Leice R9 System Goes Digital--What A Monstrosity!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by jeremy, Jul 18, 2006.

  1. jeremy

    acl Guest

    wrote:
    > the camera, and it showed in the design. New computers and new cameras
    > have the same failing: they're built for mass-market use by people that
    > neither understand them, nor really want to understand them, and thus
    > there is no emotional (?) connection to them.
    >


    While I do agree (mostly) with the spirit of your post, this sentence
    is patently untrue. It takes more technical knowledge to use, for
    example, a Nikon D200 than a Leica rangefinder. I once tried to help
    someone who was getting underexposed pictures with his D200 and ended
    up being called a computer geek (a term of derision for this person,
    obviously). Why? Because he explained his metering technique with his
    Leica M7 (I think), which consisted of pointing the camera towards a
    bright area, metering, locking exposure and shooting. He tried to do
    this with his D200, spot metering and aperture priority, and
    (obviously) it didn't work very well. He refused to even listen to
    explanations of centreweighted, matrix and spotmetering, the business
    with zones, how spotmetering is linked to the AF point etc. He just
    wanted to take pictures, as he put it. Now, I have nothing against him
    or his attitude to photography, but this simply proves that there
    exists at least one person for whom these old cameras are more user
    friendly (obviously, they'd be a lot less user-friendly if that guy
    tried to use slide film with his technique, but that's another story).

    Yes, it's possible to set modern SLRs to programmed exposure and matrix
    metering, but it's also possible to set them to manual exposure and
    spotmetering (and manual focus if you're so inclined), and have a lot
    more detailed control and feedback about the exposure.

    More evidence of what happens when people who don't know what they are
    doing get hold of a DSLR and try to use it may be found by reading some
    of the questions in this group, as well as going to dpreview and
    reading some of the questions in the forums (this only works for a
    laugh, if you try to help anybody you'll quickly discover that you're
    wasting your time). eg shooting sports matches with spotmetering and
    shutter priority is a recipe for disaster if you don't know what you're
    doing. Older cameras protect you from this by not offering spot
    metering or shutter priority.

    Anyway, my point is that modern SLRs may be set up in a wide variety of
    ways, ranging from requiring practically no technical knowledge to
    forcing the user to take care of every last detail in the exposure.

    Despite the above rant, and however much I like it, I don't think I'll
    feel the same way towards the D200 (or any other piece of photographic
    equipment) as I do for my Minolta XD7.

    > Old cameras have an advantage over old computers: you can still take
    > really good pictures with an old camera, while there's no way that an
    > old computer can hold its own against modern technology. My calculator
    > is, quite literally, more powerful than several of my old computers.
    >
     
    acl, Jul 19, 2006
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. jeremy

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:37:23 +0200, Chris Loffredo <>
    wrote:
    ....
    >>
    >> I must have missed the frame size. I assumed, from the brochure, that the
    >> existing Leica lenses could continue to be used without change.
    >>
    >> That adds even another reason not to buy it--your lenses have one focal
    >> length when used with film, and other effective focal lengths when used with
    >> the digital insert. It's like having two completely different camera
    >> systems.
    >>
    >> Are you absolutely certain about this not being full-frame? Who would buy
    >> such a camera system?
    >>
    >>

    >
    >1.37: Yes, I looked it up in the link you gave (I almost hoped Leica
    >*had* used a full-frame sensor).
    >
    >I'm still watching and waiting. Canon and Nikon *don't* make the
    >wide-angle lenses I like.
    >I a lens like the Leica 19mm will give an effective 26mm with the
    >digital back; nothing outstanding, but probably the best digital 26mm on
    >the market. But personally I'm not convinced by any existing digital
    >solution (as a replacement for my "serious" cameras")
    >The digital M sounds interesting (also because of the relatively cheap
    >Cosina/Voigtländer 12mm), but I doubt I'll be able to afford it new.
    >
    >So while "free film" has its charm, I don't see myself adopting digital
    >for serous work anytime soon...


    Why can't you buy a Canon full-frame camera (1Ds MKII or 5D)? These
    will let you use any of the Canon (or third-party) wide-angle lenses
    on the market.
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Jul 19, 2006
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. jeremy

    Bill Funk Guest

    On 19 Jul 2006 07:09:44 -0700, wrote:

    >
    >jeremy wrote:
    >>
    >> I wonder . . .
    >>
    >> Mechanical Leicas may have some appeal as collectable cameras. There is a
    >> legitimate market for things like mechanical cameras--an item whose time is
    >> past.
    >>
    >> But, consider electronic items. What happens to old computers, old cell
    >> phones, old Walkmen, old video games, etc.?
    >>
    >> They end up in the trash--not in the hands of museums or collectors.
    >>

