RE: To AF or not to AF: was Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 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 only had the camera for a couple of months? I do just fine with my older cameras and my ZX-50.
To AF or not to AF: was Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Does anyone here have a high end Canon or Nikon (like a D2H or a 1D II)? I suspect that these AF systems are much better and may lead to more of a fire and forget mentality with a little practice. I MF a lot on my *ist D since I have some A lenses I really like, but when I do use AF I always use the single sensor setting and recompose. I also like to trap focus with some moving subjects. This wworks well with my A lenses set on AF. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7/31/2004 11:45:06 PM But even the 99% using an AF camera with good or great lens get it wrong more often than not. I have a number of shots taken by friends and relatives, waiters and fellow tourists, etc., with my AF cameras where they haven't realised that, if you AF on a space between your real subjects, you're not going to have them in focus! Camera shake is another issue: small and light cameras such as the MZ series need to be held firmly, not waved about like a fire-hose. It's horses for courses, guys: AF for, for example, flocks of lorikeets whizzing past (those little beggars go _fast_, and on unpredictable flight paths), 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. 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% 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% of camera buyers want no matter how much they spend on a camera. --
Re: To AF or not to AF: was Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 several times your eye is nowhere near its normal focus point. I was demonstrating my technique for quick focus with my MX (Matt+Grid screen in it) to a few folks at GFM. I guess it bares repeating here. First always turn your focus ring to one extreme or another when you lower your camera from your eye. Some folks back in the old days always argued for infinity, some for close-focus. I do not think that matters, in fact I turn all my lenses full counter-clockwise. What does matter is that you always instinctively know which direction you need to turn the ring to bring the image into focus. When you bring the camera to your eye turn the ring until the image is sharp. That is the sharpest focus you can get. Often it is faster than auto focus can do it. Do not over run that point. This I admit does take some practice. You expected something for nothing, maybe? You do need to work at it a bit. A point to notice is that you already know which way to turn the ring. Also after awhile you know approximately how far you are going to have to turn that ring, and you find you have it almost in focus before the camera gets to your eye. Remember this important rule: Only fiddle when Rome is burning (Sorry). -- William Robb wrote: - Original Message - Do you have the diopter correctly adjusted? Don't over analyze focus. When it looks sharp, take the picture. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: To AF or not to AF: was Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 focus on. Anyway, at this point the screen is in focus. Since you actually are focusing the image on the screen, not the subject, it should also now be sharp. Simple as that. -- Amita Guha wrote: Do you have the diopter correctly adjusted? Hmm...not sure. How do I know if it's adjusted properly? Don't over analyze focus. When it looks sharp, take the picture. Yep, I've been doing that, and even when I think I'm right, it turns out I'm not. But I'll try adjusting the diopter. Thanks for the tip. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: To AF or not to AF: was Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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: 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? I use manual focus most of the time on the *ist D also, I think even more than I do with my AF film SLRs. I find its screen very easy to focus with. (Using, most of the time, the 28-70 f/4) ERN
To AF or not to AF: was Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
But even the 99% using an AF camera with good or great lens get it wrong more often than not. I have a number of shots taken by friends and relatives, waiters and fellow tourists, etc., with my AF cameras where they haven't realised that, if you AF on a space between your real subjects, you're not going to have them in focus! Camera shake is another issue: small and light cameras such as the MZ series need to be held firmly, not waved about like a fire-hose. It's horses for courses, guys: AF for, for example, flocks of lorikeets whizzing past (those little beggars go _fast_, and on unpredictable flight paths), 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. 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% 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% of camera buyers want no matter how much they spend on a camera. --
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 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 only had the camera for a couple of months? I do just fine with my older cameras and my ZX-50.
Re: To AF or not to AF: was Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 pre-focussed MF for many sports and full MF for portraits too. Gotta get those eyes sharp, sayeth all the masters. 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.
Re: To AF or not to AF: was Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
- 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 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 only had the camera for a couple of months? I do just fine with my older cameras and my ZX-50. Do you have the diopter correctly adjusted? Don't over analyze focus. When it looks sharp, take the picture. William Robb
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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. That means the actual cost of all of them film wise is about the same. Of course if a film unit costs you $48nz in 4x5 and $20nz in 6x7 as you indicate then you have a problem. I have to develop my own 4x5 bw now because the few places I can get it processed know they have no competetion and charge $5us a sheet. It actually costs me about 25 cents a sheet to do it myself and I do not process with clips which punch holes in the negative. (Maybe there is a business opportunity there? No, not in a town as small as this one.) -- David Mann wrote: On Jul 28, 2004, at 6:11 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: sure you CAN do landscape on a P67, but WHY? In my case, it's because 4x5 is very expensive. Last time I checked the film and processing costs NZ$12 per sheet. Compare that with 6x7 at NZ$2 a shot, and 35mm at about NZ$1. There are other reasons why I didn't buy a 4x5 rig but the ongoing cost is the main one. It's a pity really as the lack of movements on a Pentax 67 can be a real hassle. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 here in town will continue to use the stuff. The snapshooters will quit when they can not get it at the local Wal-Mart, that seems to be coming real soon now, just as they quit using their Box Brownies when they could no longer get 620 at the local drug store. And the folks that buy digital will sneer at film cameras, just as we did at those Box Brownies when I was a kid. Nothing has changed any more than it did in the past. 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 probably never even heard of a Patti-Phillip, but that does not mean there is no market for them. No, you modern guys go digital. I will continue to use film (except eventually for snapshots), only wishing I still had my Linhof Super Technika, and Rolleiflex 2.8E-2; or could afford to replace them. For those who have never had the pleasure of using top of the line mechanical cameras from the late 50's, I feel sorry. Build quality has just never been up to that level since. You mean like this one? : http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=30076item=3829210996rd=1 Yeikes... Its not a pentax, and it costs $3500 bucks so I hope I haven't violated the spirit of the FAQ! Wow though, nice setup. rg
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 thread took two divergent paths. My tongue isn't forked, really. Tom C. -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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... a more deliberate composition... works especialy well with a ballhead IMO. I hate ball heads... Maybe it's because my own head looks like one. WW
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Actually... not to disagree with William, I love ball heads... the Bogen tripod I usually use has the legs that can extend at different angles and of course variable length. With a ball head I don't care that my tripod is perfectly level... I waste no time with that anymore... I get it close 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: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:02:29 -0400 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... a more deliberate composition... works especialy well with a ballhead IMO. I hate ball heads... Maybe it's because my own head looks like one. WW
RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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... 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. Tom C. From: 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 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 that the film size is so big you don't need as much lens resolution to end up overall much sharper than P67. Add to that the fact that film grain is way less visible with the bigger negs and 4x5 pretty much destroys p67 for landscape photography. I don't mean to sound harsh but your reply seems to be based on all the classic myths and sterotypes associated with LF by people who have never done any LF photography. JCO 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, if I'm lucky). If I go out and shoot 100 frames of 35mm, I might come back with 3 keepers. If I were to only take 20 images on an outing I could come back with nothing worth keeping... what % of your 4 x 5 shots are throwaway? Tom C.
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 everything right with 35mm or small format digital (best lenses, rock stable tripod, etc) and still be wasting your time if the format isn't giving you what you want. I agree. A 6x7II isn't going to force much discipline on you, it still allows for auto exposure. Personally, I don't find much difference between using a metered-manual vs. auto exposure mode. In either case I'm largely relying on the meter to tell me when exposure is correct, for the shutter speed and/or aperture I've chosen. I suppose some would say a meter is an unwelcome imposition of technology. :) It will force you to focus the lens yourself, and thats about it. It will teach you to shoot with fewer focal length opportunities, which is something both useful and frustrating. Most of the discipline it will teach you is similar to what you would get on a forced march: carrying a heavy weight over a long distance. I don't know unless I try it right? Think I'll go watch The Bridge Over the River Kwai... Tom C.
