Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: fredjeang on April 24, 2010, 02:54:15 am
-
Finaly an article about the GRX system!
I've been surprised why nothing has been writen here so far in the sense that this path is probably one of the most exiting in term of design.
I wish there is a future here, and that others will join the train.
First: this little body has exactly the controls I'd like to see in any camera. Ricoh obviously is thinking more photography and less marketing.
Please Canon, Pentax and Co: ask your designers to watch how Ricoh resolve the interface! Only Leica can compeat in this terrain.
second: IQ is on par with the X1, better than MFT specially in low light. I'd trust more the files in PP from this gear to be honest and that is peace of mind.
third: Ricoh has made a "stupid decision" not allowing lens mount, but with such a system that can be solve any time in the future.
A question: Why Leica has not taken this path with the S2 ? I really do not understand it, and mentionned it at least a 100 times, because sure than the S2 would have been a game changer: a dslr body with MF sensor AND MF modularity...Again, it seems that Leica has taken a train in late.
Cheers.
-
I read the 'review' because of your interest in it, Fred, but I have to admit that the product of the reading was boredom: I'm afraid that, to me, all these changes to format etc. are nothing but desperate attempts at catching new market share, just as the TV 'beauty contests' of the three main political parties in the UK election battle. Battle, yes... more like a confidence tricksters' convention.
My feeling is simply that we already have far too many types and systems of camera with which to play. What we need are a couple of really good ones that take us back to the relative certainties of the 'blad and Nik (okay, allow Canon in too) film era. Maybe I was just lucky, but the systems never let me down, only some small failures due to insufficient servicing ruffled my feathers; the rest of the time I forgot about them and just used them.
Competition is sometimes said to be an essential part of progress, and perhaps it does help in pushing various expensive testings, but I do believe that we have probably already reached the point where the needs of photographers are pretty well understood, and the requirement/failure is in reaching those expectations, not in introducing alternative forms of oven in which to cook turkeys. That isn't an answer to anything - just an attempt to grab sales through a trick or two.
Maybe the market will resolve itself if those who need MF eventually settle on a single brand that meets the greatest number of photographers' dreams - much as the 500 Series did, with alternative brands simply providing cheaper, very similar means to the same end. It was very nice to live in an era where the Nikon F, the Hasselblad 500C and the Leica M3 were as good as it got, (and photograhers knew that!) with Sinar and Linhof providing for those with a different agenda. I like that sort of security, comfort blanket, almost; there are fights enough in the photographic workplace without added ones with the equipment makers. It's going to end up like cars: they are all very similar within price bands; there are too many price bands, none is particularly attractive to own and only the exotica can raise a suggestion of desire. Cool.
Rob C
-
Hi Rob,
Precisely, what makes the GRX unique is that it goes in the points you just mentionned. On the other side, I'm not sure that the needs of photographers are covered enough. In fact, what we mostly see is just a digital adaptation of old systems made for films. Digital allows less conservatism and I think Ricoh did it well but they unfortunatly did half way (no mount).
In search of "stability", if you have a great camera, with this system all you'd have to do is upgrade the module sensor when new technology is available instead of having to buy a totally new body and read the 400 pages instructions. It's clean, no marketing, no hassle, just working with the same camera that you are familiar with. That's the strenght of MF-LF and that should be implemented in smaller formats IMO.
The implications are enormous. Imagine a 1D MARK 4 with modular sensors and what does it mean in terms of workflow, flexibility etc...
You could have a dedicated module for video, a dedicated infrared module or whatever. You shoot in action with the same gear and just change the module in a second. If you need a bigger sensor size module, a smaller with more speed and more DOF etc...
And this is digital potential, not simply adapting old designs to new technology.
Hey Rob, spring is back. Hope you turn off the calefación and start to smell the sand and sea.
Cheers.
-
Hi Fred
Spring is indeed back, and I hope that it stays this time! I am thinking of venturing out for a café au lait in a moment, but, no doubt, by then it will have turned cold again. I have finished all the wood I bought for the winter - so considering the GESA prices, I shall just wear more clothes!
But getting to the camera topic once more - what you are suggesting with the interchangeable modules is really something I see as added expense, a further opportunity for manufacturers to produce all sorts of 'dedicated' backs (or fronts!) to suit different applications, when all you really need is a good sensor that only needs a good lens in front of it, not entirely new bits of camera. That's the problem: film allowed that but digital, in its superiority (?) does not right now, because it seems you can only choose to have good high or low ISO performance but seldom both in a single sensor. I think - though mabe I have misunderstood it all - wouldn't surprise me at all.
If you do go down the road of interchangeable modules, then I suspect that the weight of the kit will be even greater than it is already, not exactly much to do with the pocketable concept.
That Euro Milliones had defeated me yet again; no supercar this week, then.
Rob C
-
Ricoh, a very small company, is alone in this design for the moment. Sure that if the big boys smell that there is a way to make the people buy more gear they will do it right now...but I think they won't. They need to sale cameras, not just sensors units.
Now, Ricoh will be very kind to do a Leica R unit sensor for example. (just kiding)
If you think about it, what we have now is an inmature digital interpretation of old technology. When you bought your F3, 35mm was 35mm. Fuji or whatever film maker could release a new film technology, all you had to do was putting the film in your F3, not upgrading the entire camera. If you were happy with your camera and accessories then you could work with the same basic tool for decades. You want infrared? you want Pan film? well, just put it in the F3 or whatever Pentax. Now I hear people talking about dedicated infrared camera etc...is not that absurd? Current average design is perfect to make us spend more money than we should and that is why I doubt the big boys will join that train.
Now what they gave us is like one type of film with unlimited frames call sensor. When "digi-film" is obsolete (and they are fast), you are obliged to buy a new camera. Imagine that 20 years ago someone would have told you that you'll have one film in your camera that can not be replaced so when they decide this film is obsolete, you'll have to buy a brand new gear with another fixed film, so every 4 years it is time to replace your entire camera, and they are kind enough that some accessories are even not compatible...you would have think this guy is crazy. Oh, and that there are a lot of different resolution according to the price one can afford in a same format. But that is what we have except in MF-LF land because here they can not play this silly game...although some recent products...
-
Now what they gave us is like one type of film with unlimited frames call sensor. When "digi-film" is obsolete (and they are fast), you are obliged to buy a new camera. Imagine that 20 years ago someone would have told you that you'll have one film in your camera that can not be replaced so when they decide this film is obsolete, you'll have to buy a brand new gear with another fixed film, so every 4 years it is time to replace your entire camera, and they are kind enough that some accessories are even not compatible...you would have think this guy is crazy. Oh, and that there are a lot of different resolution according to the price one can afford in a same format. But that is what we have except in MF-LF land because here they can not play this silly game...although some recent products...
Fred,
This idea of replacing the whole camera instead of the film is not crazy at all. Just the opposite, in fact.
