Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: I Miss my Viewfinder !

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: I Miss my Viewfinder !

 
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2011
On May 20, 1:45*pm, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> That seems to me sort of like enjoying the best buggy whip ever made. I mean
> really, *film*?


Ypu, very much really.


> seriously. I mean, why would anyone want to do that?


Because it is better?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rol_Lei Nut
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2011
On 5/20/2011 5:45, Neil Harrington wrote:
> "Rol_Lei Nut"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...


>>>
>>> All of which seems moot, since who is still using Leicaflexes anyway?

>>
>> Me (among others).

>
> Well, I guess there must be plenty of Leicaflexes to go around for those who
> still want to use them.
>


Actually, they get snatched up pretty quickly.
Care to bet how popular 40 year old digicams will be?


> I can see enjoying ownership of such a camera as a collector thing. Recently
> I've bought a few older Nikons (FE, FE2 and FA) for that reason. The FE
> especially appeals to me largely because it reminds me of my very first
> Minolta SLR, an XE7, which remained a favorite long after I sold it. While I
> owned a large number of Minoltas after that, increasingly more advanced
> technologically, the XE7 was really the only one I've been sorry I sold. It
> was simply an elegant camera. Now I'm happy to have FEs because they are at
> least as elegant as the XE7 was, and a better machine in every way. I expect
> to keep the best two or three FEs and sell the others.
>
> I will eventually put a roll of film or so through them as well, more out of
> curiosity than anything else. I cannot imagine ever going back to film
> seriously. I mean, why would anyone want to do that?



Film: because I like it.
Also, I like the idea of my pictures being around for far longer than a
few media MTBFs.
I suppose you'd never, ever consider making a table out of wood (how
retro!) or cook a meal using fresh ingredients (frozen's just as good,
isn't it?).

>
> I certainly wouldn't want to give up either system for the limitations of a
> Leicaflex. I like to have a lot of information in the viewfinder; this may
> be of much less importance to you. Different strokes, etc.


And what exactly *are* the limitations of a Leicaflex (agreed that you
have to wait until film is developed to see the result, can't shoot
1000s of pictures in a few minutes, can't AF, etc. - though strangely
enough 99.9% of the World's greatest pictures have been taken with those
limitations).

Just what vital info do you believe *is* missing from a Leicaflex
viewfinder? "Baby mode on"? HDR? Face recognition???
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rol_Lei Nut
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2011
On 5/20/2011 11:26, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2011 11:21:20 +0200, Rol_Lei Nut
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>
>> Just what vital info do you believe *is* missing from a Leicaflex
>> viewfinder? "Baby mode on"? HDR? Face recognition???

>
> 'Blink' detection.
>


Yummy!

That said, a certain favorite SLR of mine also has the shortest shutter
lag of any SLR (comparble to a rangefinder), far lower that any AF camera...
 
Reply With Quote
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> On 5/20/2011 5:45, Neil Harrington wrote:
> > "Rol_Lei Nut"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...

>
> >>>
> >>> All of which seems moot, since who is still using Leicaflexes anyway?
> >>
> >> Me (among others).

> >
> > Well, I guess there must be plenty of Leicaflexes to go around for those who
> > still want to use them.
> >

>
> Actually, they get snatched up pretty quickly.
> Care to bet how popular 40 year old digicams will be?
>
>
> > I can see enjoying ownership of such a camera as a collector thing. Recently
> > I've bought a few older Nikons (FE, FE2 and FA) for that reason. The FE
> > especially appeals to me largely because it reminds me of my very first
> > Minolta SLR, an XE7, which remained a favorite long after I sold it. While I
> > owned a large number of Minoltas after that, increasingly more advanced
> > technologically, the XE7 was really the only one I've been sorry I sold. It
> > was simply an elegant camera. Now I'm happy to have FEs because they are at
> > least as elegant as the XE7 was, and a better machine in every way. I expect
> > to keep the best two or three FEs and sell the others.
> >
> > I will eventually put a roll of film or so through them as well, more out of
> > curiosity than anything else. I cannot imagine ever going back to film
> > seriously. I mean, why would anyone want to do that?

>
>
> Film: because I like it.
> Also, I like the idea of my pictures being around for far longer than a
> few media MTBFs.
> I suppose you'd never, ever consider making a table out of wood (how
> retro!) or cook a meal using fresh ingredients (frozen's just as good,
> isn't it?).
>
> >
> > I certainly wouldn't want to give up either system for the limitations of a
> > Leicaflex. I like to have a lot of information in the viewfinder; this may
> > be of much less importance to you. Different strokes, etc.