    >
    >Now that's just not true. I can't speak for cell phones or Walkmen, but
    >old computers and old video game systems are -definitely- collectible.
    >I personally have a small collection of old 8-bit computers (and a
    >couple 16-bit ones), and have only stopped collecting them because of
    >lack of space (though if anyone has an Atari ST they want to get rid
    >of, I'm sure I can find room). I'm not alone...something as simple as a
    >web search for "old computers" will turn out several web pages. I'm
    >-not- an old camera collector...but I think the principle is the same.
    >Early microcomputers almost have personality: they have quirks, they do
    >things in unusual ways, and they're generally very cleverly designed.
    >Newer PCs are, with rare exceptions, all the same. (Apple does go to
    >some lengths to keep new models interesting.) I think it's the same
    >with, say, manual cameras: you really needed to learn and understand
    >the camera, and it showed in the design. New computers and new cameras
    >have the same failing: they're built for mass-market use by people that
    >neither understand them, nor really want to understand them, and thus
    >there is no emotional (?) connection to them.
    >
    >Old cameras have an advantage over old computers: you can still take
    >really good pictures with an old camera, while there's no way that an
    >old computer can hold its own against modern technology. My calculator
    >is, quite literally, more powerful than several of my old computers.
    >
    >- Darryl


    Collectibles are collectible not because they were "good", but because
    they are "rare."
    There are few things that are both collectible and in good supply.
    Computers aren't among them, except for some types (Amigas?) where the
    collectors are fanatics. :)
    Even things designed for the "mass market" become collectible when the
    buyers discard them as disposable (old bottles, anyone?). If the time
    comes when there are very few Nikon D50s, they will be collectible,
    regardless of a lack of an emotional attachment.
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Jul 19, 2006
    #23
  4. jeremy

    RichA Guest

    jeremy wrote:
    > "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    > > A couple of interesting things:
    > >
    > > - no AA filter (they talk about software antimoire filtering which
    > > sounds like nonsense, because you have to bandwidth-limit the signal
    > > before the sampling)
    > > - shifted microlenses at the edges of the frame, to make sure that the
    > > light rays hit well the CCD cell
    > > - they use the DNG file format in-camera
    > > - SD cards instead of CF
    > >

    >
    > I'd be interested to see what kind of images the camera creates. I know
    > virtually nothing about the merits of Leica's decision to substitute
    > software antimoire filtering instead of an AA filter, but Leica makes the
    > claim that it yields a better result.
    >
    > I'm afraid to ask just how much this thing costs . . . But it has got to be
    > a small fortune.
    >
    > So, what do we get in exchange for all that money? Even if there IS some
    > discernable margin of quality over Nikon or Canon, how much extra must be
    > paid for that extra margin?
    >
    > Leica is cornered. They require maintaining their reputation for producing
    > superior cameras and optics in order to justify the price they charge, but
    > how sturdy can anyone make a digital module? And why pay Leica prices for
    > something developed and manufactured by Kodak?
    >
    > When one can buy a Nikon DSLR for $750, and can probably replace it in 2
    > years with something twice as feature-laden at 2/3 of the current price, why
    > would anyone be eager to throw their money into the black hole that is
    > Leica?
    >
    > The only way Leica can compete is to go mass-market, and that might well be
    > their end.
    >
    > I think that digital imaging is turning out to be a "killer technology" for
    > the likes of Leica, just as fiber optics were a killer technology for analog
    > long distance circuits, and broadband is a killer technology for dial-up.
    > Leicas may become collectors' items, but who is going to actually use them
    > for everyday shooting? It's sad to see them in this vice.


    Unlike Canon, Nikon, etc, Leica can probably upgrade the camera by
    changing the
    digital module. It also shoots film for those who care.
    As for lenses, high-end Canon users buy:
    Leica
    Zeiss
    Olympus OM Zuiko
    some Nikon

    Particularly in the WA sizes and for FF Canon bodies..
     
    RichA, Jul 19, 2006
    #24
  5. Bill Funk wrote:
    > On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:37:23 +0200, Chris Loffredo <>
    > wrote:
    > ...
    >>> I must have missed the frame size. I assumed, from the brochure, that the
    >>> existing Leica lenses could continue to be used without change.
    >>>
    >>> That adds even another reason not to buy it--your lenses have one focal
    >>> length when used with film, and other effective focal lengths when used with
    >>> the digital insert. It's like having two completely different camera
    >>> systems.
    >>>
    >>> Are you absolutely certain about this not being full-frame? Who would buy
    >>> such a camera system?
    >>>
    >>>

    >> 1.37: Yes, I looked it up in the link you gave (I almost hoped Leica
    >> *had* used a full-frame sensor).
    >>
    >> I'm still watching and waiting. Canon and Nikon *don't* make the
    >> wide-angle lenses I like.
    >> I a lens like the Leica 19mm will give an effective 26mm with the
    >> digital back; nothing outstanding, but probably the best digital 26mm on
    >> the market. But personally I'm not convinced by any existing digital
    >> solution (as a replacement for my "serious" cameras")
    >> The digital M sounds interesting (also because of the relatively cheap
    >> Cosina/Voigtländer 12mm), but I doubt I'll be able to afford it new.
    >>
    >> So while "free film" has its charm, I don't see myself adopting digital
    >> for serous work anytime soon...