Consider the following example. About 5 years a go I bought a Canon 5D for about A$5,000. I've used that camera more than any other camera in my entire life, having shot approximately 100,000 frames.
Let's consider how much it would have cost me to shoot 100,000 frames of color negative film. A 36-exposure roll costs on average A$10. It costs another $10 to develop the film plus another $10 to scan to CD ROM at the rather low resolution of 3000x2000 pixels.
To shoot 100,000 frames I'd need 2,778 rolls, each 36 exposures. Total cost, including developing and scanning would be 2778x30= A$83,340.
Okay! Let's economise. I buy my film in bulk, say $5 per roll, and I do my own scanning of just a small proportion of the shots taken. I'll also take into consideration the fact that I probably wouldn't take nearly as many shots as 100,000 during a 5 year period if each time I press the shutter it costs me money. Let's say I take only 25,000 shots during the 4 or 5 year period.
The calculation then becomes: 25,000/36=695 rolls. At $5 for the film and $10 for the development, 695x$15=$10,425
Now that's more reasonable isn't it? Except, a replacement for the 5D in the form of a 5D Mk II will cost me only A$3,000, will produce results far superior to the best 35mm film, and shoots very respectable video also.
I think I'd definitely prefer to replace the entire camera body every 4 or 5 years .
-
I totally agree with Ray's points (at least considering the calculations for the amateur, for pro it is another story because you generate incomes with investment/cost whatever this might be) . The thing is that we have the technology right now to get the best of both current digital systems and film age. They've been doing it in MFD and I think it's a great design for smaller formats also. In fact, greater than the designs we have now IMHO.
-
Ray, your argument seems, to me at least, to be nothing other than a plea for the machine gun school of photography; finger exercise yoga.
Let's look at your four or five year period in some detail. You speculate on 25,000 shots or 695 rolls of film. On your maths, I would expect you to have garnered 695 wonderful images. Have you? In a lifetime of pro work, which saw me do relatively well, I would laugh out loud were you to ask me to make an exhibition of more than fifty to seventy images on which I'd stake my reputation, whatever that might have been. Of those 695 films I would certainly expect to have come up with a shot that fulfills the brief in each roll, but great is something else. And that's one of the problems amateur photography inevitably faces: what's the standard going to be? Remove the commercial imperative that virtually defines subject and execution, and what judgement can you appeal to regarding your work?
Either pro or am, if one's vision and thought is focussed, one hardly faces problems defined by cost of film. Such problems arise from indecision and no clear sense of purpose. I would submit that blasting one's way through photographic life is no route to success, but more likely one that leads to disappointment.
Racking up big click scores may indeed be part of some commercial techniques - fashion, for example, where you are not only encouraging the model and building her and yourself up to getting something approaching a visible climactic reaction, but you are also attempting to bring all that together with the background, the breeze or the wind machine and what it does to the cloth and where it throws the hair. A hit in thirty-six ain't bad! But were one to apply those maths norms to landscape, architecture or product, I'd say one is in the wrong business.
So yep, the old, reliable 'blad and Nikon were certainly not second-class citizens in my world. The single, huge benefit I see with digital is that it shortens the time between shot and available image. And that really only means much where a client expects or needs the turnaround to be so fast.
If I look at my own shooting, I can't say that I do much more with two digital cameras than I would have with film; it is just more convenient for me now since Kodachrome has vanished and E6, at least on the island, is pretty well a lost possibility too. Thanks, sensor. Today's ideal, for me, would have been the 500 series and Ektachrome with a dedicated 120 scanner: rapid editing and a great route to the kind of b/w image I love to print (yes, Virginia, I know Ektachrome is colour transparency film). So even here, now an amateur on a rock, I have come to realise that removed from the needs of the fashion or glamour shoot, the slow ways of the medium format are far more likely to lead to considered work that will mean something even after the shooting.
Rob C
-
I'm sure that if the Leica beast S had been modular it would have been another story.
The body is perfectly designed, no hassle menus and wired ergonomics in the line of the Contax 645 and no need to change any basic interface.
Example of applications: you need video? Put a smaller sensor unit to solve the D.O.F problem, specially dedicated for that task.
And that could fit with the R lenses that Leica abandoned to the E.bay collectors market.
You need resolution? put a unit that fits that purpose.
You need fast shooting? put the dedicated unit.
etc...
But your body stays the same.
Modularity should be a basic feature in camera design. That's also the reason why MFD is exciting, not only resolution IMHO.
-
The snag is, that digital photography in 2010 is probably (or almost certainly) still in its infancy. Perhaps where chemical photography was in the 1850s, say. No-one can predict with any certainty where it is going or where we will be in 10 or 20 years time, either. And because digital imaging is, by its nature, totally bound up with the development of IT hardware and software, the volatile nature of that business feeds back into camera design too.
You only have to read the reviews here on LL from ten years ago to appreciate the huge gulf in price and performance which has arisen in just those ten short years. There is no real stability in digital camera design, and can't be until we have reached the practical limits of sensor photosite density, DR, low-light sensitivity, on-board memory capacity and read speed. And we are not there yet. The only relatively long-lived digital camera designs so far seem to be the Canon 5D and 1DS, probably because they set the bar very high in the first place. I have the feeling that the Ricoh is actually an evolutionary dead-end, good though it probably is.
You might eventually see the digital successors to the Hass 500, Nikon F and Leica M, but I think that is a long way off yet.
John
-
You might eventually see the digital successors to the Hass 500, Nikon F and Leica M, but I think that is a long way off yet.
John
Hi John
You have just defined my dream list, all of which I have owned, barring the Leica. Today, the dream would be the 500 with a full-frame sensor. There would then be the opportunity for the perfect factory mating of body and back (no interchangeabilty required!) and the perfect body shape would be back in business.
If they looked at it this way, perhaps not too far off in the future...?
No, I haven't won that darn lottery yet, though I do try: since I use birthdays etc. I can't afford to give up, even for a week, because I would instantly recognize the numbers and could never forgive myself for having missed making the family futures and fortunes.
Rob C
-
Hi John
You have just defined my dream list, all of which I have owned, barring the Leica. Today, the dream would be the 500 with a full-frame sensor. There would then be the opportunity for the perfect factory mating of body and back (no interchangeabilty required!) and the perfect body shape would be back in business.
If they looked at it this way, perhaps not too far off in the future...?
No, I haven't won that darn lottery yet, though I do try: since I use birthdays etc. I can't afford to give up, even for a week, because I would instantly recognize the numbers and could never forgive myself for having missed making the family futures and fortunes.
Rob C
Rob, do you have a link to your website?
-
John, that's exactly why I think that modular design solve the problem because it allows volatility but at the same time, stability on an entire system.
The Ricoh path is probably a dead end path because they did not allow lens mount, but if the units where independant from lenses this could be a real winner design?