>
> And what exactly *are* the limitations of a Leicaflex (agreed that you
> have to wait until film is developed to see the result, can't shoot
> 1000s of pictures in a few minutes, can't AF, etc. - though strangely
> enough 99.9% of the World's greatest pictures have been taken with those
> limitations).
>
> Just what vital info do you believe *is* missing from a Leicaflex
> viewfinder? "Baby mode on"? HDR? Face recognition???


Well, an EVF can superimpose a histogram for one thing.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2011
On May 20, 10:21*am, Rol_Lei Nut <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> On 5/20/2011 5:45, Neil Harrington wrote:
>
> > "Rol_Lei Nut"<(E-Mail Removed)> *wrote in message
> >news:(E-Mail Removed)...

>
> >>> All of which seems moot, since who is still using Leicaflexes anyway?

>
> >> Me (among others).

>
> > Well, I guess there must be plenty of Leicaflexes to go around for those who
> > still want to use them.

>
> Actually, they get snatched up pretty quickly.
> Care to bet how popular 40 year old digicams will be?


Maybe rare or interesting ones will get snatched up, just like a few
of the original
'box brownies' Postage in teh UK is now about 46p but penny (1d)
blacks/reds and the like
are still worth more than a 1st class stamp even if you can;t use them
on letters

>
> > I can see enjoying ownership of such a camera as a collector thing. Recently
> > I've bought a few older Nikons (FE, FE2 and FA) for that reason. The FE
> > especially appeals to me largely because it reminds me of my very first
> > Minolta SLR, an XE7, which remained a favorite long after I sold it. While I
> > owned a large number of Minoltas after that, increasingly more advanced
> > technologically, the XE7 was really the only one I've been sorry I sold.. It
> > was simply an elegant camera. Now I'm happy to have FEs because they are at
> > least as elegant as the XE7 was, and a better machine in every way. I expect
> > to keep the best two or three FEs and sell the others.

>
> > I will eventually put a roll of film or so through them as well, more out of
> > curiosity than anything else. I cannot imagine ever going back to film
> > seriously. I mean, why would anyone want to do that?

>
> Film: because I like it.


I like dinosaurs but they died out too

> Also, I like the idea of my pictures being around for far longer than a
> few media MTBFs.


That depends on who they are kept emulsion isn't perfect it's organic
and subject to all sorts of mites and fungus.

> I suppose you'd never, ever consider making a table out of wood (how
> retro!)


If I wanted a table to last I'd make it out of metal or perhaps
granite.
Wood doesn;t have an infinite life.

> or cook a meal using fresh ingredients (frozen's just as good,
> isn't it?).


Sometimes it's better. If you freeze vegetables fast then you retain
all the vitamins. Some vegetable produce vitamins start reducing as
soon as they are picked
and within 2 hours have lost 50% of their 'goodness'
Fine if from garden to plate is less than 2 hours, but for a lot of
city dwellers that's
just not practical without freezing or cold storage.


> > I certainly wouldn't want to give up either system for the limitations of a
> > Leicaflex. I like to have a lot of information in the viewfinder; this may
> > be of much less importance to you. Different strokes, etc.

>
> And what exactly *are* the limitations of a Leicaflex (agreed that you
> have to wait until film is developed to see the result, can't shoot
> 1000s of pictures in a few minutes, can't AF, etc. - though strangely
> enough 99.9% of the World's greatest pictures have been taken with those
> limitations).


Well I think that's a little unfair, I'd suggest that 99.9% of
professional
photographers are dead now too.

>
> Just what vital info do you believe *is* missing from a Leicaflex
> viewfinder? "Baby mode on"? HDR? Face recognition??? *


smile detection ;-D


 
Reply With Quote
 
K W Hart
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2011

"Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> Noons wrote:
>> On May 20, 1:45 pm, "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> That seems to me sort of like enjoying the best buggy whip ever
>>> made. I mean really, *film*?

>>
>> Ypu, very much really.
>>
>>
>>> seriously. I mean, why would anyone want to do that?

>>
>> Because it is better?