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
- 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
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
- 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 terms). How does a P67 and available lenses hold up in this regard? I honestly haven't done much research... I assumed I could shoot pretty much the same in any format given the right lens... The everything at infinity is an easy task for the 6x7, as with any camera system. Its when you want to juxtapose a close object with a far away one that problems arise. There just isn't as much depth of field available with medium format. The 45mm is pretty well it for wide angles, after that, you are in fisheye territory. The 45mm has an angle of view on the 6x7 similar to that of a 24mm on 35mm film. However, depth of field is still that of a 50mm lens, more or less. 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
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
- 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 on-location etc then there is no way in the world I would consider an LF kit over my MF set-up regardless of the absolute resolution. Would you? My first Utah! excursion, I took my 6x7 and about 100 rolls of PanF. Shot about 60 rolls of film in a couple of weeks, and had a grand time. Later discovered that the film was defective, and the emulsion had a bunch of pinholes in it. So it goes. Not long afterwards, I got my first view camera. A Burke James Orbit monorail. I think it weighed about 16 pounds. The steel that the standards were made from was about 1/8 inch. Stupidly heavy camera. I took it on my next road trip and damn near killed myself hauling the sucker around. However, I did learn that I really did like 4x5, so I bought the Tachihara. The BJ was a lovely studio camera, but not so good outside. The Tachihara is a wonderful field camera, and adequate in the studio. My next Utah! trip, I took the Tachihara kit, a bunch of sheet film in one box, and another box with empty film boxes labeled N, N-, N+, N--, and N++. Man, was I organized. Oh yes, and a fancy Calumet changing tent went along for the ride. The 4x5 was way higher maintenance than the 6x7, since I was changing film at least once per day, often on the side of the road at a picnic table, and nightly in my tent. I have since done several road trips with the 4x5, and some with the 6x7. From a pure user POV, the 6x7 is much easier to deal with. It's pretty easy to knock off 10 shots on one particular scene, in fact with 4x5 I always shoot at least 2 sheets and often 4 or more of any given view anyway. However, the 4x5 is much nicer to use, and for landscapes, is much easier as well. 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. There is no doubt that large format gives a better picture, it is debatable as to how much better it is at reasonable enlargement sizes, say 11x14 or smaller, with the presumption that the viewer is looking at the picture from a normal viewing distance, and not 4 inches. Again, it all comes down to what one is willing to compromise, and what one needs from a camera system. I have heard it said that medium format is the worst of all compromises, since it has neither the portability of 35mm, nor the ultimate imaging quality of large format. I have also heard it said that it is the best compromise, since it has better portability than large format, and much better imaging than 35mm. I couldn't decide, so I bought both. William Robb
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 is not Pål
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 that it is the best compromise, since it has better portability than large format, and much better imaging than 35mm. I couldn't decide, so I bought both. Har, I've remained sane enough to resist temptation. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
All of this is kind of interesting. Let's see, I have had everything from 16mm (Minolta Subminiture camera) to 4x5, with stops at 1/2 frame 35mm, 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9. In 4x5 I have had 2 Graphics (one currently) and a Linhof Super Technica, plus I have used various monorail cameras. I have always wanting a Minox. And would like a 5x7 field camera, or even an old old 5x7 Speed Graphic (handheld 5x7 what a lark that would be). Anyway, one of the things I like about sheet film is the feeling that you are crafting each photograft individually from start to finish. That is something I have never gotten from roll film, and the more shots per roll the farther away the feeling gets. Now if you need to give an editor a lot of choices so he can feel creative, 35mm or digital is the way to go. For consumer customers who feel that they are getting more for their money if they have lots of proofs to choose from roll film has been the choice for many years. But when I am making a photo for myself, as a hobby, there is just something about crafting each photograph individually that appeals to me. Of course, as I have said before, to me photography as a hobby is every bit as much 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 encompassing long bush treks, plane trips and I'm not going to be able to process film on-location etc then there is no way in the world I would consider an LF kit over my MF set-up regardless of the absolute resolution. Would you? My first Utah! excursion, I took my 6x7 and about 100 rolls of PanF. Shot about 60 rolls of film in a couple of weeks, and had a grand time. Later discovered that the film was defective, and the emulsion had a bunch of pinholes in it. So it goes. Not long afterwards, I got my first view camera. A Burke James Orbit monorail. I think it weighed about 16 pounds. The steel that the standards were made from was about 1/8 inch. Stupidly heavy camera. I took it on my next road trip and damn near killed myself hauling the sucker around. However, I did learn that I really did like 4x5, so I bought the Tachihara. The BJ was a lovely studio camera, but not so good outside. The Tachihara is a wonderful field camera, and adequate in the studio. My next Utah! trip, I took the Tachihara kit, a bunch of sheet film in one box, and another box with empty film boxes labeled N, N-, N+, N--, and N++. Man, was I organized. Oh yes, and a fancy Calumet changing tent went along for the ride. The 4x5 was way higher maintenance than the 6x7, since I was changing film at least once per day, often on the side of the road at a picnic table, and nightly in my tent. I have since done several road trips with the 4x5, and some with the 6x7. From a pure user POV, the 6x7 is much easier to deal with. It's pretty easy to knock off 10 shots on one particular scene, in fact with 4x5 I always shoot at least 2 sheets and often 4 or more of any given view anyway. However, the 4x5 is much nicer to use, and for landscapes, is much easier as well. 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. There is no doubt that large format gives a better picture, it is debatable as to how much better it is at reasonable enlargement sizes, say 11x14 or smaller, with the presumption that the viewer is looking at the picture from a normal viewing distance, and not 4 inches. Again, it all comes down to what one is willing to compromise, and what one needs from a camera system. I have heard it said that medium format is the worst of all compromises, since it has neither the portability of 35mm, nor the ultimate imaging quality of large format. I have also heard it said that it is the best compromise, since it has better portability than large format, and much better imaging than 35mm. I couldn't decide, so I bought both. William Robb -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 does a P67 and available lenses hold up in this regard? I honestly haven't done much research... I assumed I could shoot pretty much the same in any format given the right lens... am I a dufus? Yes? (Well OK then). You've got wide angles in 6x7 (just as you have with LF). The Pentax 55mm f/4 67 (approx 28mm equiv on 35mm film) lens is quite often regarded as one of the finest lenses they have ever produced. The 45mm f/4 67 (approx 21mm equiv) is no slouch either. Where there is a drawback is that a 55mm lens on a 67 has the same depth of field as a 55mm lens on a 35mm camera (of course). So although the field of view of the 55mm lens on a 67 is (approximately) the same as a 28mm lens on 35mm film, the huge DOF of your 28mm lens just ain't there. You have to stop down a long way on the 55mm to get a good DOF. The situation is even worse on LF, where a typical wide-angle might be 90mm with the same DOF as your equivalent 35mm portrait lens. However, LF camera has movements and can 'cheat' to put the film plane where the focus is (putting it very non-technically and I am sure incorrectly). Chris
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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...