Coming back to the S2, among the pros it would have been much more impacting if they allowed in their S2 an independant sensor unit. I'm sure that Leica would have sold them all in a month, even expensive priced. Because then when you have this sort of stability you are ready to spend the money or not in whatever extravagant feature they will put tomorrow on the market. And you invest in a gear that can be used when they release new sensor. Big difference.
Who's pro going to make the trip in Japan for the Pentax because that's exactly what you want and nothing else? Hey, it's cheap but we are still talking about 9000 euros...I got a brand new 1DMK4 (4000 euros here) with superb video and top IQ and a 5D or a 1DS second-hand with top lenses in e-bay for that price...not sure the 40MP is a solid argument in itself. No tethered option, slow and no lenses...but it is so cheap compared to the scandalous prices of high end mfd that it is a revolution just for that reason.
If this Pentax had been modular and care about connexions etc...there will be right now special charters from all over the world to go to Tokyo.
But that's not what will happen. Hassy and Phase can thank Pentax that doing the things halth way they saved them from a big disaster.
And wait...if Ricoh suddenly decide to release a sensor unit with Leica M mount with a last generation of EVF that could change the all game in this kind of cameras niche. But politically correct, they will not do it.
This little Ricoh could have combined both M9-MFT worlds in a MFD design but I'm afraid it is indeed another well-thought-design-badly-implemented (WTDBI) I just invented it now.
When not a long time ago, Michael was complaining against MLU on Canon's gear over and over again, I thought it was pretty fun and part of the all theater, but what's behind the scene indeed is a very poor concern for the real needs of photographers (like video with fixed lcd). That is why IMHO the Contax 645 is still highly regarded despite it is not in production.
Following the advices of many experienced pros here, I've been trying the Contax not a long time ago and there is no such design elsewhere (that I know), it just feels perfect. 1200 euros with Zeiss 80 and you find a great back in the second-hand market and you have a far better system ( and all the lenses availables right now) for the same money. Oh, and when I'll need 150MP when they will do it and convinced me that I need them to keep the race, I won't have to through away the Contax, like it will happen with the Pentax. Stupidly, an out-of-production product is capable of longer life service than a just brand released model...because it's modular.
I'll use a sentence of Apolo mission control: No modularity is not an option.
-
Hi John
You have just defined my dream list, all of which I have owned, barring the Leica. Today, the dream would be the 500 with a full-frame sensor. There would then be the opportunity for the perfect factory mating of body and back (no interchangeabilty required!) and the perfect body shape would be back in business.
If they looked at it this way, perhaps not too far off in the future...?
Rob C
Rob
I have just been out for the afternoon shooting with my old 500 C/M, 60mm and 150mm lenses and the CFV-39 back. I wouldn't swap this setup for anything I see in the marketplace today, whatever the technology or cost advantage. I just love the feel, the look and the sound of this camera system. It's a bit like driving a 1930s Alvis, really. But then I just do this for fun - if I had to make my living at it, i'm sure I'd be first in line for a Canon or Nikon whatever. Or an H-system. As for a full-frame square sensor, I think we can forget it. I had a discussion with the Hasselblad rep when he visited me, and basically no such sensor exists as a standard Kodak or Dalsa product. The only backs which make commercial sense to produce for the V system have to use a readily available sensor which is available (relatively) cheaply in quantity, hence the use of the Kodak KAV 39000 in the CFV.
John
-
Rob, do you have a link to your website?
A vey delicate subject with me: I began one with the help of a chap I know on the island, but in the event, it didn't work out because the pics that he put up for me were all soft. I have no idea how that can happen, but Fred and another guy have made suggestions indicating incorrect procedures...
http://www.robcphotos.com (http://www.robcphotos.com)
Enjoy some white noise.
I shall try again later, it seems such a dumb situation for me to be in.
Rob C
-
Fred, or anybody else who knows: where can I see some sample websites done via weebly?
Rob C
-
Fred, or anybody else who knows: where can I see some sample websites done via weebly?
Rob C
Rob,
I know at least in my memory one photographer who uses weebly platform.
He works big prints, I particulary like his "Toros" serie: http://ricardobsanchez.weebly.com/toros---bulls.html (http://ricardobsanchez.weebly.com/toros---bulls.html)
, that he did for a book.
I discovered weebly by pure accident one day and for curiosity I checked inside and to be honest it's pretty impressive. It's not gona be as powerfull as other systems like photoshelter and certainly not as a "sur mesure" programation-design, but indeed by far much user friendly than most cms like wordpress, drupal or whatever.
The good think about weebly is that it is highly customizable, but also totally intuitive and easy for the people who do not want or not have technical knowledge to spend in a more complex CMS. Everything is just drag-and-drop.
Features are really extended and you can even sell prints via paypal. It uses friendly html but you can also integrate flash (AS2) if you wish.
Video is totally integrable and you got control about the way you displays your pics etc...
You can open a free account and in a question of hours you will be able to manage your control panel and start to upload pics.
It is that easy because they use Ajax as a base. For small websites, photographers, videographers etc...it is a very interesting alternative when you want to have full and easy control of your website for free.
The dowside: Their designs are basics and really not fancy at all, and you need to know css to make something visualy decent but if you have any issue with that part just send me a mail and I'll rewrite the css for you in an hour. no problem.
----
The other alternative is the Russ system: lightroom galleries in your domain.
----
Cheers.
-
Ray, your argument seems, to me at least, to be nothing other than a plea for the machine gun school of photography; finger exercise yoga.
Let's look at your four or five year period in some detail. You speculate on 25,000 shots or 695 rolls of film. On your maths, I would expect you to have garnered 695 wonderful images. Have you? In a lifetime of pro work, which saw me do relatively well, I would laugh out loud were you to ask me to make an exhibition of more than fifty to seventy images on which I'd stake my reputation, whatever that might have been. Of those 695 films I would certainly expect to have come up with a shot that fulfills the brief in each roll, but great is something else. And that's one of the problems amateur photography inevitably faces: what's the standard going to be? Remove the commercial imperative that virtually defines subject and execution, and what judgement can you appeal to regarding your work?
Either pro or am, if one's vision and thought is focussed, one hardly faces problems defined by cost of film. Such problems arise from indecision and no clear sense of purpose. I would submit that blasting one's way through photographic life is no route to success, but more likely one that leads to disappointment.
Racking up big click scores may indeed be part of some commercial techniques - fashion, for example, where you are not only encouraging the model and building her and yourself up to getting something approaching a visible climactic reaction, but you are also attempting to bring all that together with the background, the breeze or the wind machine and what it does to the cloth and where it throws the hair. A hit in thirty-six ain't bad! But were one to apply those maths norms to landscape, architecture or product, I'd say one is in the wrong business.
So yep, the old, reliable 'blad and Nikon were certainly not second-class citizens in my world. The single, huge benefit I see with digital is that it shortens the time between shot and available image. And that really only means much where a client expects or needs the turnaround to be so fast.
