This has been kicked around a lot, but I am kicking it around some more. I know David and others have went digital because of cost convenience, and control over image processing. The truth being known how many would really trade in their medium format camera for a digital camera if it was not be because of the cost of processing, buying film and the convenience of instant results. How many can say the results of the digital camera can justify the trade off? I know many have come from a life of film 35mm,medium format and 4+5 and figure digital is a nice change from the traditional darkrooms to the desktops. In honesty are you really happy with the digital images after spending years with film format. I guess many of your are happy to change to learn this new and changing form of photography other wise we would not have embraced it to the point it has come. You know maybe that is it people have had their time with film and all that has come with it now they are ready for a change, ready for this digital format. I on the other hand have not come to this point yet. I still love the grain of film and the images it produces. The old standby BW film some say it is going forever others shall hold on for as long as it still rolls from the spools. This is not a debate for which is better, just a question for many to answer. Would you truly trade you medium format for a digital camera? I would not say I wouldn
No way, no how. Not enough $$ to PAY me to do it. I'll just stick with my little camera and keep clicking away!
Monte, I dumped a Mamiya TLR and a Bronica 645 system when I went digital.I am in the process of selling off my 35mm gear. I have done so for all of the reasons you mentioned.
If one wants grain, it can be added digitaly!
I once had a real darkroom, but when we moved, I had to use the spare bathroom on a part time basis, YUCK! I spent as much time setting up as printing.
Professionaly, digital works very well. And for snap shots, point and shoot cameras are cost effective and handy.
>>How many can say the results of the digital camera can justify the trade off? I know many have come from a life of film 35mm,medium format and 4+5 and figure digital is a nice change from the traditional darkrooms to the desktops.<<
I think you miss the primary advantage of digital, both in terms of computer processing, and digital cameras. I became aware of the potential power of digital back in the 80's before there was much capability available to individual photographers. At the highest end of advertising and commercial illustration there was the "Scitex" machine which involved very expensive high-end computers and scanner that allowed some of the earliest photo-image manipulation for uses that could afford to spend huge amounts of money, like the car companies for ads and sales promotion. It was a fast and relatively easy way to change the color of a car instead of having to re-paint and re-photograph one of the rare hand-made pre-production models. Another one of the early digital devices were huge paint jet printers that could make prints large enough to cover the side of a building. But the thing that convinced me the handwriting was on the wall was when Ansel Adams when he was baby-sitting the printing of his book Portfolio at the Acme Press in Boston, which was the first time the plates for one of his books were made from digital scans of his images, he discovered that the internal contrast of the image could be adjusted and he could get more out of the image than he could printing in his own darkroom. Now that impressed me because if anyone was a master in the darkroom Ansel was.
In other words I got into digital because it offered the possibility of providing more powerful creative tools than were available by usual analog darkroom methods. And as the software became available to do image editing on a PC my hope for more powerful creative tools that would open up more possibilities to realize better photographic images began to be realized.
And, once an image, whether scanned from film or captured by a digital camera, you have the creative freedom of working with pure information not limited by the constricts of a physical medium like the inherent characteristic curve that is a built-in attribute of film. For the first time I could edit and reshape the characteristic curve of an image at will to create a more effective reproduction of either reality or the image in my imagination.
Now after working with computer digital image editing for 15 years I can make old images I made on film look better than they ever could in the past, and photograph subjects that in the past could not be reproduced effectively using film and a wet darkroom. The past limits of film are no longer a contstraint on my ability to reproduce an imagined vision when I visualize a subject.
Digital imaging for me is a new freedom of possibilities a little bit like weightlessness is to an astronaut. The challenge then is what to do with this new freedom. It is not just trading a film camera for a digital one to do the same thing easier and cheaper. it is a question of whether you want to embark on a new adventure into new territory.
See this is what I like an honest personal oppinon why you changed and how it works for you. It appers to have opened a new world for creativity. Thanks Ronk. Monte Johnson.