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 will continue to use the stuff. The snapshooters will quit when they can not get it at the local Wal-Mart, that seems to be coming real soon now, just as they quit using their Box Brownies when they could no longer get 620 at the local drug store. And the folks that buy digital will sneer at film cameras, just as we did at those Box Brownies when I was a kid. Nothing has changed any more than it did in the past. 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 probably never even heard of a Patti-Phillip, but that does not mean there is no market for them. No, you modern guys go digital. I will continue to use film (except eventually for snapshots), only wishing I still had my Linhof Super Technika, and Rolleiflex 2.8E-2; or could afford to replace them. For those who have never had the pleasure of using top of the line mechanical cameras from the late 50's, I feel sorry. Build quality has just never been up to that level since. 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 haven't violated the spirit of the FAQ! Wow though, nice setup. rg
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 the 80's. Would not be so bad if I could afford to replace it. -- Gonz wrote: graywolf wrote: No, you modern guys go digital. I will continue to use film (except eventually for snapshots), only wishing I still had my Linhof Super Technika, and Rolleiflex 2.8E-2; or could afford to replace them. For those who have never had the pleasure of using top of the line mechanical cameras from the late 50's, I feel sorry. Build quality has just never been up to that level since. 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 haven't violated the spirit of the FAQ! Wow though, nice setup. rg -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
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. Tom C. From: 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 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 that the film size is so big you don't need as much lens resolution to end up overall much sharper than P67. Add to that the fact that film grain is way less visible with the bigger negs and 4x5 pretty much destroys p67 for landscape photography. I don't mean to sound harsh but your reply seems to be based on all the classic myths and sterotypes associated with LF by people who have never done any LF photography. JCO 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, if I'm lucky). If I go out and shoot 100 frames of 35mm, I might come back with 3 keepers. If I were to only take 20 images on an outing I could come back with nothing worth keeping... what % of your 4 x 5 shots are throwaway? Tom C.
RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
I don't throw away any of my LF Negs, I just don't scan/print them all! Because of the time it takes to set up shots on a tripod, I often get picky as to when I fire the shutter waiting for correct elements and lighting etc. I also tend to double and triple check everything technical like focus, metering and exposure settings and camera leveling, etc so the technical flaws are almost zero. When I grab shoot in 35mm I also get very few keepers, for a lot of reasons, but with landscapes on LF it is different, much higher percentage of getting what you are after. JCO -Original Message- 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 the lenses are better, actually some of them are worse than the P67 lenses, it is just that the film size is so big you don't need as much lens resolution to end up overall much sharper than P67. Add to that the fact that film grain is way less visible with the bigger negs and 4x5 pretty much destroys p67 for landscape photography. I don't mean to sound harsh but your reply seems to be based on all the classic myths and sterotypes associated with LF by people who have never done any LF photography. JCO 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, if I'm lucky). If I go out and shoot 100 frames of 35mm, I might come back with 3 keepers. If I were to only take 20 images on an outing I could come back with nothing worth keeping... what % of your 4 x 5 shots are throwaway? Tom C.
RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
sure you CAN do landscape on a P67, but WHY? LF is cheaper and better and lighter. Using an SLR for landscape when the camera is fixed on a tripod doesn't make much sense to me. Of course you would use manual focus regardless of format. Autofocus is for grab shots when you are in a hurry or cant 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 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. Tom C. From: 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 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 that the film size is so big you don't need as much lens resolution to end up overall much sharper than P67. Add to that the fact that film grain is way less visible with the bigger negs and 4x5 pretty much destroys p67 for landscape photography. I don't mean to sound harsh but your reply seems to be based on all the classic myths and sterotypes associated with LF by people who have never done any LF photography. JCO 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, if I'm lucky). If I go out and shoot 100 frames of 35mm, I might come back with 3 keepers. If I were to only take 20 images on an outing I could come back with nothing worth keeping... what % of your 4 x 5 shots are throwaway? Tom C.
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 is a good thing, but can be done in 35mm just as well as 67 or 4X5. Shooting an MX is just about the same experience as shooting a 67 (I've done both). -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, July 27, 2004, 10:57:58 AM, you wrote: TC Followup... actually I'd like to try 4 X 5. I do think one can 'craft' a TC shot regardless of format. That's why I think going to a 67 and all manual TC focus will help in that regard. TC Tom C.
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 of image enthusiasts? Bruce Monday, July 26, 2004, 12:35:59 PM, you wrote: WR I still don't understand why more enthusiasts don't shoot with medium WR format. Most everyone seems married to the concept that 35mm is the WR way to go, and don't even consider larger formats. WR I think this is a mistake. WR As an enthusiast/hobby format, 6x7 can't be beat. It has many of the WR advantages of 35mm, with the advantage of lots more real estate. WR William Robb
RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
I'd like to comment. I can say from experience it is great because with color negative film the film resolution is not as good as BW and the grain is worse than BW so by going to LF with color, those limitations are nearly completely eliminated. What I do is shoot 4x5 color neg, develop negs, scan negs, and print myself at home. NO LABS involved. It is easy to do it all and the results are beautiful. I never use to do color LF until I discovered how easy and inexpensive it is to develop c-41 LF at home. JCO -Original Message- From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 of image enthusiasts? Bruce Monday, July 26, 2004, 12:35:59 PM, you wrote: WR I still don't understand why more enthusiasts don't shoot with medium WR format. Most everyone seems married to the concept that 35mm is the WR way to go, and don't even consider larger formats. WR I think this is a mistake. WR As an enthusiast/hobby format, 6x7 can't be beat. It has many of the WR advantages of 35mm, with the advantage of lots more real estate. WR William Robb
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 any camera on a tripod... stability... a more deliberate composition... 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 and better and lighter. Using an SLR for landscape when the camera is fixed on a tripod doesn't make much sense to me. Of course you would use manual focus regardless of format. Autofocus is for grab shots when you are in a hurry or cant 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 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. Tom C. From: 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 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 that the film size is so big you don't need as much lens resolution to end up overall much sharper than P67. Add to that the fact that film grain is way less visible with the bigger negs and 4x5 pretty much destroys p67 for landscape photography. I don't mean to sound harsh but your reply seems to be based on all the classic myths and sterotypes associated with LF by people who have never done any LF photography. JCO 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, if I'm lucky). If I go out and shoot 100 frames of 35mm, I might come back with 3 keepers. If I were to only take 20 images on an outing I could come back with nothing worth keeping... what % of your 4 x 5 shots are throwaway? Tom C.
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 haven't violated the spirit of the FAQ! Wow though, nice setup. rg
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
I use AF in the same manner and mode as I would manually focus camera... also I generally am in AF mode because it saves time on those occasions (wildlife) where you may not have time to compose and focus before the moment is lost. In general I find shots ruined because of poor focus are roughly the same between using AF and ManF, for myself. I'm generally very deliberate and slow in composing a shot... However, in the back of my mind I believe AF can hamper that... With a 67 I won't have a choice... I have an MX as well... I'm finding little desire to shoot 35mm since the *ist D. 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 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 is a good thing, but can be done in 35mm just as well as 67 or 4X5. Shooting an MX is just about the same experience as shooting a 67 (I've done both). -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, July 27, 2004, 10:57:58 AM, you wrote: TC Followup... actually I'd like to try 4 X 5. I do think one can 'craft' a TC shot regardless of format. That's why I think going to a 67 and all manual TC focus will help in that regard. TC Tom C.
RE: Film vs Digita, 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 it is great because with color negative film the film resolution is not as good as BW and the grain is worse than BW so by going to LF with color, those limitations are nearly completely eliminated. What I do is shoot 4x5 color neg, develop negs, scan negs, and print myself at home. NO LABS involved. It is easy to do it all and the results are beautiful. I never use to do color LF until I discovered how easy and inexpensive it is to develop c-41 LF at home. JCO -Original Message- From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 of image enthusiasts? Bruce Monday, July 26, 2004, 12:35:59 PM, you wrote: WR I still don't understand why more enthusiasts don't shoot with medium WR format. Most everyone seems married to the concept that 35mm is the WR way to go, and don't even consider larger formats. WR I think this is a mistake. WR As an enthusiast/hobby format, 6x7 can't be beat. It has many of the WR advantages of 35mm, with the advantage of lots more real estate. WR William Robb
RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 don't want / need. If you know you want infinity focus, why not just set it manually and eliminate the possibiliy of the dumb camera making a mistake? I would never use AF for landscapes there is no rush so why not make sure focus is correct by doing it manually? JCO -Original Message- From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 2:32 PM To: [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 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... a more deliberate composition... 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 and better and lighter. Using an SLR for landscape when the camera is fixed on a tripod doesn't make much sense to me. Of course you would use manual focus regardless of format. Autofocus is for grab shots when you are in a hurry or cant 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 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. Tom C. From: 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 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 that the film size is so big you don't need as much lens resolution to end up overall much sharper than P67. Add to that the fact that film grain is way less visible with the bigger negs and 4x5 pretty much destroys p67 for landscape photography. I don't mean to sound harsh but your reply seems to be based on all the classic myths and sterotypes associated with LF by people who have never done any LF photography. JCO 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, if I'm lucky). If I go out and shoot 100 frames of 35mm, I might come back with 3 keepers. If I were to only take 20 images on an outing I could come back with nothing worth keeping... what % of your 4 x 5 shots are throwaway? Tom C.