If I look at my own shooting, I can't say that I do much more with two digital cameras than I would have with film; it is just more convenient for me now since Kodachrome has vanished and E6, at least on the island, is pretty well a lost possibility too. Thanks, sensor. Today's ideal, for me, would have been the 500 series and Ektachrome with a dedicated 120 scanner: rapid editing and a great route to the kind of b/w image I love to print (yes, Virginia, I know Ektachrome is colour transparency film). So even here, now an amateur on a rock, I have come to realise that removed from the needs of the fashion or glamour shoot, the slow ways of the medium format are far more likely to lead to considered work that will mean something even after the shooting.
Rob C
No! no! no! Rob. You do seem to be very much set in the old ways. Modern photographic technology and editing software allow for much expanded creative opportunities that were simply not feasible in your days, at least not without great expense and difficulty; and these expanded opportunities often require multiple shots of the same scene.
The first photographic print I sold, after my renewed interest in photography about 15 years ago, was an 8ftx1ft panorama of the city of Brisbane printed on my A3+ Epson 1200 using roll paper. Sold it to the then Mayor of Brisbane for $400. I believe the photo was mounted and framed, then auctioned to provide funds for the Mayor's re-election.
This panorama consisted of 13 frames of 35mm film, shot with a 300mm lens, scanned with my Nikon 35mm scanner at 2000 dpi then carefully and time-consumingly stitched on my computer with software that (in those days) required a number of pairs of flags to be very carefully positioned at each overlap.
As a result of haze problems and pollution rising from the city centre I had to visit the site on a number of occasions before I got a result with which I was reasonably satisfied. I would have shot several rolls of different types of film in the process. Eventually, the film from which the print was made, which provided the most pleasing colors and happened to be the film in my camera on that clear and sunny day when the haze seemed to have been carried away by a propitious breeze, was Ektachrome 200.
Another example: Right at the moment I have a 6ftx2ft print of the Himalayas clipped to a mounting board leaning against the wall on which it will eventually be hung after I've finished the decorations and fittings in my new house (my tiling venture was interrupted by a fall which caused a fractured wrist, so I'm very much behind schedule).
This print was made from just 5 stitched frames taken with my Canon 5D. However, each frame was exposure-bracketed to increase dynamic range, making a total of 15 shots for this one picture. At this size, the whole print is sharp, even from close up. Every blade of grass in the foreground is eye-catchingly sharp, and, if there'd been a climber on any on the snow-capped peaks at the time, waving an Aussie flag, he'd probably be visible on this print.
However, I'm still not satisfied with this print. It's too small. I'd like it to be 12ftx4ft. Unfortunately, my printer (the Epson 7600) is only 2ft wide. In order to make a 12ftx4ft print I'd have to divide the image (after interpolation) into 6 vertical strips each 2ftx4ft, then position the individual prints next to each other on the mounting board. This is not really satisfactory. How does one make a join in a sky invisible?
I've got it! I'll photograph the window frames in my house, and with the help of Photoshop, create a 12ftx4ft window with 2ft wide vertical dividers. Each vertical divider will cover a join in the Himalayan landscape. The total window frame will be the frame of the picture. I'll be creating an imaginary view out of an imaginary window. This is going to be magnificent!
However, I'm a bit concerned that the 12mp of the 5D may not be sufficient for a 4ft long print (vertically). On close inspection, the resolution may not be impressive. I may have to revisit that scene in Nepal with a 5D MK II and reshoot. We amateurs can be very dedicated, Rob.
There are other applications that may require multiple shots of the same scene in order to take advantage of the marvels of modern software. For example, places like Angkor Wat are crawling with tourists. They're everywhere, from dawn till dusk. So Rob C with his old Nikon or Blad has found a sublime spot with perfect composition and lighting. He knows what he's doing and he's selected the scene carefully. He's got his exposure right and all he needs is one shot.... except, there are tourists wandering in front of his camera all the time. If they're not directly in front of his camera, they're in the background taking a photo of their spouse or kids, with their P&S.
Now I suppose Rob could could hire a few minders who could block every entrance to the site, "Excuse me. We have a professional photographer at work. Could you wait just a few minutes until the site is cleared. Thank you." But, I'm not sure that would be legal.
However, there's a hi-tech solution. If you have Photoshop CS3 or CS4 Extended, you can simply take one shot of the same scene every couple of seconds (or every 5 or 10 seconds) until you are certain that every tourist in the scene has moved at least once. You then stack the images in Photoshop Extended (whether 5, 10 or 20 frames), and the software will choose the parts from each frame that are identical in all frames, to produce one composite image with no tourists.
Have I made my point well?
-
Coming back to the S2, among the pros it would have been much more impacting if they allowed in their S2 an independant sensor unit. I'm sure that Leica would have sold them all in a month, even expensive priced. Because then when you have this sort of stability you are ready to spend the money or not in whatever extravagant feature they will put tomorrow on the market. And you invest in a gear that can be used when they release new sensor. Big difference.
I can't see it, Fred. The sensor is just one part of the camera. It's obviously a vital part, but it's not the only part that evolves and continues to get better. I'll name just a few improvements that we've seen in the past few years in various camera models, that could not be provided by merely changing the sensor.
(1) Faster frame rate.
(2) LiveView LCD screen.
(3) High resolution LiveView LCD screen (920,000 dpi).
(4) Autobracketing of ISO in manual mode.
(5) Improved autofocussing
(6) Wider range of exposure autobracketing (Nikon can autoexposure bracket up to 9 continuous frames)
(7) Better high-ISO performance due to off-sensor processing.
(8) Dedicated MLU button.
There's no substitue for the integrated package designed as a whole, each component being the latest in technological development, and each designed with the other in mind.
-
Fred
Thank you for your link and offer of help - I shall look at the Sanchez site later today; I have to visit the gestoria about my residencia renewal which, now, seems to be far different a procedure to what it was during the past twenty-something years!
Ray
You have made your point well, as always, but you have missed the greater one: I have absolutely no interest in that kind of image-making. My photography has been centred, focussed(?) on the single telling shot of a person, usually female. You have no idea the lengths to which I would go in order to avoid the scenarios you paint: I would hate to spend time at a computer stitching and messing about like that; it is so contrary to my nature that I would rather just stop photography altogether than do it; it represents my photo nightmare!
Age factor, resistance to progress? Perhaps, but then I would rather believe that it has little to do with numbers and a lot to do with where lie my interests. John R Smith, a couple of posts ago, states his position as amateur and explains his pleasure in the 500 system; he shares my position. I am no longer in pro practice and what I do now is, mainly, something that allows me distraction from personal disaster, that fills my time with more than bitter-sweet memories of lost love. But, what has not changed, is my total lack of interest in technical matters per se: I learn as much as I have to in order to make my camera work - the rest is soul or lack of it. The 500 system was my perfect match and I do think that had Hass been able to come up with a fixed sensor, FF digital evolution of the existing 500 body, then they would have cleaned up - end of MF makers' battle stories. Ironic that they depend on somebody else for such huge proportions of the product, that their progress is limited by what a chip maker can, cannot or will not do.