    >
    > Why can't you buy a Canon full-frame camera (1Ds MKII or 5D)? These
    > will let you use any of the Canon (or third-party) wide-angle lenses
    > on the market.


    Because, $$$ aside, they are not cameras I like:

    1) I don't like autofocus. While AF cameras *can* be focused manually,
    they do a poor job of it (a bit like driving a SUV on a racetrack).

    2) I don't want/need most of the other "functions" built into DSLRs,
    which tend to get in the way of rather then aid photography (IMHO).

    3) I don't like Canon lenses and especially the wide-angles.
    Yes, I can use other lenses using expensive adapters and with fully
    manual diaphragm (=dark image in the viewfinder). But that is a PITA.

    4) I don't shoot enough to make such a acquisition worthwhile.
    I have a digital P&S for when I need speed or volume.
    For the rest, I have some excellent film bodies and lenses and they do
    the job wonderfully.
     
    Chris Loffredo, Jul 19, 2006
    #25
  6. Chris Loffredo <> writes:

    > 1) I don't like autofocus. While AF cameras *can* be focused manually,
    > they do a poor job of it (a bit like driving a SUV on a racetrack).


    Well, it is true if you really have to have a rangefinder. OTOH, I get
    good results manual focusing with a microprism/split-image viewfinder
    on traditional SLR's, and these are available options on the 5D and
    1DsMkII.
     
    Toni Nikkanen, Jul 19, 2006
    #26
  7. jeremy

    Guest

    acl wrote:
    > wrote:
    > > the camera, and it showed in the design. New computers and new cameras
    > > have the same failing: they're built for mass-market use by people that
    > > neither understand them, nor really want to understand them, and thus
    > > there is no emotional (?) connection to them.
    > >

    >
    > While I do agree (mostly) with the spirit of your post, this sentence
    > is patently untrue. It takes more technical knowledge to use, for
    > example, a Nikon D200 than a Leica rangefinder.


    This is both true and untrue, as you mention later on:

    > Anyway, my point is that modern SLRs may be set up in a wide variety of
    > ways, ranging from requiring practically no technical knowledge to
    > forcing the user to take care of every last detail in the exposure.


    I can take my Digital Rebel, stick it in green box or portrait mode,
    and point it at things without paying any attention to what I'm doing.
    Most of the pictures will turn out pretty decent. I've only been
    interested in photography for a few years, and have never used any type
    of older camera, but I'll bet that if I grab a random 30-year-old
    rangefinder and point it at something pretty and click the shutter
    button, the resulting picture won't be nearly as well-focused (if
    focused at all) or exposed.

    This is missing my original point, which I didn't state particularly
    clearly: I think that purchasers of older cameras were expected to
    -care- about their cameras to a certain degree. This isn't some high
    philospophical point that the manufacturers were making; the technology
    at the time simply didn't allow anything different. Computers were that
    way; if you didn't spend some time getting to know how they worked, you
    couldn't make them do anything. And I think that in an environment like
    that, the end product tends to have a little more personality, because
    the people designing it also care. It's probably an effect of an
    industry being young - the companies are run by enthusiasts, not
    businessmen.

    But really, I'm not qualified to have this discussion, since I have no
    experience with older cameras. The first camera I ever owned was a
    Fujifilm 2MP P&S 3-4 years ago (still serving as my "pocket" camera).
    Before that, I was completely apathetic photographically, to the point
    that when I went on a one-week trip to Cape Town, I shot a grand total
    of two rolls of film with a borrowed 35mm P&S, and that was more out of
    a sense of duty than anything else.

    - Darryl
     
    , Jul 19, 2006
    #27
  8. jeremy

    jeremy Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >


    > I can take my Digital Rebel, stick it in green box or portrait mode,
    > and point it at things without paying any attention to what I'm doing.
    > Most of the pictures will turn out pretty decent.




    There is more to photographic equipment than that.

    I'm glad you're pleased with what you've got. But a lot of us aren't
    jumping for joy over having to replace our cameras every couple of years,
    like you had to replace your 2MP FujiFilm model.

    I am still using the Spotmatic IIa that I purchased 32 years ago. It takes
    better photos now (because of improvements and refinements in film
    emulsions) than it did the day I bought it. It is all-metal construction,
    and it looks like it just came out of the box.

    Now that might not be important criteria for you, but not everyone goes for
    cameras that become technologically obsolete in 2 years.

