«

"Bill Funk" <> wrote:
>>
>>I took up MF when US$3000 got you 3MP, so it made more sense then.
>>
>>David J. Littleboy
>>Tokyo, Japan
>>
> What I was questioning was your statement that MF would have a
> "resurgence" now that digital i smaking 35mm film obsolete. You said
> greed was the reason.

Well, I intended to be pointing out that there actually was a logical reason
for someone to use MF rather than arguing that there was going to be a
resurgence.

> Now, you are saying that this resurgence isn't happening,and probably
> won't, which is fine. I have absolutely no problem with people using
> MF at all. Why should I?
>
> I am, though, concerned that many (certainly not just you) are making
> prognistications that are just not in concert with reality.
> Please don't take this personally.

No problem; keeping me on the right track is appreciated. Again, I don't
intend to be saying that MF will be make a resurgence. Even if someone came
out with a decent MF back at a reasonable price, it would still have to cost
more than a 5D, and lenses would be a problem. Also, with Bronica out of the
business and (what's left of) Mamiya cancelling their manual focus 645
camera, the 645 choices are too limited. Sigh. At one point, someone was
making a digital back that came with interchangeable frobs that allowed it
to be used on a whole bunch of MF cameras, but that's unlikely to happen at
a reasonable price level since there won't be enough MF cameras in
production to justify it.

If scanning weren't such a bear, 6x7 or 6x9 would make sense for people who
need a tad better quality at 16x20 than the 5D can produce, and there's at
least one art photographers who carries both a 5D and a Mamiya 7.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Scott W wrote:
> Bill Funk wrote:
> >
>> Right.
>> Collectors.
>> --
> No, say it is not so, I am sure they are buying them to use.
>
> In fact I am keeping my 35mm film gear for the same reason that I have
> my sliderule, fun to
> go back an look at how we did things in the old days. I can't imagine
> ever putting film back
> into the camera but I can't see getting rid of it either.
>
> I know a lot of people like me, they still have their film SLR but have
> not put film in for a number of
> years.
>
> Scott
>
Yep,
Canon EF and A1 with 6 lenses. Got a roll of K25 in the freezer too.
Expired in 02. Haven't shot a frame of film in nearly 5 years.

George Deliz

George Deliz wrote:
> Canon EF and A1 with 6 lenses. Got a roll of K25 in the freezer too.
> Expired in 02. Haven't shot a frame of film in nearly 5 years.
>

And the good news is that you can get a cheap Canon DSLR and still
use your lenses.

Scott

"David J. Littleboy" <> writes:
> No problem; keeping me on the right track is appreciated. Again, I don't
> intend to be saying that MF will be make a resurgence. Even if someone came
> out with a decent MF back at a reasonable price, it would still have to cost
> more than a 5D, and lenses would be a problem.

Hasselblad just announced the H3D and some new lenses. It has a
36x48mm sensor (your choice of 22mp or 39mp) and I suppose the sensor
size starts the APS-C war all over again. Eventually I suppose there
will be a "full frame" digital Hassy with a 6x6 cm sensor (actually
a little smaller I think, to be the same size as a film frame).

"Paul Rubin" <http://> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <> writes:
>> No problem; keeping me on the right track is appreciated. Again, I don't
>> intend to be saying that MF will be make a resurgence. Even if someone
>> came
>> out with a decent MF back at a reasonable price, it would still have to
>> cost
>> more than a 5D, and lenses would be a problem.
>
> Hasselblad just announced the H3D and some new lenses. It has a
> 36x48mm sensor (your choice of 22mp or 39mp) and I suppose the sensor
> size starts the APS-C war all over again. Eventually I suppose there
> will be a "full frame" digital Hassy with a 6x6 cm sensor (actually
> a little smaller I think, to be the same size as a film frame).

At twice the size of FF 35mm, that's actually a reasonable sized sensor.
With the 35mm lens, it gives roughly a 24mm FOV, which ain't bad, but ain't
particularly wide. (There's a new lens that may get down to a 20mm FOV, I
think.)

(You may not be aware that the H-series Hasselblads are Fuji manufactured
645, not 6x6 cameras. FWIW, with film, 645 is 42 x 56mm, 6x6 is 56 x 56mm,
and 6x7 is 56 x 70mm)

But that camera is insanely expensive even without the back, and some of
those backs don't have an AA filter, which is completely nuts in a Bayer
sensor, especially considering that it turns out that MF lenses, even the
poor ones are just as sharp or shaper than Canon/Nikon 35mm lenses. And Fuji
makes some of the sharpest lenses around. (The ultra-cheap Fuji GS645S lens
is flipping amazing in terms of sharpness, although the bokeh is seriously
ugly.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" <> writes:
> (You may not be aware that the H-series Hasselblads are Fuji manufactured
> 645, not 6x6 cameras. FWIW, with film, 645 is 42 x 56mm, 6x6 is 56 x 56mm,
> and 6x7 is 56 x 70mm)

I'm way behind the times, I thought Hassys were all 6x6cm made in
Sweden. I guess I'm not surprised.