Am I the only photographer who still believes in the single, great shot?
Rob C
-
Please, correct me if I did not completely understood this new concept, but the proposed solution to avoid changing your camera when a new sensor technology arises is... change all your lenses; sorry? This does not make any sense at all! A sensor is just a chip, and a camera us mostly electronics and some mechanics; a lens is pure optics. There is a "logical" bond between the camera and the sensor, but the lens lives in another completely unrelated world. An interchangeable sensors could be something interesting, but I do not see the point in having on binned to each lens.
In my humble opinion, this looks to me as a desperate attempt to present something different (but not necessarily better) to the market.
-
Am I the only photographer who still believes in the single, great shot?
Rob C
No, you are not alone, Rob. I've been looking for it for the past 50 years. I'm still hoping
John
-
Edu,
of course the Ricoh solution is completly silly not allowing lens mount. If so, that would have been another story.
As it is, this Ricoh is nothing more than another gadget, although very competent.
But the point is that they show that this technology is available right now, and can be properly implement in a better design.
Rob,
I come from another generation where I grew-up with film and came back to photography with digital. I love digital but certainly not spending my all life in post-production, or accumulating softwares, and learning each year the last printing profiles or whatever new fashionable tech. That just drive me nuts and I simply avoid it.
My position is sharp clear about that: prints are for printers, PP are for techs and designers. This means that I always prefer to trust somebody's knowledge (delegate) and concentrate on my task. This is true with film or digital in my approach. Others will love to take care of the all process and will think that they can not delegate. That's fine.
Just supervise the work, decide everything but listening to the printer opinion-experience or any person involved in the chain. Time saving, better results and peace of mind (and work for others).
No doubt that if I grow up in photography I'll have "50" assistants for any kind of task because it's just the way I am and I want to work.
I'm not interested a second in color profiles, computer sofwares and even camera specs. Technicaly speaking, I'm just interested in the handling and design. Point. I'm totally useless in technical aspects out of the shooting, I do not even know most of the tech posts here about color profiles or whatever exotic technology.
That's why I tend to "minimalist" cameras in the style of the Contax 645. Hate loosing time with multi-task tech. Just feel like a cat in the water.
Now I'm doing my PP myself but I reach a point where I won't, in a way or another. In fact I simply hate all the circus that has come with digital, as I hated the darkroom. (it's not that I hate it literally, I simply feel that it is someone else's task, not mine). Oh, and I also hate the medium sensor's files.
Got a guy in the country who's doing large prints with special paper and a lab here for huge sizes and I can ask them whatever I need to know etc...
No hassle. Professionals, you pay them for that.
The only real thing where I'm interested in is the viewfinder, composing and pressing the button. Visualising the artwork and finally give to others the production tasks.
So yes, The contax 645, or the H 500 are pretty much in my philosophy, as the single great shot.
When I started again with digital, I was shooting like crazy, very excited about the unlimited options, the sofwares etc...Now I just hate that path.
I shoot less and less, I've erased 90% of all my pics, made room in my hard drives and I'm looking to work more and more with MF LF because of the different approach, lets say more contemplative.
Even in my street attempts, I'm trying to shoot less and see more.
When I'm back in the studio, I don't have to handle with 500 shots of the day and when I just made 10 or 20 I just feel happy.
Passed from C1 to LR because of C1 unstability, in fact I hate these things. I almost do not use these software any more, I just devellop the raws directly in Photoshop. Don't even shoot jpegs any more. As CBarett says here: Less is more.
Cheers.
-
Passed from C1 to LR because of C1 unstability, in fact I hate these things. I almost do not use these software any more, I just devellop the raws directly in Photoshop. Don't even shoot jpegs any more. As CBarett says here: Less is more.
Cheers.
Fred
Caramba! That's what I used to do too, getting into it directly from the card reader and Nikon software that I needed in order to make NEFs readable by Photoshop. Then, mocked by my fellows, I decided to try using other ways, and since I don't process the same files twice, I can't really say if it is any better using a raw developer instead. What I do notice, however, is that using the ETR system and checking out the histogram on the camera, when I get the NEF into the RAW developer, the files always have to be greatly de-exposed (to coin a poor phrase). It really seems that digital is full of contradictions and shibboleths designed to make one feel ever more insecure and stupid. Perhaps that's one reason for loving film: it loved me back. Even Kodachrome.
Rob C
PS Working on the website later today after the gestoria visit...
-
When I started again with digital, I was shooting like crazy, very excited about the unlimited options, the sofwares etc...Now I just hate that path.
I shoot less and less, I've erased 90% of all my pics, made room in my hard drives and I'm looking to work more and more with MF LF because of the different approach, lets say more contemplative.
Even in my street attempts, I'm trying to shoot less and see more.
When I'm back in the studio, I don't have to handle with 500 shots of the day and when I just made 10 or 20 I just feel happy.
Me too. I was out all afternoon yesterday (great light, nice skies), I shot 10, and kept 6. Out of those, I will probably print 3 or 4 to completion. That's plenty to keep me busy in the evenings until next weekend. That's pretty much the same number of frames as I would have shot with film, and it is the kind of workrate which I am comfortable with. See more, shoot less, as Fred says.
John
-
It is not at all clear that the Ricoh approach increases modularity overall compared to competing "mirrorless interchangeable lens compact" (MILC) camera systems like Micro Four Thirds, Samsung's NX or Sony's coming NEX: it adds modularity in one place at the cost of removing it in another. The plusses and minuses I see are:
+ adding a different format for a different purpose does not require also buying a new "body back" for the new sensor.
+ upgrading body back stuff like the LCD and controls does not require buying a new sensor and DSP chips (but how often would you want to do that?)
+ upgrading to a newer sensor does not require replacing the "body back", but
- upgrading to a newer sensor does require replacing each lens in that format in order to use that lens with the new sensor, and you must buy a new sensor plus DSP electronics package for _each_ lens to be used with it.
- adding a new lens requires buying a new sensor plus DSP electronics package; Ricoh's prices show the penalty here.
Since lenses are often the least frequently replaced and a large proportion of total kit cost, while sensors and related electronics are the most frequently updated and somewhat expensive in DSLR formats, it seems a bad idea that the relatively frequent upgrading of sensor plus DSP electronics is more expensive, requiring the replacement of perfectly good optical components.
The place I see this making most sense is where the multiple sensor+DSP parts are inexpensive: with the small formats of current compacts, and for those who want perhaps just one lens foe use with a larger sensor. Maybe this is Ricoh's goal, given its lens unit offerings so far: one or both small format zooms and maybe one of the larger format primes.
-
But then BJL, your points immediatly lead me to a question: Modularity has been always the central point of the MF-LF systems, and it does not seems that it had cause problems with the lenses when upgrading backs, and more importantly, that the users are complaining about this flexibility.