    I shoot film and digital, and I do not see myself abandoning film entirely
    in favor of digital. It is not now, nor was it ever, an "either-or"
    situation.
     
    jeremy, Jul 19, 2006
    #28
  9. jeremy

    acl Guest

    Re: Leica R9 System Goes Digital--What A Monstrosity!

    jeremy wrote:
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >

    >
    > > I can take my Digital Rebel, stick it in green box or portrait mode,
    > > and point it at things without paying any attention to what I'm doing.
    > > Most of the pictures will turn out pretty decent.

    >
    >
    >
    > There is more to photographic equipment than that.
    >
    > I'm glad you're pleased with what you've got. But a lot of us aren't
    > jumping for joy over having to replace our cameras every couple of years,
    > like you had to replace your 2MP FujiFilm model.
    >


    Why do you have to replace a current DSLR in two years? The mere fact
    that a new model is out doesn't make your camera take worse pictures!
    If you are using, for example, a Nikon D200, or a Canon 30D or
    something similar, you get results more or less equivalent to what
    you'd get with a current 35mm film(*) at low ISOs (at higher, there is
    simply no comparison, digital wins easily). And it's less hassle (of
    course this might be a disadvantage for you, if you enjoy the process
    of developing the film etc; I personally hate it). So, I don't see the
    practical problem: Just keep your camera and keep using it until it
    breaks, and pretend there aren't any new models out. You'll still get
    quality at least equal to most 35mm films.

    It seems that people have a problem with the fact that digital cameras
    improve a lot faster than film cameras, because the technology is
    newer. But so what? Nobody was complaining that 35mm cameras were
    obsolete, even though one could just buy medium or large format gear
    and get much better results. And good DSLRs perform quite adequately in
    comparison to 35mm film, as I said.

    This problem that people seem to have with digital cameras being
    obsoleted very quickly seems to me to be a problem of perception (at
    least nowadays): they don't like it that something better is out. Not
    that I have any problem with this feeling as such. Please do correct me
    if you mean something else.

    > I shoot film and digital, and I do not see myself abandoning film entirely
    > in favor of digital. It is not now, nor was it ever, an "either-or"
    > situation.


    Sure it's not. If you need/want a small, silent camera which doesn't
    need batteries, you must use film. Similarly if you need to be able to
    print bigger than is allowed by DSLRs and don't feel like paying
    ridiculous amounts of money for medium format digital backs. Lastly,
    you might prefer taking photographs on film for whatever reason. No
    problem with any of these. I just don't understand the "it'll be
    obsolete" argument.


    (*) Let's not get into whether or not this particular film is "better"
    than that camera. If you disagree with this point (ie that that 35mm
    film and DSLRs are nowadays more or less equal at low ISOs, let's just
    agree to disagree, and please ignore this post.
     
    acl, Jul 19, 2006
    #29
  10. jeremy

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <>, acl
    says...

    > While I do agree (mostly) with the spirit of your post, this sentence
    > is patently untrue. It takes more technical knowledge to use, for
    > example, a Nikon D200 than a Leica rangefinder. I once tried to help
    > someone who was getting underexposed pictures with his D200 and ended
    > up being called a computer geek (a term of derision for this person,
    > obviously). Why? Because he explained his metering technique with his
    > Leica M7 (I think), which consisted of pointing the camera towards a
    > bright area, metering, locking exposure and shooting. He tried to do
    > this with his D200, spot metering and aperture priority, and
    > (obviously) it didn't work very well. He refused to even listen to
    > explanations of centreweighted, matrix and spotmetering, the business
    > with zones, how spotmetering is linked to the AF point etc. He just
    > wanted to take pictures, as he put it. Now, I have nothing against him
    > or his attitude to photography, but this simply proves that there
    > exists at least one person for whom these old cameras are more user
    > friendly (obviously, they'd be a lot less user-friendly if that guy
    > tried to use slide film with his technique, but that's another story).


    If you used a camera with live preview you would not have to worry about
    over/underexposing images, actually you wouldn't have to worry at all
    about exposure. Overexposed or underexposed areas of the image would
    show up in the LCD screen before you press the shutter and you could
    simply get properly exposed photos (in case the camera didn't meter
    properly) by rotating the EV wheel left or right.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330 and E500 forum at
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    Olympus E330 resource - http://myolympus.org/E330/
     
    Alfred Molon, Jul 19, 2006
    #30
  11. jeremy

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Re: Leica R9 System Goes Digital--What A Monstrosity!

    In article <>, acl
    says...

    > It seems that people have a problem with the fact that digital cameras
    > improve a lot faster than film cameras, because the technology is
    > newer. But so what? Nobody was complaining that 35mm cameras were
    > obsolete, even though one could just buy medium or large format gear
    > and get much better results. And good DSLRs perform quite adequately in
    > comparison to 35mm film, as I said.