RE: 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 like to comment. I can say from experience it is great because with color negative film the film resolution is not as good as BW and the grain is worse than BW so by going to LF with color, those limitations are nearly completely eliminated. What I do is shoot 4x5 color neg, develop negs, scan negs, and print myself at home. NO LABS involved. It is easy to do it all and the results are beautiful. I never use to do color LF until I discovered how easy and inexpensive it is to develop c-41 LF at home. JCO -Original Message- From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 of image enthusiasts? Bruce Monday, July 26, 2004, 12:35:59 PM, you wrote: WR I still don't understand why more enthusiasts don't shoot with medium WR format. Most everyone seems married to the concept that 35mm is the WR way to go, and don't even consider larger formats. WR I think this is a mistake. WR As an enthusiast/hobby format, 6x7 can't be beat. It has many of the WR advantages of 35mm, with the advantage of lots more real estate. WR William Robb
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Hello Tom, Sounds like to me, you ought to just turn AF off on your *istD. That is what I am shooting - almost never have AF on. If you are trying to be prepared for that fleeting moment by having AF on, your hit rate is going to be low. It has nothing to do with the format - just a frame of mind. One thing to consider - AF for me tends to weaken/spoil my composition - the reason is that focusing is one of the last steps, rather than the first step. By focus locking, I tend to not really explore the image very well. I find that setting composition, then exposure and lastly, focusing works much better. I will move the focus back and forth looking for the exact spot that I want the plane of focus to be on. It might be a specific feature of the landscape that stands out better or a feature of face (not just the eyeball). Along with that, AF is rather imprecise at times (AF target is too large). Try setting the *istD to all manual everything and go out and shoot for awhile. You will have a whole new experience and I suspect your hit rate will go up. You will have decided what you are trying to capture before shooting rather than after. The technique is the same whether shooting APS, 35mm, MF or LF. -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, July 27, 2004, 11:45:15 AM, you wrote: TC I use AF in the same manner and mode as I would manually focus camera... TC also I generally am in AF mode because it saves time on those occasions TC (wildlife) where you may not have time to compose and focus before the TC moment is lost. In general I find shots ruined because of poor focus are TC roughly the same between using AF and ManF, for myself. TC I'm generally very deliberate and slow in composing a shot... However, in TC the back of my mind I believe AF can hamper that... With a 67 I won't have a TC choice... TC I have an MX as well... I'm finding little desire to shoot 35mm since the TC *ist D. Therefore I'm looking for something different. TC 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 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 is a good thing, but can be done in 35mm just as well as 67 or 4X5. Shooting an MX is just about the same experience as shooting a 67 (I've done both). -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, July 27, 2004, 10:57:58 AM, you wrote: TC Followup... actually I'd like to try 4 X 5. I do think one can 'craft' a TC shot regardless of format. That's why I think going to a 67 and all manual TC focus will help in that regard. TC Tom C.
RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
I have used both Epson 2450 and Epson 3200 for 4x5 negs but let me tell you a trick. With LF, the negs are big enuff that you seldom need to scan at anything more than about 2000ppi. The only time I do is if I was using a absolutely killer lens on the camera ( I have a few ) or I will be cropping the image severely or making a poster sized print I might scan at 3200 ppi but even then that seems like overkill, you rarely are gaining details at that scan resolution with LF unless the lens was REALLY REALLY good and the film is a slow real fine grain high reslotion type. With BW LF I'll scan at 3200 more often, but not color film. I have been shooting Kodak 160 Portra NC mostly for LF including landscapes. Nice, well behaved film. JCO -Original Message- From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 2:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, 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 it is great because with color negative film the film resolution is not as good as BW and the grain is worse than BW so by going to LF with color, those limitations are nearly completely eliminated. What I do is shoot 4x5 color neg, develop negs, scan negs, and print myself at home. NO LABS involved. It is easy to do it all and the results are beautiful. I never use to do color LF until I discovered how easy and inexpensive it is to develop c-41 LF at home. JCO -Original Message- From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 of image enthusiasts? Bruce Monday, July 26, 2004, 12:35:59 PM, you wrote: WR I still don't understand why more enthusiasts don't shoot with medium WR format. Most everyone seems married to the concept that 35mm is the WR way to go, and don't even consider larger formats. WR I think this is a mistake. WR As an enthusiast/hobby format, 6x7 can't be beat. It has many of the WR advantages of 35mm, with the advantage of lots more real estate. WR William Robb
RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
mostly 8x10 and 11x17 at home. But I can go much larger if I want with digital labs since my files are in the 80 Mpixel range to support large prints. JCO -Original Message- From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 2:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 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 like to comment. I can say from experience it is great because with color negative film the film resolution is not as good as BW and the grain is worse than BW so by going to LF with color, those limitations are nearly completely eliminated. What I do is shoot 4x5 color neg, develop negs, scan negs, and print myself at home. NO LABS involved. It is easy to do it all and the results are beautiful. I never use to do color LF until I discovered how easy and inexpensive it is to develop c-41 LF at home. JCO -Original Message- From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 of image enthusiasts? Bruce Monday, July 26, 2004, 12:35:59 PM, you wrote: WR I still don't understand why more enthusiasts don't shoot with medium WR format. Most everyone seems married to the concept that 35mm is the WR way to go, and don't even consider larger formats. WR I think this is a mistake. WR As an enthusiast/hobby format, 6x7 can't be beat. It has many of the WR advantages of 35mm, with the advantage of lots more real estate. WR William Robb
RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Because I'm lazy, and then when I wanted that quick 1-chance shot I'll have forgottem the camera was in manual focus mode and blow it. I agree with your point but then again why buy an autofocus camera body and not use it? 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 14:52:45 -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 don't want / need. If you know you want infinity focus, why not just set it manually and eliminate the possibiliy of the dumb camera making a mistake? I would never use AF for landscapes there is no rush so why not make sure focus is correct by doing it manually? JCO -Original Message- From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 2:32 PM To: [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 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... a more deliberate composition... 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 and better and lighter. Using an SLR for landscape when the camera is fixed on a tripod doesn't make much sense to me. Of course you would use manual focus regardless of format. Autofocus is for grab shots when you are in a hurry or cant 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 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. Tom C. From: 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 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 that the film size is so big you don't need as much lens resolution to end up overall much sharper than P67. Add to that the fact that film grain is way less visible with the bigger negs and 4x5 pretty much destroys p67 for landscape photography. I don't mean to sound harsh but your reply seems to be based on all the classic myths and sterotypes associated with LF by people who have never done any LF photography. JCO 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, if I'm lucky). If I go out and shoot 100 frames of 35mm, I might come back with 3 keepers. If I were to only take 20 images on an outing I could come back with nothing worth keeping... what % of your 4 x 5 shots are throwaway? Tom C.
RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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, and then when I wanted that quick 1-chance shot I'll have forgottem the camera was in manual focus mode and blow it. I agree with your point but then again why buy an autofocus camera body and not use it? 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 14:52:45 -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 don't want / need. If you know you want infinity focus, why not just set it manually and eliminate the possibiliy of the dumb camera making a mistake? I would never use AF for landscapes there is no rush so why not make sure focus is correct by doing it manually? JCO -Original Message- From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 2:32 PM To: [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 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... a more deliberate composition... 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 and better and lighter. Using an SLR for landscape when the camera is fixed on a tripod doesn't make much sense to me. Of course you would use manual focus regardless of format. Autofocus is for grab shots when you are in a hurry or cant 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 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. Tom C. From: 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 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 that the film size is so big you don't need as much lens resolution to end up overall much sharper than P67. Add to that the fact that film grain is way less visible with the bigger negs and 4x5 pretty much destroys p67 for landscape photography. I don't mean to sound harsh but your reply seems to be based on all the classic myths and sterotypes associated with LF by people who have never done any LF photography. JCO 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, if I'm lucky). If I go out and shoot 100 frames of 35mm, I might come back with 3 keepers. If I were to only take 20 images on an outing I could come back with nothing worth keeping... what % of your 4 x 5 shots are throwaway? Tom C.
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
- 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, if I'm lucky). If I go out and shoot 100 frames of 35mm, I might come back with 3 keepers. If I were to only take 20 images on an outing I could come back with nothing worth keeping... what % of your 4 x 5 shots are throwaway? My keeper ratio is as follows (more or less): digital: 1 in I haven't got there yet in 4500 exposures. 35mm: probably a couple per roll of 36. 120: I think I am hitting about 30%. 4x5: close to 50%. Note this is not exposures, but pictures. I bracket a lot, and shoot multiple sheets or frames of the same scene quite often. If you count actual exposures, I am probably 1 in 6 with large format. The tendency seems to be to shoot a lot more with digital, but not shoot as carefully. I suspect there is a price per picture issue at play here. At the dog show, I shot something like 800 pictures in 3 days on the digital. Had I been shooting 35mm film, I doubt I would have shot more than a couple of hundred pictures. As the size of the equipment increases, one tends to take more care with the niceties of composition (note, I do not compose pictures), as you tend to be working off a tripod more, and the work is slower. With 4x5, it is a real pleasure to just look at the screen, so I tend to stay under the hood a bit longer checking out the corners and whatnot where most of the unwanted surprises happen. Something else that occured to me is that the lack of a built in meter may play a part in increasing the hit ratio I experience. With the veiw camera, I am using a spot meter, which means that I am actually examining the scene several times, and have found on more than one occassion that some aspect of the scene that went unnoticed during composition has shown up during metering, be it something ugly that I missed, or even just something that wants to be taken into account with exposure and/or development. Regarding enlargability, look at the size of print you want to make. The extra size of sheet film is not really an advantage until print sizes larger than 11x14 are being made. The difference in grain is just plain not visible on the print at this size and smaller, although the tonality of sheet film is always somewhat better than 6x7, and I expect would be better still than 645, which has about half the image area as 6x7. The above relates more to black and white than colour, as BW is much less forgiving in this regard. If you tend to shoot colour, the differences are somewhat lessened (though still there) just by the nature of the beast. A good compromise for the colour shooter might be a small field camera or one of the student monorails and a roll film back. You get a lot of the advantages of the view camera, and a lot of the convenience of the medium format camera. Wide angles are a bit of a challenge. The widest lens I have for the 4x5 is a 65mm. Quite wide on the 4x5, not so wide on 6x7 though. A blend of sheet film for the really wide stuff and roll film for more mormal and telephoto might make a nice combination, and really cut back on the number of film holders you are lugging around. I tend to backpack my equipment some distance from the car. The last thing I want is to run out of film before I run out of pictures. Unlike many lucky people, the part of the world I live in is not a landscape photographers dream. I have to travel some distance to get to the pictures I want to bring home. I don't want to drive 4 or 5 days and walk another 4 or 5 hours with 35 pounds of gear to get someplace nice, only to run out of loaded film, and have it sitting in the car, 10 miles the other way. This may colour my outlook on the number of film holders one wants to carry. I don't think it is possible to have too many film holders loaded and with you. And they do add up to a significant weight. Probably 3/4 of the weight of my field camera bag is film holders. The camera only weighs a few pounds, and the lenses don't add up to much either. The Pentax 6x7 is a rather porcine camera system. It is not lightweight. If you want lightweight, and stay with roll film, look at the 645 or 6x6 systems. They are all much more compact, and still provide a lot of imaging advantages over 35mm. I have printed a number of negatives taken with Hasselblad over the years, and I can attest that the lenses are superb. I don't know how the Pentax 645 lenses stack up, but they would have to go a long way to beat the Hassy glass. William Robb
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
- 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 a photograph, by definition, implies that all the decisions are made by the photographer. Manual focus and manual exposure fit the criteria. One of the things about large format that really helps the craftsman is that the product itself lends itself to more craftmanship. Each sheet (each exposure) can be custom processed. This is a huge advantage over roll film, where you sometimes find yourself splitting the difference between what you want to process for different shots on the same roll. Having a camera with interchangable backs gives much of this back to the photographer, since you can have one back for normal processing, one for extended processing, one for contracted processing, etc. William Robb
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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? How often have you actually got that quick 1-chance shot that was a real great shot? Seems that making all the other planned shots suffer for it a bit odd. If you were walking around with a 67 or 4X5, you are not going to try to get those type of shots (I question how good they are going to be anyway), so why not just apply the same thought process to what you already have? On top of that, the satisfaction of creating your shot is much greater than the feeling of being lucky to run into a shot that your camera did all the work for. -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, July 27, 2004, 12:05:56 PM, you wrote: TC Because I'm lazy, and then when I wanted that quick 1-chance shot I'll have TC forgottem the camera was in manual focus mode and blow it. TC I agree with your point but then again why buy an autofocus camera body TC and not use it? TC 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 14:52:45 -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 don't want / need. If you know you want infinity focus, why not just set it manually and eliminate the possibiliy of the dumb camera making a mistake? I would never use AF for landscapes there is no rush so why not make sure focus is correct by doing it manually? JCO -Original Message- From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 2:32 PM To: [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 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... a more deliberate composition... 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 and better and lighter. Using an SLR for landscape when the camera is fixed on a tripod doesn't make much sense to me. Of course you would use manual focus regardless of format. Autofocus is for grab shots when you are in a hurry or cant 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 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. Tom C. From: 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 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 that the film size is so big you don't need as much lens resolution to end up overall much sharper than P67. Add to that the fact that film grain is way less visible with the bigger negs and 4x5 pretty much destroys p67 for landscape photography. I don't mean to sound harsh but your reply seems to be based on all the classic myths and sterotypes associated with LF by people who have never done any LF photography. JCO 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, if I'm lucky). If I go out and shoot 100 frames of 35mm, I might come back with 3 keepers. If I were to only take 20 images on an outing I could come back with nothing worth keeping... what % of your 4 x 5 shots are throwaway? Tom C.