>
> It's really hard to see in what way it is "better" -- and getting harder
> all the time.
>

Film is better because:
1. The cheapest 35mm consumer grade film has the equivalent of 36Mpixels.
The only way to record fine detail is to have places to record it:
individual film grains or "pixels".
2. Film has substantially more exposure latitude than digital, four stop
range for color neg, eight stop range for B&W, more or less.
3. Film cameras are available that require no electrical power source to
operate.
4. Older film cameras are generally more rugged than modern digital cameras,
and generally are more easily serviced.
5. There is little difference in cost per picture- film vs digital- when
the entire cost is considered: equipment life/replacement cost, media cost,
time, etc.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2011
Rol_Lei Nut <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Care to bet how popular 40 year old digicams will be?


Film SLRs: Started 1861 (patent), 1884 (commercial production).
Reflex mirrors in camera obscuras (or is that camera obscurae?) are
much older (first known mention 1676).

So we have 335, 150 and 127 years since the beginning.

The first digital camera was build 1975, with first patents
1968, and a first commercial digital cameras in 1990.

So we have 43, 36 and 21 years since the beginning.

To put the things on equal footing, let's wait about 100
years and see then what 40 year old digital cameras will
bring. Guess the really good ones will be popular, since the
quality will be very high there and the technology will be
stable.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2011
K W Hart <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Film is better because:
> 1. The cheapest 35mm consumer grade film has the equivalent of 36Mpixels.


http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...l.1/index.html
disagrees. It rates at most ~16 MPix for Tech Pan ISO 25 and
~10 MPix for Velvia ISO 50 (intensity), respective ~16 MPix
(colour resolution equivalent of a Bayer sensor).)

Where's your measurements?

> 2. Film has substantially more exposure latitude than digital, four stop
> range for color neg, eight stop range for B&W, more or less.


http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...ge2/index.html
disagrees.

> 3. Film cameras are available that require no electrical power source to
> operate.


This can be done for digital cameras, as well:
http://www.bigshotcamera.org/

> 4. Older film cameras are generally more rugged than modern digital cameras,
> and generally are more easily serviced.


The same is true for older cars and planes. However, most people use
modern cars and planes.

> 5. There is little difference in cost per picture- film vs digital- when
> the entire cost is considered: equipment life/replacement cost, media cost,
> time, etc.


Including scanning for these 36 MPix you claim? I've looked
and we're talking about 4 EUR a pop (drumscanner needed, just
the scan). At 1000 images per year that's a new high end
crop SLR every half year ...

and that's just digitizing. No buying film, no developing film,
no archiving film.

Of course, you can go much cheaper --- at a loss of quality.
Do you really want only 6MPix out of your 36 MPix you claim?
That's only about 12 cents per shot, if you do mass scans with
everything automated. Add in film and development costs ... about
7 cent per frame for cheap stuff. Costs you still quite a bit
more for 1000 shots than a used 8 MPix Canon 20D.

Still cheaper? 1.5 MPix scans go for 8 cents. Still, 1000 shots
are about a used 20D (when you add film and development costs).
And who wants a 1.5MPix image?

If you digitize yourself, your time costs will rise sharply.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
K W Hart
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-21-2011

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>K W Hart <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Film is better because:
>> 1. The cheapest 35mm consumer grade film has the equivalent of 36Mpixels.

>
> http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...l.1/index.html
> disagrees. It rates at most ~16 MPix for Tech Pan ISO 25 and
> ~10 MPix for Velvia ISO 50 (intensity), respective ~16 MPix
> (colour resolution equivalent of a Bayer sensor).)
>
> Where's your measurements?
>
>> 2. Film has substantially more exposure latitude than digital, four stop
>> range for color neg, eight stop range for B&W, more or less.

>
> http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...ge2/index.html
> disagrees.
>
>> 3. Film cameras are available that require no electrical power source to
>> operate.

>
> This can be done for digital cameras, as well:
> http://www.bigshotcamera.org/
>
>> 4. Older film cameras are generally more rugged than modern digital
>> cameras,
>> and generally are more easily serviced.

>
> The same is true for older cars and planes. However, most people use
> modern cars and planes.
>
>> 5. There is little difference in cost per picture- film vs digital- when
>> the entire cost is considered: equipment life/replacement cost, media
>> cost,
>> time, etc.