    True, unless you sell your photos. If so, every couple of years or so
    you might have to upgrade your equipment, otherwise stock photo sites
    might not accept your photos anymore. Based on what I've heard, the
    minimum resolution some stock sites will accept is now 10-12MP and
    perhaps in a couple of years you'll have to use a 16MP camera.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330 and E500 forum at
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    Olympus E330 resource - http://myolympus.org/E330/
     
    Alfred Molon, Jul 19, 2006
    #31
  12. jeremy

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:38:32 +0200, Chris Loffredo <>
    wrote:

    >Bill Funk wrote:
    >> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:37:23 +0200, Chris Loffredo <>
    >> wrote:
    >> ...
    >>>> I must have missed the frame size. I assumed, from the brochure, that the
    >>>> existing Leica lenses could continue to be used without change.
    >>>>
    >>>> That adds even another reason not to buy it--your lenses have one focal
    >>>> length when used with film, and other effective focal lengths when used with
    >>>> the digital insert. It's like having two completely different camera
    >>>> systems.
    >>>>
    >>>> Are you absolutely certain about this not being full-frame? Who would buy
    >>>> such a camera system?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> 1.37: Yes, I looked it up in the link you gave (I almost hoped Leica
    >>> *had* used a full-frame sensor).
    >>>
    >>> I'm still watching and waiting. Canon and Nikon *don't* make the
    >>> wide-angle lenses I like.
    >>> I a lens like the Leica 19mm will give an effective 26mm with the
    >>> digital back; nothing outstanding, but probably the best digital 26mm on
    >>> the market. But personally I'm not convinced by any existing digital
    >>> solution (as a replacement for my "serious" cameras")
    >>> The digital M sounds interesting (also because of the relatively cheap
    >>> Cosina/Voigtländer 12mm), but I doubt I'll be able to afford it new.
    >>>
    >>> So while "free film" has its charm, I don't see myself adopting digital
    >>> for serous work anytime soon...

    >>
    >> Why can't you buy a Canon full-frame camera (1Ds MKII or 5D)? These
    >> will let you use any of the Canon (or third-party) wide-angle lenses
    >> on the market.

    >
    >Because, $$$ aside, they are not cameras I like:
    >
    >1) I don't like autofocus. While AF cameras *can* be focused manually,
    >they do a poor job of it (a bit like driving a SUV on a racetrack).
    >
    >2) I don't want/need most of the other "functions" built into DSLRs,
    >which tend to get in the way of rather then aid photography (IMHO).
    >
    >3) I don't like Canon lenses and especially the wide-angles.
    >Yes, I can use other lenses using expensive adapters and with fully
    >manual diaphragm (=dark image in the viewfinder). But that is a PITA.
    >
    >4) I don't shoot enough to make such a acquisition worthwhile.
    >I have a digital P&S for when I need speed or volume.
    >For the rest, I have some excellent film bodies and lenses and they do
    >the job wonderfully.


    Fair enough.
    Of course, as you know, it will become more difficult to find new
    cameras that match your wants as time goes on. :-(
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Jul 19, 2006
    #32
  13. jeremy

    Bill Funk Guest

    Re: Leica R9 System Goes Digital--What A Monstrosity!

    On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:22:12 +0200, Alfred Molon
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>, acl
    >says...
    >
    >> It seems that people have a problem with the fact that digital cameras
    >> improve a lot faster than film cameras, because the technology is
    >> newer. But so what? Nobody was complaining that 35mm cameras were
    >> obsolete, even though one could just buy medium or large format gear
    >> and get much better results. And good DSLRs perform quite adequately in
    >> comparison to 35mm film, as I said.

    >
    >True, unless you sell your photos. If so, every couple of years or so
    >you might have to upgrade your equipment, otherwise stock photo sites
    >might not accept your photos anymore. Based on what I've heard, the
    >minimum resolution some stock sites will accept is now 10-12MP and
    >perhaps in a couple of years you'll have to use a 16MP camera.


    Pros should be making enough money to support their business. Buying
    the newer equipment to keep current in your business is expected.
    But not everyone is a pro.
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Jul 19, 2006
    #33
  14. jeremy

    Guest

    jeremy wrote:
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >

    >
    > > I can take my Digital Rebel, stick it in green box or portrait mode,
    > > and point it at things without paying any attention to what I'm doing.
    > > Most of the pictures will turn out pretty decent.

    >
    >
    >
    > There is more to photographic equipment than that.


    I wasn't trying to indicate that this is all there is to photographic
    equipment. My point was that, depending on how you use it, a modern
    DSLR can be easier to operate than an older, "simpler" type of camera.
    This was in response to acl's comment, "It takes more technical
    knowledge to use, for example, a Nikon D200 than a Leica rangefinder".