Regards.
-
... Modularity has been always the central point of the MF-LF systems, and it does not seems that it had cause problems with the lenses when upgrading backs, and more importantly, that the users are complaining about this flexibility.
Regards.
I do not understand your comment: MF-LF systems do not require purchasing one back for each lens, or getting new lenses each time you upgrade to a new back, which is effectively what the Ricoh GRX system requires. My quick summary is that the GRX system by requiring that each lens has its own sensor and DSP system, is
- more modular than "monolithic" small sensor compact cameras, but
- in practice, less modular than other interchangeable lens systems, where lenses are separate items, not bundled with a sensor and DSP components, and where one "digital part" purchase (DSLR body or MF-LF back) is usable with multiple lenses.
-
I do not understand your comment: MF-LF systems do not require purchasing one back for each lens, or getting new lenses each time you upgrade to a new back, which is effectively what the Ricoh GRX system requires. My quick summary is that the GRX system by requiring that each lens has its own sensor and DSP system, is
- more modular than "monolithic" small sensor compact cameras, but
- in practice, less modular than other interchangeable lens systems, where lenses are separate items, not bundled with a sensor and DSP components, and where one "digital part" purchase (DSLR body or MF-LF back) is usable with multiple lenses.
I think that's because you did not read all my previous posts.
My points were: Ricoh opened a path, but did it badly because of the lens-sensor in one unit.
So when I support modularity, it is obviously not with the "stupid" Ricoh solution.
But this can be solved at any time by them or any other manufacturer who is willing to play this path.
-
My points were: Ricoh opened a path, but did it badly because of the lens-sensor in one unit.
So when I support modularity, it is obviously not with the "stupid" Ricoh solution.
But this can be solved at any time by them or any other manufacturer who is willing to play this path.
So we agree, at least mostly.
But if you are thinking it would be better to go one step further in modularity, with three parts, roughly as in DMF:
1. lens
2. sensor+DSP unit
3. rest of the body (LCD, EVF, battery compartment, memory card compartment buttons and dials)
the idea is appealing in theory, but I strongly suspect that for mainstream priced cameras, the extra cost and bulk would lose out compared to the efficiencies of integrating parts 2+3.
For most cameras, my guess is that part 3 does not add a lot to the price relative to a good sensor+DSP component.
-
So we agree, at least mostly.
But if you are thinking it would be better to go one step further in modularity, with three parts, roughly as in DMF:
1. lens
2. sensor+DSP unit
3. rest of the body (LCD, EVF, battery compartment, memory card compartment buttons and dials)
the idea is appealing in theory, but I strongly suspect that for mainstream priced cameras, the extra cost and bulk would lose out compared to the efficiencies of integrating parts 2+3.
For most cameras, my guess is that part 3 does not add a lot to the price relative to a good sensor+DSP component.
Yes,
The Ricoh body is priced at about 500 and the lens-sensor module A12 about 800. It's 1300, not that cheap, and that is without the EVF.
But it's to be considered that the price of the sensor include a very good lens, so we could deduct + or - that a sensor+dsp would cost arrownd 400. So that would normally be a 900 camera without lens.
-
It would seem to me that a sensor/lens combination, designed as a single integrated unit, could in theory produce better results than a detachable, generic lens of similar quality. It should be possible to devise more sophisticated and accurate lens corrections using the sensor itself, than is currently available from software such as DXO and Photoshop CS5. That's the only advantage I can see.
Since Photodo ceased providing MFT tests for lenses, we've generally had to rely upon 'system' resolution and other system qualities which are the product of a particular lens and a particular sensor. It then becomes difficult to compare a Canon lens with an equivalent Nikon lens because both lenses will be tested in conjunction with a particular Canon or Nikon sensor.
Integrating the lens with the sensor seems partly a recognition of how things are in practice as regards lens performance. If Ricoh's concept eventually allows for better 'system' performance at a given price, I'd be in favour of this approach. The camera and lens/sensor modules might seem a bit pricey at present simply because it's a new idea.
-
The camera and lens/sensor modules might seem a bit pricey at present simply because it's a new idea.
Seems a strangre perspective: in the 50s you could buy a 2.4 Jaguar, brand new, for around 1600 quid; I bought my new Humber in '73 for around 1100 quid (today, they give you more in the scrappage schemes to induce fresh car sales) and by 1980 an AlfaSud cost over 4000 quid! I think that all the pricing for new systems shows is nothing more than fresh routes to upping said prices and gouging more money out of the public for not much more and probably less. As with the cars, that's how you feed or create price inflation: you push as far as you think the market can bear it. And boy, do they know how to push! And to create obsolescence.
Rob C
-
Seems a strangre perspective: in the 50s you could buy a 2.4 Jaguar, brand new, for around 1600 quid; I bought my new Humber in '73 for around 1100 quid (today, they give you more in the scrappage schemes to induce fresh car sales) and by 1980 an AlfaSud cost over 4000 quid! I think that all the pricing for new systems shows is nothing more than fresh routes to upping said prices and gouging more money out of the public for not much more and probably less. As with the cars, that's how you feed or create price inflation: you push as far as you think the market can bear it. And boy, do they know how to push! And to create obsolescence.
Rob C
Totally agree with all your lines. Hey, I had an Alfasud Ti, that was fun to drive!
-
Totally agree with all your lines. Hey, I had an Alfasud Ti, that was fun to drive!
I had one after I traded my Fiat X1/9, simply because at the time, all the bad publicity (true) about Lancia and rust meant that no other dealer would take the Fiat, I tell you what, though, if the X1/9 had had the Alfa boxer engine, it would have been perfect. I got rid of it when it was under two years old because of the wheels. I noticed some corrosion around the balance weights one day and when I took it to the dealer (good friends!) I was told that Fiat had been offering replacement wheels because of the known mistake in using non-insulated weights. Even a friend doesn't tell you? I guess return/complaint figures meant something even then.
Rob C
-
It would seem to me that a sensor/lens combination, designed as a single integrated unit, could in theory produce better results than a detachable, generic lens of similar quality.
True, but as with so many of these theoretical considerations, the potential advantages need to be quantified and weighed against other factors: even if the difference exists, is it significant, or worthwhile?
I predict that with mirrorless systems (from Leica M to Micro Four Thirds, Samsung NX and soon Sony NEX), the great flexibility offered by very shallow lens mounts and absence of a mirror box gives lens designers all the room they need to almost completely optimize lenses, so "monogamous" lens-sensor pairs will have no significant advantage in practice over the gleeful promiscuity of interchangeable lenses, SLR-lens-to-mirrorless-body mount adaptors, and such.
-
the great flexibility offered by very shallow lens mounts and absence of a mirror box gives lens designers all the room they need to almost completely optimize lenses, so "monogamous" lens-sensor pairs will have no significant advantage in practice over the gleeful promiscuity of interchangeable lenses, SLR-lens-to-mirrorless-body mount adaptors, and such.