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
- 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 concrete mortar for tiling, and drywall mud. Nice tool. I decided to use it for screwing my stair railings together, since I was drilling self tapping screws into steel, and I thought the extra torque and low drill speed would be an advantage. My first screw stripped because I couldn't control when the drill would stop turning accurately enough (it has tremendous flywheel effect). Nice tool, wrong one for the job. Back to your AF question. They put a lot of tools onto cameras. They have to, or they wouldn't sell. Do you think anyone would have anything good to say about the istD if it didn't support AF lenses? However, the craftsman chooses his tools wisely. He doesn't use a big overpowered drill to do a job requiring some finesse. I learned this lesson the hard way. He picks and chooses which tools are suited to the job at hand. If auto focus isn't the tool suited to the job, then by default, manual focus must be. It's the only other choice, other than what Frank does (does he ever focus a picture). If auto exposure (in any of it's three permutations) isn't the right tool, then by default, manual exposure must be. It's the only other option. William Robb
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
- 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 though, large format colour is a beautiful thing, especially chrome. A sheet of chrome film on a light table is a thing of great beauty. William Robb
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
I quite agree... it seems this thread is somehow slipping in an anti-AF direction, and I was trying to state, although worded ineptly, that AF is a feature that has it's uses. I suspect that many times it focuses better than I would have/could have in certain 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 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 concrete mortar for tiling, and drywall mud. Nice tool. I decided to use it for screwing my stair railings together, since I was drilling self tapping screws into steel, and I thought the extra torque and low drill speed would be an advantage. My first screw stripped because I couldn't control when the drill would stop turning accurately enough (it has tremendous flywheel effect). Nice tool, wrong one for the job. Back to your AF question. They put a lot of tools onto cameras. They have to, or they wouldn't sell. Do you think anyone would have anything good to say about the istD if it didn't support AF lenses? However, the craftsman chooses his tools wisely. He doesn't use a big overpowered drill to do a job requiring some finesse. I learned this lesson the hard way. He picks and chooses which tools are suited to the job at hand. If auto focus isn't the tool suited to the job, then by default, manual focus must be. It's the only other choice, other than what Frank does (does he ever focus a picture). If auto exposure (in any of it's three permutations) isn't the right tool, then by default, manual exposure must be. It's the only other option. William Robb
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 wording, but it's not exactly what I meant. It's not the reason I bought my PZ-1p. I bought it specifically because it was AF. I find autofocus wonderful. Not every shot I take is a work of art, or thought out to the nth degree. Autofocus usually works fine for that. With other shots, particularly macro, AF is off. My typical technique with an AF camera is to focus on the closest object I wish to be focus and ensure I have adequate DOF for those remaining farther away elements I wish to be in focus, keping the shutter button half-way depressed while I adjust the composition. How often have you actually got that quick 1-chance shot that was a real great shot? Seems that making all the other planned shots suffer for it a bit odd. I'm not sure they do suffer. If you were walking around with a 67 or 4X5, you are not going to try to get those type of shots (I question how good they are going to be anyway), so why not just apply the same thought process to what you already have? On top of that, the satisfaction of creating your shot is much greater than the feeling of being lucky to run into a shot that your camera did all the work for. Granted, and I could apply that same thought process using what I have in hand. Sometimes I do. Geez, why are treating me like a total neophyte all of the sudden? Tom C.
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 equipment you have aside from the inherently better image quality of the larger formats. I'll shut up now. Bruce Tuesday, July 27, 2004, 2:09:19 PM, you wrote: TC Granted, and I could apply that same thought process using what I have in TC hand. Sometimes I do. Geez, why are treating me like a total neophyte all TC of the sudden? TC Tom C.
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Tom C articulated - Shooting a landscape with an SLR on a tripod is useful for the same reason as putting any camera on a tripod... stability... a more deliberate composition... works especially well with a ballhead IMO Yes but it can also limit your compositional options if you simply plop down your camera tripod, compose and expose. The fact that you already have you camera on a tripod will limit you to the height limits of the tripod or more likely you'll simply take the image at the height the tripod is set to. I always use a tripod, (well 99.9% of the time), but try to hand hold the camera before I put it on the tripod to check out the options for compositions. For that matter I try to see the image through my 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 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... a more deliberate composition... works especialy well with a ballhead IMO. Tom C.
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 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 equipment you have aside from the inherently better image quality of the larger formats.
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Shouldn't be a problem with E6 either. The last time I did trannies myself it was still a 14 step process. Now you have a choice of 5 step (more control?), or 3 step (easier?). Big transparencies are kind of mind boggling to look at, might even spoil computer screen images forever for you (grin). BW trannies are posible too. -- Steve Desjardins wrote: The other answer is wait I had in mind. I always think of LF folks developing their own stuff, so I was curious how hard that was with color. The other post noted that c-41 is easy to use so that color print film isn't hard to work 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 and white, only with colour. Seriously though, large format colour is a beautiful thing, especially chrome. A sheet of chrome film on a light table is a thing of great beauty. William Robb -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Well, I have a problem with admitting the camera is a better photographer than I am. I'd have the problem even if it were true. I like my screwed up images to be screwed up by me, not by an artificial stupid (no prizes for naming the SF story that term comes from, but you may amaze someone on the list). -- Tom C wrote: I quite agree... it seems this thread is somehow slipping in an anti-AF direction, and I was trying to state, although worded ineptly, that AF is a feature that has it's uses. I suspect that many times it focuses better than I would have/could have in certain 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 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 concrete mortar for tiling, and drywall mud. Nice tool. I decided to use it for screwing my stair railings together, since I was drilling self tapping screws into steel, and I thought the extra torque and low drill speed would be an advantage. My first screw stripped because I couldn't control when the drill would stop turning accurately enough (it has tremendous flywheel effect). Nice tool, wrong one for the job. Back to your AF question. They put a lot of tools onto cameras. They have to, or they wouldn't sell. Do you think anyone would have anything good to say about the istD if it didn't support AF lenses? However, the craftsman chooses his tools wisely. He doesn't use a big overpowered drill to do a job requiring some finesse. I learned this lesson the hard way. He picks and chooses which tools are suited to the job at hand. If auto focus isn't the tool suited to the job, then by default, manual focus must be. It's the only other choice, other than what Frank does (does he ever focus a picture). If auto exposure (in any of it's three permutations) isn't the right tool, then by default, manual exposure must be. It's the only other option. William Robb -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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. -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 of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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. -- Kenneth Waller wrote: Tom C articulated - Shooting a landscape with an SLR on a tripod is useful for the same reason as putting any camera on a tripod... stability... a more deliberate composition... works especially well with a ballhead IMO Yes but it can also limit your compositional options if you simply plop down your camera tripod, compose and expose. The fact that you already have you camera on a tripod will limit you to the height limits of the tripod or more likely you'll simply take the image at the height the tripod is set to. I always use a tripod, (well 99.9% of the time), but try to hand hold the camera before I put it on the tripod to check out the options for compositions. For that matter I try to see the image through my 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 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... a more deliberate composition... works especialy well with a ballhead IMO. Tom C. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 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 potential basically. Quite bizzare really. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 potential basically. Quite bizzare really. Rob Studdert 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 suspect I will change the way I shoot. Not that I don't usually take the time to survey my surroundings, carefully compose, expose and the rest. I choose to use AF and sometimes AE because of the convenience... in a way that can tend to hasten one through the process. It is the deliberate forced lack of these that I think (hope) will push me into an even more disciplined approach. Tom C.
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 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 the same care with a 110 camera, it would be pointless. The enlargability isn't there. Nor is it there for 35mm. Nor any of the common digital formats. Medium format film is starting to get there in terms of resolution and lack of grain, provided one is willing to compromise somewhat on enlargability, but has trouble with ample depth of field. It is difficult to respect a format that doesn't do the job one wants to do. I don't find this bizarre in the least. 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 using 35mm camera and IR film so as to enhance granularity. I've also seen them printed as mini-prints to great effect. There is more than one way to skin a cat. I'm surprised that you have such a narrow view of the subject Bill. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
there are at least two ways to do a landscape, lifelike/realistic and impressionistic. While you may be able to achieve some beautiful grain and soft effects with 35mm landscapes, it is not going even come close to LF if you are going for the lifelike/realistic approach in a large print. Too many 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 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 the same care with a 110 camera, it would be pointless. The enlargability isn't there. Nor is it there for 35mm. Nor any of the common digital formats. Medium format film is starting to get there in terms of resolution and lack of grain, provided one is willing to compromise somewhat on enlargability, but has trouble with ample depth of field. It is difficult to respect a format that doesn't do the job one wants to do. I don't find this bizarre in the least. 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 using 35mm camera and IR film so as to enhance granularity. I've also seen them printed as mini-prints to great effect. There is more than one way to skin a cat. I'm surprised that you have such a narrow view of the subject Bill. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
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... 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)? The fact is AF works and works reasonably well. It may not be the way some here shoot... but it doesn't mean it doesn't work. As before, I'm not immune to making a focus error. If I were my name would Jesus. Tom C. From: 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 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 potential basically. Quite bizzare really. Rob Studdert 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 suspect I will change the way I shoot. Not that I don't usually take the time to survey my surroundings, carefully compose, expose and the rest. I choose to use AF and sometimes AE because of the convenience... in a way that can tend to hasten one through the process. It is the deliberate forced lack of these that I think (hope) will push me into an even more disciplined approach. Tom C.
RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 see with incredibly limited DOF in the subject plane? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
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. JCO -Original Message- From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 7:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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... 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)? The fact is AF works and works reasonably well. It may not be the way some here shoot... but it doesn't mean it doesn't work. As before, I'm not immune to making a focus error. If I were my name would Jesus. Tom C. From: 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 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 potential basically. Quite bizzare really. Rob Studdert 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 suspect I will change the way I shoot. Not that I don't usually take the time to survey my surroundings, carefully compose, expose and the rest. I choose to use AF and sometimes AE because of the convenience... in a way that can tend to hasten one through the process. It is the deliberate forced lack of these that I think (hope) will push me into an even more disciplined approach. Tom C.
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 focuses farther back than where I thought it would be when I tripped the shutter (you have to anticipate in that game or you're always going to miss behind). I don't know if it's me or the camera/AF. I also don't know how to figure out which it is. :-( TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 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.
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% of camera buyers want no matter how much they spend on a camera. -- Tom C wrote: 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 snapshots (and there's nothing wrong with snapshots if that's what one wants)? The fact is AF works and works reasonably well. It may not be the way some here shoot... but it doesn't mean it doesn't work. As before, I'm not immune to making a focus error. If I were my name would Jesus. Tom C. From: 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 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 potential basically. Quite bizzare really. Rob Studdert 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 suspect I will change the way I shoot. Not that I don't usually take the time to survey my surroundings, carefully compose, expose and the rest. I choose to use AF and sometimes AE because of the convenience... in a way that can tend to hasten one through the process. It is the deliberate forced lack of these that I think (hope) will push me into an even more disciplined approach. Tom C. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
- 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 suspect I will change the way I shoot. Not that I don't usually take the time to survey my surroundings, carefully compose, expose and the rest. I choose to use AF and sometimes AE because of the convenience... in a way that can tend to hasten one through the process. It is the deliberate forced lack of these that I think (hope) will push me into an even more disciplined approach. Tom, if you want discipline, find a dominatrix. :`) 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. However, you can do everything right with 35mm or small format digital (best lenses, rock stable tripod, etc) and still be wasting your time if the format isn't giving you what you want. A 6x7II isn't going to force much discipline on you, it still allows for auto exposure. It will force you to focus the lens yourself, and thats about it. It will teach you to shoot with fewer focal length opportunities, which is something both useful and frustrating. Most of the discipline it will teach you is similar to what you would get on a forced march: carrying a heavy weight over a long distance. William Robb
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
- 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 entered the twighlight zone. William Robb
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
- 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... why are 99% of the cameras sold today AF? Marketing. Why are there so many abominable in focus snapshots (and there's nothing wrong with snapshots if that's what one wants)? The fact is AF works and works reasonably well. It may not be the way some here shoot... but it doesn't mean it doesn't work. Sure it works, but it is also pretty hard to make a focus error at infinity. You are talking discipline in one post, and eschewing it in another. William Robb
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
- 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 using 35mm camera and IR film so as to enhance granularity. I've also seen them printed as mini-prints to great effect. There is more than one way to skin a cat. I'm surprised that you have such a narrow view of the subject Bill. No, I am alluding that the Classic Landscape Photograph (no grain visible, very fine detail) is the realm of the large format camera. At no time have I said this is the only way to go, only that if it is the way you want to go, small format isn't a good choice as a tool. William Robb
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
I can't argue with that logic... and I'm hoping that the move to a manual system will encourage/force me to become more deliberate in my approach, as well as produce better images. 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: 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... and once one shoots MF one needs an MF scanner. Keep encouraging me though because I'm still looking for a good excuse to buy one. The longer you wait, the less likely you will be to get one. I have been arguing a numbers game for some time now. Numbers mean everything. More people shooting the stuff means more demand meand continued supply. Besides, even if the thing can't be fed in five years, you will still have 5 years of pleasurable use. OTOH, wait a year, and them you will only get 4 years use. The time to buy is NOW. William Robb
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 cameras around... -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
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 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 do neither. I usually just carry what I have in mind for a shoot, sometimes as little as 4 holders. 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 on-location etc then there is no way in the world I would consider an LF kit over my MF set-up regardless of the absolute resolution. Would you? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
You must have missed my previous post, there is much more to be gained by using LF than just resolution. If that were the only advantage, LF would have died away years ago. It hasn't. Yes, LF isnt very good for travel weeks at a time but either is MF SLRS. Both are way too bulky for that. That is where 35mm and digitals with zooms shines. BUT, regarding the LF film holders though, if you use readyloads you can shoot 100s of shots with only 1 holder and process the film later, months later if needed. Each sheet is in its own little lightweight envelope. Another HUGE advantage to shooting 4x5 I forgot to mention is the choice of lenses! Nearly every large format lens ever made by every company everywhere in the world can be used on nearly every 4x5 camera ever made via lensboards. The choices in 4x5 lenses, both new and used is mindboggling and they are generally LESS EXPENSIVE and lighter than the P67 lenses for equal, better, and incredible image quality. The reason they are lighter is you don't need heavy large metal barrels for every lens like you do with P67. One lightweight camera bellows takes care of them all. And besides being less weight and less cost EACH, you don't need as many either because you can crop more with 4x5 than with p67 so your lens focal length spacing does not need to be as close as with P67. You save more money and more weight by using less lenses for same or better quality. JCO -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL 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 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 do neither. I usually just carry what I have in mind for a shoot, sometimes as little as 4 holders. 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 on-location etc then there is no way in the world I would consider an LF kit over my MF set-up regardless of the absolute resolution. Would you? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 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 on-location etc then there is no way in the world I would consider an LF kit over my MF set-up regardless of the absolute resolution. Would you?
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 do everything I can to maximize the sharpness of my film image (high quality prime lens, tripod, f/8 or f/11, mirror lock-up, cable release, extremely fine grain film) then 6MP digital raw (using similar technique and equipment) files aren't as sharp as my images. Tom Reese
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 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 be readily available elsewhere though. A friend of mine shot this pic in a medium sized Japanese camera store about three years ago: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/IMG_0646.jpg Even BH doesn't have anything even remotely like that. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 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 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 be readily available elsewhere though. A friend of mine shot this pic in a medium sized Japanese camera store about three years ago: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/IMG_0646.jpg Even BH doesn't have anything even remotely like that. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 what I tell myself) then I have a little think about just how much film my 35mm cameras has seen since my *ist D purchase and it doesn't look good (for film). And I know I'm not alone in this behaviour too. Unfortunately all the best intentions won't be all that's required to keep film viable. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 (happy 'cos there's ~60 million people in the UK!)