    > I'm glad you're pleased with what you've got.


    Me too. But contrary to what I may have unintentionally implied, I'm
    pleased with it because of the flexibility and control, not because of
    the automation. It would make very little difference to me if the
    automatic modes on my camera disappeared entirely; I don't use them.
    But if you do use them, the camera can be operated with zero technical
    knowledge...which is the point I was trying to make.

    > But a lot of us aren't
    > jumping for joy over having to replace our cameras every couple of years,
    > like you had to replace your 2MP FujiFilm model.


    I didn't replace it because it was obsolete - I replaced it because I
    outgrew it. I bought it because I didn't own a camera, and was going to
    Europe, and it seemed like a camera would be a good thing to have
    along. A year later, I had developed an interest in photography as a
    hobby, and upgraded to the Rebel. If digital photography didn't exist,
    I would have started with a 35mm point-and-shoot, and moved up to a
    film SLR. Either way, I'd be on my second camera right now.

    > I am still using the Spotmatic IIa that I purchased 32 years ago. It takes
    > better photos now (because of improvements and refinements in film
    > emulsions) than it did the day I bought it. It is all-metal construction,
    > and it looks like it just came out of the box.
    >
    > Now that might not be important criteria for you, but not everyone goes for
    > cameras that become technologically obsolete in 2 years.


    Again, I didn't replace my camera because it was obsolete. My needs had
    changed. I still use my Fujifilm for situations where the DRebel is not
    appropriate (sometimes I want something smaller; sometimes I don't want
    to risk loss or theft). I wouldn't call it obsolete; it takes pictures
    just as well today as it did three years ago.

    > I shoot film and digital, and I do not see myself abandoning film entirely
    > in favor of digital. It is not now, nor was it ever, an "either-or"
    > situation.


    If I said anything that suggested it was, then I wasn't careful enough
    choosing my words.

    - Darryl
     
    , Jul 19, 2006
    #34
  15. jeremy

    acl Guest

    Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <>, acl
    > says...
    >
    >
    > If you used a camera with live preview you would not have to worry about
    > over/underexposing images, actually you wouldn't have to worry at all
    > about exposure. Overexposed or underexposed areas of the image would
    > show up in the LCD screen before you press the shutter and you could
    > simply get properly exposed photos (in case the camera didn't meter
    > properly) by rotating the EV wheel left or right.
    >


    Yes, I agree completely. This, and the live histogram, are the nicest
    things about EVFs (I don't like external LCDs except when I have to use
    the camera in awkward positions; but my compact doesn't have this, so I
    don't have much experience with it). But I find current EVFs limited in
    both resolution and night use (compared to SLRs). This surely can be
    fixed with time.
     
    acl, Jul 20, 2006
    #35
  16. Re: Leica R9 System Goes Digital--What A Monstrosity!

    acl schrieb:
    > This problem that people seem to have with digital cameras being
    > obsoleted very quickly seems to me to be a problem of perception (at
    > least nowadays): they don't like it that something better is out.

    I think that problem would have existed, if there had been room for
    improvement in film cameras.
    But, resolution was more or less film based, so no scramble for the
    latest sensor and optical "revolutions" were limited to zooms.

    No one thought about putting a tape recorder in for taking notes for
    instance, there was no slr with polaroid preview, no 8mm movie mode,
    you couldn't stuff in a hundred yards of film into an extralarge
    magazine and no prepackaged bags for the lab ever dropped out of
    any film camera either.
    Therefore, after auto exposure there was essentially no need for
    new film cameras anymore, only for the occasional lens replacement.

    But digital cameras have acquired all those features over time and will
    acquire many more, therefore people will switch more often.

    Lots of Greetings!
    Volker
    --
    For email replies, please substitute the obvious.
     
    Volker Hetzer, Jul 20, 2006
    #36
  17. jeremy

    acl Guest

    Re: Leica R9 System Goes Digital--What A Monstrosity!

    Volker Hetzer wrote:
    > acl schrieb:
    >> This problem that people seem to have with digital cameras being
    >> obsoleted very quickly seems to me to be a problem of perception (at
    >> least nowadays): they don't like it that something better is out.

    > I think that problem would have existed, if there had been room for
    > improvement in film cameras.
    > But, resolution was more or less film based, so no scramble for the
    > latest sensor and optical "revolutions" were limited to zooms.
    >
    > No one thought about putting a tape recorder in for taking notes for
    > instance, there was no slr with polaroid preview, no 8mm movie mode,
    > you couldn't stuff in a hundred yards of film into an extralarge
    > magazine and no prepackaged bags for the lab ever dropped out of
    > any film camera either.
    > Therefore, after auto exposure there was essentially no need for
    > new film cameras anymore, only for the occasional lens replacement.
    >
    > But digital cameras have acquired all those features over time and will
    > acquire many more, therefore people will switch more often.
    >
    > Lots of Greetings!
    > Volker



    But people could buy large backs holding hundreds of frames worth of
    film for some SLRs; how many did? They could buy medium format equipment
    and get much more ability to enlarge; also interchangeable backs and the
    ability to use polaroids for preview. How many did? Why would they find
    them indispensable now, if not because "they exist, so I must have them"?