A nice idea, but hasn't ultra closeness to focal plane been the bugbear of sensors and wide-angle lenses since sensor took over from film?
I didn't know that this had been overcome all that well (no pun etc.).
Rob C
-
My Alfasud had corrosion problems also. And constant electric failures. But the boxer noise was Whaoo. They know how to make good motors and designs, but for engineering: german lands!
-
... hasn't ultra closeness to focal plane been the bugbear of sensors and wide-angle lenses since sensor took over from film?
A short lens mount in no way forces closeness of rear lens elements to the focal plane; it simply allows more options in lens element positioning, while removing none: nothing prevents the lens body having the rear elements well forward of the lens mount. For example, just about every SLR and rangefinder lens in existence can be used on a Micro Four Thirds body with an appropriate adaptor.
Also it is common photography forum myth that having rear elements close to the sensor automatically leads to highly off perpendicular angle of incidence and thus poor "telecentricity". What counts is the exit pupil height, which can be large even when the distance from rear element to focal plane is short. Many compact digicams and the Sony R1 "big compact" have rear elements extremely close to the sensor, yet with good "telecentric" properties.
What is more, the need for near-telecentricity in SLR sized sensors is becoming less and less with developments in sensor and microlens design. Dalsa has a microlens design that can handle up to 30º off-perpendicular light with vary little fall-off in sensitivity.
-
A short lens mount in no way forces closeness of rear lens elements to the focal plane; it simply allows more options in lens element positioning, while removing none: nothing prevents the lens body having the rear elements well forward of the lens mount. For example, just about every SLR and rangefinder lens in existence can be used on a Micro Four Thirds body with an appropriate adaptor.
Also it is common photography forum myth that having rear elements close to the sensor automatically leads to highly off perpendicular angle of incidence and thus poor "telecentricity". What counts is the exit pupil height, which can be large even when the distance from rear element to focal plane is short. Many compact digicams and the Sony R1 "big compact" have rear elements extremely close to the sensor, yet with good "telecentric" properties.
What is more, the need for near-telecentricity in SLR sized sensors is becoming less and less with developments in sensor and microlens design. Dalsa has a microlens design that can handle up to 30º off-perpendicular light with vary little fall-off in sensitivity.
Thanks for the info: now I am sure of even less than I was before!
;-)
Rob C
-
Thanks for the info: now I am sure of even less than I was before!
;-)
Rob C
That's why we liked the corrosion issues with our alfasud
My Parents who are living in France bought a new car. My father showed me this summer the engine laughing: it's sealed, you can not do the mechanic yourself. Clean, nicely designed but you actually do not know what's inside. You need the special tools.
I had several times resolve some issues with the boxer. No problem.
I've been reparing some vintage prime lenses with 100% success, tried one day with a modern zoom and turned into strong headache and days of fighting.
Driving the alfa convertible with an hassy or a Leica on the back seat...that was fun! Maybe watching again some early Bonds.
Ahhh Rob, I think I'm going to beleive you when you talk about golden age.
-
Driving the alfa convertible with an hassy or a Leica on the back seat...that was fun! Maybe watching again some early Bonds.
Surely the amount of fun would depend on the characteristics of the attractive, busty, young lady occupying the front passenger seat .
-
Surely the amount of fun would depend on the characteristics of the attractive, busty, young lady occupying the front passenger seat .
i
Ray, I am writing this on a tiny notebook thinggy designed for gnomes; my tower has gone awol as far as internet is concerned, and this happened straight after downloading a huge Microsoft update for Vista. The writing is so tiny that I can hardly see it, and commas and stops look identical. Whether or not the internet problem was caused by this download or by Weebly I cannot say, but trying to set up my website with them caused a lot of grief, and in the end, before I pulled the plug on it, I couldn't even open the damn thing myself either on Google or Yahoo. This may have been the fault of my computer - it may all be connected - but I am not a happy camper. It can't be the ADSL connection because it works with this micro unit.
Driving with the busty bird? All I can think of is Chuck Berry: No particular Place to Go.
Rob C
-
i
Ray, I am writing this on a tiny notebook thinggy designed for gnomes; my tower has gone awol as far as internet is concerned, and this happened straight after downloading a huge Microsoft update for Vista. The writing is so tiny that I can hardly see it, and commas and stops look identical. Whether or not the internet problem was caused by this download or by Weebly I cannot say, but trying to set up my website with them caused a lot of grief, and in the end, before I pulled the plug on it, I couldn't even open the damn thing myself either on Google or Yahoo. This may have been the fault of my computer - it may all be connected - but I am not a happy camper. It can't be the ADSL connection because it works with this micro unit.
Driving with the busty bird? All I can think of is Chuck Berry: No particular Place to Go.
Rob C
Hi Rob,
Weebly can not be the cause. Try this:
Find an apple sofware call "bonjour". Desactivate the software. Reinitiate. It should work. This apple little sofware is causing problems on latest windows with internet conection. Specially on windows 7.
Or, use the tool : restore the system to a previous state, before you made the download.
-
Ray, I am writing this on a tiny notebook thinggy designed for gnomes; my tower has gone awol as far as internet is concerned, and this happened straight after downloading a huge Microsoft update for Vista. The writing is so tiny that I can hardly see it, and commas and stops look identical. Whether or not the internet problem was caused by this download or by Weebly I cannot say, but trying to set up my website with them caused a lot of grief, and in the end, before I pulled the plug on it, I couldn't even open the damn thing myself either on Google or Yahoo. This may have been the fault of my computer - it may all be connected - but I am not a happy camper. It can't be the ADSL connection because it works with this micro unit.
Rob,
Maybe it would be best to give up the computer and go for the busty woman.
Driving with the busty bird? All I can think of is Chuck Berry: No particular Place to Go.
Aw! Shucks! How sad! Already past it, eh!
-
Hi folks
I have tried the 'restore to previous date' technique, but it make no difference at all; the computer is now awaiting delivery to the repair man, but it is pouring and impossible to park near the shop. If it dries up later, I shall brave the elements and try then.
Worse, I have been working on the other computer - the one I keep for photography - and it now takes ages to clone/spot. I have been trying out a different idea for Weebly and once the other (internet) computer is fixed I shall try to implement it, but if I am going to be faced with a second machine going nuts, perhaps I had better take Ray's advice and give up!
This tiny machine is okay for reading books, but not for writing anything: for a start, even with specs I can hardly see the tiny markings on the non-letters keys - you might get an apostrophe as easily as a colon or semi! I did update its security this morning, but I still feel uneasy risking the web on it - it looks so vulnerable, poor little thing.
Happy days!
Rob C
-
Rob,
Computers are cheap nowadays. I find I always have more computers than I need even though I tend to give away the older and slower models to whomever needs them.