Paul J Gans wrote:
> David J. Littleboy <> wrote:
>> <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So who's right and who's wrong? Are the Universities so out of
>>>> touch that they have not yet heard of the so-called digital
>>>> revolution? Or do they know
>>>> something we don't?
>>>
>>> Yes, they're out of touch. The people teaching photography are all
>>> older, they're used to film, that's what they know, and they have
>>> very little reason to change. It will be a while before the old
>>> guard dies out and universities hire teachers who know anything
>>> about digital photography.
>
>> Do you know people who teach in university photorgaphy programs in
>> the UK, do you know their work? When I was an undergrad, Minor White
>> taught photography at my school, and he's always been one of my
>> favorite photographers (I was a twitty comp sci undergrad and knew
>> enough not to bother the guy; it would have been nice if I had had
>> my act together enough to get something out of his courses, but I
>> knew better). Many of the leading art photographers teach at
>> universities in the US.
>
>> Again, this is a field where digital is only beginning to have an
>> impact.
>
> One thing that *is* happening in the field is the digital
> photography of things like medieval manuscripts and ancient
> and medieval art.
>
> It is being done in as high a resolution as feasible (I don't
> have the details) and with color control. The hope is not
> just preservation in case of damage, but to make copies
> available to folks all over the world where hitherto one had
> to travel to where the object was.
>
> Film doesn't work nearly so well as it deteriorates and is
> not easy to copy cheaply with great fidelity.
>
> --- Paul J. Gans

This article is worth a read......................
http://photo.net/learn/optics/digitaloptics/

Dennis.

On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 07:30:59 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<> wrote:

>
>"Bill Funk" <> wrote:
>>>
>>>I took up MF when US$3000 got you 3MP, so it made more sense then.
>>>
>>>David J. Littleboy
>>>Tokyo, Japan
>>>
>> What I was questioning was your statement that MF would have a
>> "resurgence" now that digital i smaking 35mm film obsolete. You said
>> greed was the reason.
>
>Well, I intended to be pointing out that there actually was a logical reason
>for someone to use MF rather than arguing that there was going to be a
>resurgence.
>
>> Now, you are saying that this resurgence isn't happening,and probably
>> won't, which is fine. I have absolutely no problem with people using
>> MF at all. Why should I?
>>
>> I am, though, concerned that many (certainly not just you) are making
>> prognistications that are just not in concert with reality.
>> Please don't take this personally.
>
>No problem; keeping me on the right track is appreciated. Again, I don't
>intend to be saying that MF will be make a resurgence. Even if someone came
>out with a decent MF back at a reasonable price, it would still have to cost
>more than a 5D, and lenses would be a problem. Also, with Bronica out of the
>business and (what's left of) Mamiya cancelling their manual focus 645
>camera, the 645 choices are too limited. Sigh. At one point, someone was
>making a digital back that came with interchangeable frobs that allowed it
>to be used on a whole bunch of MF cameras, but that's unlikely to happen at
>a reasonable price level since there won't be enough MF cameras in
>production to justify it.
>
>If scanning weren't such a bear, 6x7 or 6x9 would make sense for people who
>need a tad better quality at 16x20 than the 5D can produce, and there's at
>least one art photographers who carries both a 5D and a Mamiya 7.
>
>David J. Littleboy
>Tokyo, Japan
>

Thanks!
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Scott W wrote:
> George Deliz wrote:
>> Canon EF and A1 with 6 lenses. Got a roll of K25 in the freezer too.
>> Expired in 02. Haven't shot a frame of film in nearly 5 years.
>>
>
> And the good news is that you can get a cheap Canon DSLR and still
> use your lenses.
>
> Scott
>
Well, actually no. The lenses for the EF and A1 are the old manual focus
FD lenses. The EF camera was Canon's first auto exposure camera and the
A1 came along a few years later.
I now use a Rebel XT and 5D and have four lenses, one of which is for
the cropped cameras only.
George Deliz

George Deliz wrote:
> Scott W wrote:
> > George Deliz wrote:
> >> Canon EF and A1 with 6 lenses. Got a roll of K25 in the freezer too.
> >> Expired in 02. Haven't shot a frame of film in nearly 5 years.
> >>
> >
> > And the good news is that you can get a cheap Canon DSLR and still
> > use your lenses.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> Well, actually no. The lenses for the EF and A1 are the old manual focus
> FD lenses. The EF camera was Canon's first auto exposure camera and the
> A1 came along a few years later.
> I now use a Rebel XT and 5D and have four lenses, one of which is for
> the cropped cameras only.
> George Deliz

Ah, my mistake, I thought the EF took the newer lenses.

Scott