    By the way, some of the features of digital cameras you're talking about
    (eg the ability to print directly from the card, video mode etc) are
    really not what people who pay 2000 euro (say) for their cameras want
    (well they may want them but that's not what they pay for). eg my DSLR
    has no video mode, if you shoot jpegs you really don't want to print
    them without postprocessing, it has no voice annotation (and I
    personally wouldn't have used it anyway, but others might), and can only
    fit around 60 photos on a 1GB card. What you pay for is image and build
    quality, things like built-in intervalometers (not a gimmick!) and speed.
     
    acl, Jul 20, 2006
    #37
  18. Re: Leica R9 System Goes Digital--What A Monstrosity!

    acl schrieb:
    > Volker Hetzer wrote:
    >> acl schrieb:
    >>> This problem that people seem to have with digital cameras being
    >>> obsoleted very quickly seems to me to be a problem of perception (at
    >>> least nowadays): they don't like it that something better is out.

    >> I think that problem would have existed, if there had been room for
    >> improvement in film cameras.
    >> But, resolution was more or less film based, so no scramble for the
    >> latest sensor and optical "revolutions" were limited to zooms.
    >>
    >> No one thought about putting a tape recorder in for taking notes for
    >> instance, there was no slr with polaroid preview, no 8mm movie mode,
    >> you couldn't stuff in a hundred yards of film into an extralarge
    >> magazine and no prepackaged bags for the lab ever dropped out of
    >> any film camera either.
    >> Therefore, after auto exposure there was essentially no need for
    >> new film cameras anymore, only for the occasional lens replacement.
    >>
    >> But digital cameras have acquired all those features over time and will
    >> acquire many more, therefore people will switch more often.
    >>
    >> Lots of Greetings!
    >> Volker

    >
    >
    > But people could buy large backs holding hundreds of frames worth of
    > film for some SLRs; how many did? They could buy medium format equipment
    > and get much more ability to enlarge; also interchangeable backs and the
    > ability to use polaroids for preview. How many did? Why would they find
    > them indispensable now, if not because "they exist, so I must have them"?

    I have never seen such things. If they had been sitting on the shelves like
    digicams today, I might have bought them. How where they marketed?
    Also, how much would a polaroid preview cost? The viewer comes for free.
    A bigger CF card holding more images doesn't make my digicam any bigger or
    heavier.
    Even a bigger sensor is a one time investment, as opposed to 6x9 camera,
    film and nonstandard development.

    >
    > By the way, some of the features of digital cameras you're talking about
    > (eg the ability to print directly from the card, video mode etc) are
    > really not what people who pay 2000 euro (say) for their cameras want

    Yes, but people who pay a few hundred dollars want them. Digitally it's
    possible to make them cheap enough. If it's cheap, the threshold for
    a replacement sinks, so people change their equipment frequently.

    The reason I imagine for pros to change is IMHO primary the sensor
    quality. Resolution, noise and dynamic range are all good reasons
    for upgrade. Yes, even resolution. Last holiday I found myself repeatedly
    taking one wide angle shot (8MP) and cropping it into two non overlapping
    jpg's, so new ways of working will be possible with high quality wide
    angled lenses coupled with high-res sensors. So, even if resolution, noise
    and range get better than todays films, new ways of working will emerge
    that use those capabilities.
    In a few years I imagine SLR bodies with replaceable sensors, like, with
    big pixels for the night and indoors and lots of small pixels for landscape.
    The sensors then come in small, dust protected black packages and are
    inserted, uh, like different films today...

    Lots of Greetings!
    Volker
    --
    For email replies, please substitute the obvious.
     
    Volker Hetzer, Jul 20, 2006
    #38
  19. jeremy

    acl Guest

    Re: Leica R9 System Goes Digital--What A Monstrosity!

    Volker Hetzer wrote:
    > The reason I imagine for pros to change is IMHO primary the sensor
    > quality. Resolution, noise and dynamic range are all good reasons
    > for upgrade. Yes, even resolution. Last holiday I found myself repeatedly
    > taking one wide angle shot (8MP) and cropping it into two non overlapping
    > jpg's, so new ways of working will be possible with high quality wide
    > angled lenses coupled with high-res sensors. So, even if resolution, noise
    > and range get better than todays films, new ways of working will emerge
    > that use those capabilities.
    > In a few years I imagine SLR bodies with replaceable sensors, like, with
    > big pixels for the night and indoors and lots of small pixels for
    > landscape.
    > The sensors then come in small, dust protected black packages and are
    > inserted, uh, like different films today...
    >


    Actually, I don't think we disagree at all! I never said nobody should
    upgrade. My point was that it is hardly logical to complain that cameras
    improve too quickly, since you can simply pretend they don't. But the
    fact that they do improve is, if you ask me, a good thing.
     
    acl, Jul 20, 2006
    #39
  20. jeremy

    J. Clarke Guest

    Re: Leica R9 System Goes Digital--What A Monstrosity!

