentality too, there are probably 10:1
snappers in Japan vs the UK. I do expect that Japanese produced film will
remain viable there for a while but don't expect that it will
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Mark Roberts wrote:
will come down. One person I know in the camera business says he thinks
the reason manufacturers are replacing their 3MP digicams with
4MP-and-up versions is that they are expecting 3MP phone cameras to
become commonplace before too long.
I was
Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Mark Roberts wrote:
will come down. One person I know in the camera business says he thinks
the reason manufacturers are replacing their 3MP digicams with
4MP-and-up versions is that they are expecting 3MP phone cameras to
Look, here, us folks in the boonies are already reduced to buying BW, 120, and
4x5 via mail order. As long as there are a few stores someplace in the world
selling the stuff at anything near reasonable prices, I and probably the other
10-15 serious photographers here in town will continue to
I've never heard of one of those either, is it a sandwich?
Norm
graywolf wrote:
someone who is in the market for a plastic Timex probably never even
heard of a Patti-Phillip
Isn't Patti-Phillip a rock diva?
graywolf wrote:
Look, here, us folks in the boonies are already reduced to buying BW,
120, and 4x5 via mail order. As long as there are a few stores
someplace in the world selling the stuff at anything near reasonable
prices, I and probably the other 10-15
Like Pentak, Patek Philippe has had a tough time in the market of late,
but is looking forward to a turnaround:
http://www.fhs.ch/en/news/news.php?id=321PHPSESSID=19d3e81bacbbe71876387544d5b8dce6
Like Douglas Adams, I distain digital watches, but I prefer 50 year old
mechanical Breitlings to
Just bad spelling, or memory, on my part.
Patek Phillippe is what I meant.
http://www.patek.com/
And you thought cameras were expensive.
--
Norm Baugher wrote:
I've never heard of one of those either, is it a sandwich?
Norm
graywolf wrote:
someone who is in the market for a plastic Timex probably
]
Date: 7/22/2004 9:07:02 AM
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Another thing to think about, watches are all digital now. Except for
some
reason there are a few very expensive mechanical watches still made and
sold.
No, someone who is in the market for a plastic Timex
The prices of the new Breitlings are obscene. Some of the older models
can be reasonably affordable, however, especially the ones without gold
or heavy metal bands. They also hold their value better than cameras in
the same price range. . .
Keith Whaley wrote:
I would too, if I could afford
Hi,
Of course, it's really in the interest of camera manufacturers that film
does get the push, so they can sell new digital bodies
Yes, indeed. It's just the bodies that necessarily become redundant.
I'm rather hoping that some clever manufacturer like
Cosina/Voigtlander will realise
For the greatest bulk of we so-called photographers it really doesn't
matter.
When was the last time you looked at an 11x14 print from one of your
film images?
Now, YOU may have, but I'm trying to speak to the 'common man' photog
among us.
I certainly haven't!
When was the last time you took
Tom,
The problem with this thinking is that Bill is referring to the mass
market and you are referring to the hobbyist/pro market.
In the mass market, everything I see, hear and experience myself says
that digital PS's have basically surpassed 35mm PS's in getting a
better picture. Particularly
: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:31:20 -0700
Interesting dilemma - my hunch is that Portra and some form of pro
slide film will be available for some time for MF
though.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
True. But as I said, I heard this from someone in *in the camera
business* - in other words
On 22 Jul 2004 at 9:51, Jerry Todd wrote:
Speaking of digital watches, LaCie has a nice one that's recently come on
the market.
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10128
Ha ha, a cross-platform digital watch. LOL
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)
1 - 100 of 387 matches
Mail list logo