A few months ago I bought a new computer (without monitor) from the ALDI food supermarket simply because it was so cheap, about half the price (or less) than a similarly spec'd Dell model. I was curious about the benefits of Windows 7. If it breaks down because it's so cheap, no big deal. Intel core duo processor, 4Gb RAM, 1TB hard drive, all for around US$700. It was irresistible.
-
Rob,
Computers are cheap nowadays. I find I always have more computers than I need even though I tend to give away the older and slower models to whomever needs them.
A few months ago I bought a new computer (without monitor) from the ALDI food supermarket simply because it was so cheap, about half the price (or less) than a similarly spec'd Dell model. I was curious about the benefits of Windows 7. If it breaks down because it's so cheap, no big deal. Intel core duo processor, 4Gb RAM, 1TB hard drive, all for around US$700. It was irresistible.
Hi Ray
The internet computer I managed to fix by taking Fred's advice and looking to delete something within the download I made from Microsoft, which was made more or less the day or the day before my problem hit. I took out the whole piece of rubbish and now I am back on the internet as before.
The other computer, the photography one, was fixed by using a programme I had forgotten about: CClean. It sped everything back up to normal.
Sadly, I also find US$ 700 irresistible: I can't bear to part with them!
Rob C
-
/me pets his Mamiya Super 23, looks proudly at a bunch of self repaired lenses and central shutters and seeing his scanned 100+ Megapixel files wonders about how much money he saved doing all this ....
P.S: I love my 17 year old Mercedes diesel station wagon ....
-
Hi Ray
The internet computer I managed to fix by taking Fred's advice and looking to delete something within the download I made from Microsoft, which was made more or less the day or the day before my problem hit. I took out the whole piece of rubbish and now I am back on the internet as before.
The other computer, the photography one, was fixed by using a programme I had forgotten about: CClean. It sped everything back up to normal.
Sadly, I also find US$ 700 irresistible: I can't bear to part with them!
Rob C
Gad you fixed the problem. However, you're eventually going to part with your $700 and more. You can't take it with you. If you don't spend it, someone else will. Of course, you may prefer it to be spent on a better cause than another computer. Fair enough!
-
Gad you fixed the problem. However, you're eventually going to part with your $700 and more. You can't take it with you. If you don't spend it, someone else will. Of course, you may prefer it to be spent on a better cause than another computer. Fair enough!
Ray, I wish Leica had such an agressive price politic from time to time.
They just released the Vlux 20, an expensive clone of the Panasonic, with even worse video quality...
An M9 in a supermarket for 2000 euros?? I sign today!
-
/me pets his Mamiya Super 23, looks proudly at a bunch of self repaired lenses and central shutters and seeing his scanned 100+ Megapixel files wonders about how much money he saved doing all this ....
P.S: I love my 17 year old Mercedes diesel station wagon ....
Chris - I sympathise with your affection for things old and reliable; I think of myself in that light too. I don't have a seventeen year-old Mercedes of any type, but I do have an eleven/twelve year-old Ford and it is now a matter of which of the two of us rusts away first; the Ford is losing its paint as quickly as I my hair, which isn't quite as fast now since I trapped it in a ponytail (thin).
I share Fred's wish for a reasonably priced M9 - doesn't the world? I'd even part with those 700 bucks for one.
I wonder if one can fit new memories into people? I have put new skies into pics of old buildings in the past, but I wanted to merge two separate pics just now - a new one into a grey extra background stuck onto the side of the other image. I have completely forgotten how. So I have downloaded seven pages of info. to refurbish my memory. This is really quite alarming; I wonder if others find these things going on between their ears?
Rob C
-
What concerned me, when I finally decided not to go digital and keep and extend my Mamiya Press system was the influence the tool has on the process of taking pictures along with the question of long term archiving.
Of course - for professionals a fast workflow and other parameters are very important, but for me as an amateur I have the possibility to think beside those constraints.
I have a Canon Powershot G11 for "fast photography" and snapshots, but my photographic identity is definitely more connected to that old Mamiya tank which would make me concern about my foot and not about the camera in case I'd drop it ... And the lenses are superb. I just got a 250 mm f 1:5 for it some days before and the sharpness behavior and bokeh I see from it on the ground glass (I didn't finish a film with it yet) reminds me of the experience i had long ago, when I was looking through a Zeiss binocular for the first time.
I strongly believe, that somehow digital -despite all its great advantages- will deceive its users on the long run by taking away something crucial I cannot yet define exactly.
I don't think I'm nostalgic - the decision was also an economic one. I think the gear I have now is technically/IQ-wise comparable to systems that would usually cost $50.000+++ - And I paid a very small fraction of that.
Most likely - on the long run I'll try to get a modern Zeiss Ikon (M Mount) for snapshots and street photography and leave my digital Camera only for special purposes, like documenting the disassembly of a shutter or keep it in the car for possible car crash situations ....
-
The single greatest threat to your scenario, though, lies outwith your control: the supply and development of film.
Black/white film poses few processing problems - you can (and should) do it yourself, but colour is something else. Before I became an independent shooter I worked in an industrial photo unit for some years and ended up doing the colour lab stuff; it made me realise that there is a great deal that you can do with colour if you are not working within commercial limits!
And that's where it all goes wrong in a non-service kind of environment: labs simply can't afford the luxury of that one, further test... the customer (the photographer) would not pay the real price of the added hours, and so the concept of 'commercially acceptable' was born. And for anyone without a huge through-put of work, pro or amateur, it just doesn't make financial sense to run colour chemistry. Worse, colour sense is something you have to exercise a lot in order not to lose the fine edge; you can get to a mental position where you begin to doubt your own eyes and opinions of what you are seeing - is it magenta or red, cyan or a shade of blue or green? Even when you do it every day you can lose it when you get tired.
But, for b/w, as long as enough people keep on buying the materials there should be hope, even if prices have rocketed.
Rob C
-
The single greatest threat to your scenario, though, lies outwith your control: the supply and development of film.
Black/white film poses few processing problems - you can (and should) do it yourself, but colour is something else. Before I became an independent shooter I worked in an industrial photo unit for some years and ended up doing the colour lab stuff; it made me realise that there is a great deal that you can do with colour if you are not working within commercial limits!
And that's where it all goes wrong in a non-service kind of environment: labs simply can't afford the luxury of that one, further test... the customer (the photographer) would not pay the real price of the added hours, and so the concept of 'commercially acceptable' was born. And for anyone without a huge through-put of work, pro or amateur, it just doesn't make financial sense to run colour chemistry. Worse, colour sense is something you have to exercise a lot in order not to lose the fine edge; you can get to a mental position where you begin to doubt your own eyes and opinions of what you are seeing - is it magenta or red, cyan or a shade of blue or green? Even when you do it every day you can lose it when you get tired.
But, for b/w, as long as enough people keep on buying the materials there should be hope, even if prices have rocketed.
Rob C
Thats why I was stressing my freedom as an amateur NOT to obey the constraints of the pros ....