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 be readily available elsewhere though. This is a Japanese stereotype, but probably an accurate one sad to say. There's just been a 3 megapixel phone-camera introduced in Japan. Ridiculously expensive ($700 or so, IIRC) but you can be sure the prices 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. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 talking with the wife yesterday who knows next to nowt about photography and equipment, and claimed that, given the same operator, pictures are taken by lenses, not cameras. Sure, I was referring to film, where you can assume the same medium. Is the sensor so much more important than lenses in digital photography? And what kind of lens can you stick on a phone? Oh, and I conveniently forgot that comparing by the MP, is (almost) like comparing films by the ISO setting; there are so many other parameters, notably sensor surface and its effect to noise. Kostas
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 become commonplace before too long. I was talking with the wife yesterday who knows next to nowt about photography and equipment, and claimed that, given the same operator, pictures are taken by lenses, not cameras. Sure, I was referring to film, where you can assume the same medium. Is the sensor so much more important than lenses in digital photography? And what kind of lens can you stick on a phone? Oh, and I conveniently forgot that comparing by the MP, is (almost) like comparing films by the ISO setting; there are so many other parameters, notably sensor surface and its effect to noise. True. But as I said, I heard this from someone in *in the camera business* - in other words, someone who knows from long experience how the majority of consumers make their buying decisions. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 use the stuff. The snapshooters will quit when they can not get it at the local Wal-Mart, that seems to be coming real soon now, just as they quit using their Box Brownies when they could no longer get 620 at the local drug store. And the folks that buy digital will sneer at film cameras, just as we did at those Box Brownies when I was a kid. Nothing has changed any more than it did in the past. 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 probably never even heard of a Patti-Phillip, but that does not mean there is no market for them. No, you modern guys go digital. I will continue to use film (except eventually for snapshots), only wishing I still had my Linhof Super Technika, and Rolleiflex 2.8E-2; or could afford to replace them. For those who have never had the pleasure of using top of the line mechanical cameras from the late 50's, I feel sorry. Build quality has just never been up to that level since. -- Rob Studdert wrote: 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 what I tell myself) then I have a little think about just how much film my 35mm cameras has seen since my *ist D purchase and it doesn't look good (for film). And I know I'm not alone in this behaviour too. Unfortunately all the best intentions won't be all that's required to keep film viable. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 serious photographers here in town will continue to use the stuff. The snapshooters will quit when they can not get it at the local Wal-Mart, that seems to be coming real soon now, just as they quit using their Box Brownies when they could no longer get 620 at the local drug store. And the folks that buy digital will sneer at film cameras, just as we did at those Box Brownies when I was a kid. Nothing has changed any more than it did in the past. 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 probably never even heard of a Patti-Phillip, but that does not mean there is no market for them. No, you modern guys go digital. I will continue to use film (except eventually for snapshots), only wishing I still had my Linhof Super Technika, and Rolleiflex 2.8E-2; or could afford to replace them. For those who have never had the pleasure of using top of the line mechanical cameras from the late 50's, I feel sorry. Build quality has just never been up to that level since.
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 Patek Philippe. graywolf wrote: 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 probably never even heard of a Patti-Phillip, but that does not mean there is no market for them.
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 never even heard of a Patti-Phillip -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
I agree with Mr. Graywolf here. There is something quite wonderful about those old cameras, something lasting and solid about their feel. And film has qualities that are not found in digital images. Yes, I know all about how to add grain and use different plugins to simulate film, but it's like having sex with a mannequin. Something's missing. As an aside, something I wanted to comment upon a few days ago, I think it was Mr. Robb who mentioned that instead of using regular BW film, it's so much easier to use color film and convert it in Photoshop. Well, for some people that may be true. It is easier. But the results are nowhere close to using true BW film. There is no similar grain structure, and the quality of the conversion depends on the skill of the person using Photoshop. But yes, for some this is the way to go for they have no other path to follow, no previous experience or direction upon which to rely. 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 Jerry Todd Dancing Frog Studio Calaveras, CA [Original Message] From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 probably never even heard of a Patti-Phillip, but that does not mean there is no market for them. No, you modern guys go digital. I will continue to use film (except eventually for snapshots), only wishing I still had my Linhof Super Technika, and Rolleiflex 2.8E-2; or could afford to replace them. For those who have never had the pleasure of using top of the line mechanical cameras from the late 50's, I feel sorry. Build quality has just never been up to that level since.
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 one... g
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 there are a lot of perfectly good lenses out there looking for a matching body. Then, when the last frame of film has been shot, there may be a good, full frame digital camera I can stick all my expensive lenses on. Having said that, I expect I will still be using film in 10 years. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 the largest print you made or had made from a film exposure, and cpmpared it to whatever digital exposure you had blown up to the same size? Uh huh. Well, I haven't either... Remember, I'm not talking about pros here... I've had some relatively interesting shots blown up, both film and digital, and was quite well pleased with the results. To me, enlargements always seem better! Always! Maybe it's my eyes... Do I look at either or both like if I find one single flaw, that camera/lens/technique is doomed forever? Heck no! Have I been impressed with my 5 MP images? I hope to tell you I have!! Happy with it? Of course I am. Wonderful little camera! Can I say whatever _film_ I've exposed and had printed is orders of magnitude better, more clear, sharper, better looking than my digital photos? No. Plain and simple... no. Well then, how about which one is better than the other? With the better 5 MP cameras and the decent film and lenses from Pentax, for me it's a push. That's with 35mm. I haven't shot 120 or 6x6cm for so long, it's not in the running at the moment. But, all that having been said, I don't plan to get rid of all my film cameras anytime in the foreseeable future! I love 'em both, I'll keep the best of the lot and be very happy! keith whaley Tom Reese wrote: William Robb wrote: My fear is that there won't be enough film users to keep that segment viable, or sufficiently viable to make it worthwhile to continue making the stuff in a short period of time. How long off that time is? I certainly can't say for sure, but I am afraid it may be closer than anyone cares to think about. I think it will be when digital cameras can produce a sharper picture than film can. I'll switch when digital offers a clearly better picture at a decent price. That may not be too far off. It may take a while. We'll see. Tom Reese
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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 for those who are not photographers. That is why it could happen sooner than later. In the pro arena, photojournalists have mostly made the switch (quality is not the issue with them), sports photographers are switching (not sure what percent yet - wouldn't be surprised if it was over 50%) All school photos are digital. Wedding photography is heavily moving to digital - my guess is more than 50%. Product photography would probably need the highest quality and may be moving much slower. Also, outdoor/landscape/scenic seems to be shot on 4X5 more often than not - that is still strong on film. My guess is that the quickest and most abrupt change will come in the consumer market - cheap films, labs, etc. will switch over rapidly. The pro market will switch over more slowly - probably a few labs changing or closing and a few films dropped, but should be more viable for a longer period of time. It is the one place that the quality (larger than 35mm formats) can be justified. -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, July 22, 2004, 12:59:29 PM, you wrote: TR I think it will be when digital cameras can produce a sharper picture than TR film can. I'll switch when digital offers a clearly better picture at a TR decent price. That may not be too far off. It may take a while. We'll see. TR Tom Reese
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Seems that it was around 2000 dpi. Fine for an 8X10 or 11X14, but not bigger. -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, July 22, 2004, 12:38:43 PM, you wrote: TC Bruce, TC Thanks for the hunches and the insight on the lab scans. What resolution TC were the labs scanning at? TC 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: 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 and LF. One of the issues that moved me away from the 67ii is that my local labs are all printing my nice big negs digitally. So the same low res scanner that handles 35mm film is being used when I have the 67 negs printed. Up to 8X10 it is not too bad, but beyond that, the quality isn't there to justify the bigger neg. I was just carrying around bigger equipment and paying much more per shot without getting enough benefit from it. So what you do with the film after you shoot it may have some bearing on your decision also. I feel that the ability to buy and process (pro grade) film will still be around in the time frames you are talking, but the price may continue to go up. When I was shooting 67, the cost per frame (film, develop, proof) was around $1.35. Unless someone was paying me to shoot, I didn't burn through much film. YMMV Bruce
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
it's a well known fact. it matters a small amount to Pentax since they are selling the lenses to both the digital camera vendors and the cell phone camera vendors. OTOH, i have a reference somewhere that says Konica-Minolta is the largest OEM of digital camera lens units. i could be misremembering 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, someone who knows from long experience how the majority of consumers make their buying decisions.
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
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) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