    Volker Hetzer wrote:

    > acl schrieb:
    >> Volker Hetzer wrote:
    >>> acl schrieb:
    >>>> This problem that people seem to have with digital cameras being
    >>>> obsoleted very quickly seems to me to be a problem of perception (at
    >>>> least nowadays): they don't like it that something better is out.
    >>> I think that problem would have existed, if there had been room for
    >>> improvement in film cameras.
    >>> But, resolution was more or less film based, so no scramble for the
    >>> latest sensor and optical "revolutions" were limited to zooms.
    >>>
    >>> No one thought about putting a tape recorder in for taking notes for
    >>> instance, there was no slr with polaroid preview, no 8mm movie mode,
    >>> you couldn't stuff in a hundred yards of film into an extralarge
    >>> magazine and no prepackaged bags for the lab ever dropped out of
    >>> any film camera either.
    >>> Therefore, after auto exposure there was essentially no need for
    >>> new film cameras anymore, only for the occasional lens replacement.
    >>>
    >>> But digital cameras have acquired all those features over time and will
    >>> acquire many more, therefore people will switch more often.
    >>>
    >>> Lots of Greetings!
    >>> Volker

    >>
    >>
    >> But people could buy large backs holding hundreds of frames worth of
    >> film for some SLRs; how many did? They could buy medium format equipment
    >> and get much more ability to enlarge; also interchangeable backs and the
    >> ability to use polaroids for preview. How many did? Why would they find
    >> them indispensable now, if not because "they exist, so I must have them"?

    > I have never seen such things.


    35 years ago their existence was well known to high school kids in a town in
    the boondocks where none of us would ever hope to see such a thing other
    than by ordering it or taking a trip to NY or LA.

    > If they had been sitting on the shelves
    > like digicams today, I might have bought them. How where they marketed?


    To professional photographers.

    > Also, how much would a polaroid preview cost?


    Depends on the system.

    > The viewer comes for free.
    > A bigger CF card holding more images doesn't make my digicam any bigger or
    > heavier.
    > Even a bigger sensor is a one time investment, as opposed to 6x9 camera,
    > film and nonstandard development.


    So? They were available.

    >> By the way, some of the features of digital cameras you're talking about
    >> (eg the ability to print directly from the card, video mode etc) are
    >> really not what people who pay 2000 euro (say) for their cameras want

    > Yes, but people who pay a few hundred dollars want them. Digitally it's
    > possible to make them cheap enough. If it's cheap, the threshold for
    > a replacement sinks, so people change their equipment frequently.
    >
    > The reason I imagine for pros to change is IMHO primary the sensor
    > quality. Resolution, noise and dynamic range are all good reasons
    > for upgrade. Yes, even resolution. Last holiday I found myself repeatedly
    > taking one wide angle shot (8MP) and cropping it into two non overlapping
    > jpg's, so new ways of working will be possible with high quality wide
    > angled lenses coupled with high-res sensors.


    How is that a "new way of working"? You can do the same with film. The
    question is why one would want to other than as a salvage operation or for
    forensic analysis.

    > So, even if resolution, noise
    > and range get better than todays films, new ways of working will emerge
    > that use those capabilities.
    > In a few years I imagine SLR bodies with replaceable sensors, like, with
    > big pixels for the night and indoors and lots of small pixels for
    > landscape. The sensors then come in small, dust protected black packages
    > and are inserted, uh, like different films today...


    Interesting thought. Unlikely to happen though--easier just to span pixels
    for low light.


    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Jul 20, 2006
    #40
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. John Rethorst

    Cathy (cartoon) goes digital

    John Rethorst, Sep 8, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    734
    Ms. Jaime
    Sep 9, 2003
  2. Allan
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,002
    Mark Spatny
    Apr 18, 2005
  3. JohnR66

    Digital Rebel goes 5x life size Cheap!

    JohnR66, May 1, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    586
  4. Annika1980

    THE TOTALLY DIGITAL D60 GOES ARTSY-FARTSY!

    Annika1980, Apr 1, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    293
    Bob Williams
    Apr 1, 2007
  5. Mark Robinson

    Film production goes digital

    Mark Robinson, Aug 24, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    596
    Dave Taylor
    Sep 1, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page