>
> Including scanning for these 36 MPix you claim? I've looked
> and we're talking about 4 EUR a pop (drumscanner needed, just
> the scan). At 1000 images per year that's a new high end
> crop SLR every half year ...
>
> and that's just digitizing. No buying film, no developing film,
> no archiving film.
>
> Of course, you can go much cheaper --- at a loss of quality.
> Do you really want only 6MPix out of your 36 MPix you claim?
> That's only about 12 cents per shot, if you do mass scans with
> everything automated. Add in film and development costs ... about
> 7 cent per frame for cheap stuff. Costs you still quite a bit
> more for 1000 shots than a used 8 MPix Canon 20D.
>
> Still cheaper? 1.5 MPix scans go for 8 cents. Still, 1000 shots
> are about a used 20D (when you add film and development costs).
> And who wants a 1.5MPix image?
>
> If you digitize yourself, your time costs will rise sharply.
>
> -Wolfgang


Why in the world would I ever scan the negatives I shoot? It makes no sense
when I can take the negs into the darkroom, and for less than the cost of a
sheet of inkjet 'photo-quality' paper, I can make RA-4 prints? Scanning is
absolutely not needed for negatives to create prints. Additionally, using a
photo enlarger retains ALL of the image quality that is on the neg, not just
what the scanner is sadly capable of picking up.

Digital only makes sense to the unwashed masses with their cellphone
"cameras" and to the so-called professional photographers who have drunk the
Kool-Aid. Someday that may change, but as someone who knows a bit about
computers, semi-conductors, and electronics, it ain't gonna be for a while.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-21-2011
David J. Littleboy wrote,on my timestamp of 21/05/2011 11:59 AM:

> The experience here (and everywhere else someone competent that actually
> tries it) is that the old 12MP 5D made prints that looked very much like


You mean someone totally incompetent in using film, passing for "competent"?


> prints from 645 film. Worlds better than 35mm could ever dream of. And the
> 5D2 competes with 6x7. 21MP FF digital is a completely different universe
> from 24x36 mm film.


Only in the feeble minds of those who are incapable of using film properly.


> Color negative film (and "chromogenic" B&W) has phenomenal overexposure
> latitude. But the shadows, when exposed at the film's nominal rating, are
> horrifically bad.


Why would anyone in his right mind expose shadows at that rating? Ever heard of
the zone system applied to colour negative?


> And you can't use that latitude for anything other than
> pulling a bit more detail from specular highlights because color rendition
> shifts with overexposure. Since the shadows are so bad, it'd be nice to
> shoot, say, ISO 200 film at ISO 50, but then your highlight colors would be
> wonky. So the film manufacturers only claim 8 stops or so.



Actually, it's a lot more. Colour negative film compresses the dynamic range,
achieving a lot more than 8. That's the density range, often confused with
imaging dynamic range by those who understand about film what they read, rather
than actually using the product. And film manufacturers claim no such thing.



> Whereas a 14-bit sensor has a _theoretical_ DR of 14 stops, and most dSLRs
> have more than 10 stops of DR.


Yeah. It's all "theoretical", ain't it?

> I've been shooting since the 1960s, and the 5D and 5D2 are by far the most
> rugged and weatherproof cameras I've ever owned. The Hasselblad, Rolleiflex,
> Mamiya 645, and Mamiya 7 are nowhere near as rugged as a 5D.


I'm sure you included the Nikon F6 in that lot as well?


>> That one is way off, especially media cost. Who can afford to bang off
>> 1000 frames of film in one afternoon?

>
> Exactly.


Who the heck needs 1000 frames in one afternoon? Only the digital brigade with
the "shoot-and-pray" mantra so many here practice.

> Especially if you need 5D2 class print quality, which requires 6x7.


What a load of utter crap.


> And it's worse than that. Shoot 100 frames of 6x7 a month, only scan the 10
> keepers,


speak for yourself, please!

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: I Miss my Viewfinder ! Whisky-dave Digital Photography 6 06-05-2011 02:50 PM
Re: I Miss my Viewfinder ! David Dyer-Bennet Digital Photography 3 05-26-2011 01:49 PM
Re: I Miss my Viewfinder ! David Dyer-Bennet Digital Photography 2 05-25-2011 07:20 PM
Re: I Miss my Viewfinder ! MC Digital Photography 7 05-24-2011 12:37 PM
Re: I Miss my Viewfinder ! Wolfgang Weisselberg Digital Photography 2 05-18-2011 02:13 PM



Advertisments