I feel I have not missed the primary point of the advantages of digital because I too use digital to make my film images better. I just don
I'm in the "I use both" category. For a lot of stuff I use digital (mainly the EOS-10D, though I have a Mavica CD-400 I now use to play around with infrared), and so my 35mm is now in the hands of my son (who used it in his photojournalism class last year.) However, I still shoot a lot of film, all of it MF (though I may get into 4x5 if I find a setup at a price I can afford.) I still like certain things about film, most importantly the fact that I have a lot of options about how to process it (including scanning and using digital techniques), and I don't have to worry about the "file format" becoming obsolete (I have been working in the IT industry for 25+ years, and have seen file and media formats come and go.) Besides, I have over 10GB (that with a "G") of digital images (3 years worth of photos) I put on a hard disk, which are right now in limbo (I need to try and see if the disk will mount/read on another PC) -- this is not something I have to worry about with analog format (film).
For the same reason I like 6x6, I like scanning film -- I can use the same base image to make lots of different interpretations, which gives me a LOT of flexibility. Now, if Fuji would make the GA645Zi in a 6x6 format
If the 645ZI was 6+6 it would be perfect for me. I too use digital some,but for the more serious stuff MF. I like it better for print. Monte Johnson.
I actually have more faith in digital than film (excepting B&W) lasting over time. Most of the color film I shot in the 50's and 60's is pretty worthless save some of the Kodachrome, so in terms of how long images will remain the same over time I think digital has an advantage because the data in an image file does not change or deteriorate over time.
I agree some file formats have disappeared, but even the proprietary Scitex and Targa formats continue to be supported, and TIFF goes back to the founding of Aldus and the beginning of DTP, and today there are $100's of millions invested in image files by museums, agencies, libraries, etc., so that such an international standard will become obsolete is very unlikely.
As for storage media, at the time music CD's were first introduced publicly I was working in the record industry. The CD's I acquired then, about 35 years ago, I still play today. I still have the first model 2X CD burner that was on the market, and it still works although I don't use it anymore because it is so slow. I burn CD's on Gold/Gold disc that are rated at 75 years minimum life, and now have 500-600 CD's full of TIFF files, and I still open and use some of the first images I scanned and burned on CD's. With billions of dollars invested in the CD standard, I do not see it going away unless much of the modern world collapses around us.
>>I actually have more faith in digital than film (excepting B&W) lasting over time. Most of the color film I shot in the 50's and 60's is pretty worthless save some of the Kodachrome, so in terms of how long images will remain the same over time I think digital has an advantage because the data in an image file does not change or deteriorate over time.<<
From what I have been told I would have to agree with you on the point of many color films not holding up over time. If I was shooting slide or color print film then I could see that, but BW seems to stand the test of time. I have 6+7 negatives from my family that go back to the early 1900. They are still in great shape> Like you said Kodachrome seems to hold up. I scanned three hundred negatives for a friend of mine all which were shot about fifty years ago with Kodachrome film. They were in good shape. Monte Johnson.
One thing that's often overlooked in digital vs. film comparisons:
Trade in your MF or 35mm for digital and you trade in reliability and durability. Current top-of-the line DSLRs are offering service lives far shorter than that of film cameras. Add in frequency of repair costs (a BIG problem with DSLRs) and you have yourself a very expensive hobby. There are people with DSLRS sending in their cameras for repairs every 3-4 months!! The entry-level DSLRs and compact digicams are even more unreliable.
When they can make a digital camera work for 25 years without need of servicing or repair, absorb occasional hard impacts and shocks, work flawlessly in temperatures of below freezing to 140 degrees F, hold shutter open for six-hour time exposures or early morning shots without noise or overheating the sensor, eliminate chromatic fringe color effects, AND give me good fast super-wide angle lenses at something resembling an affordable price, then I will have something EQUAL to my current film cameras. Smoke that in yer pipe!
Why should anyone believe your claims about high incidence of digital camera failure and repair. What is the source of your information? Where is the actual objective data to be found supporting your claim?
I get e-mails from Shutterbug readers every day specifically related to digital, and although a few problems have arisen, most have been due to manufacturing problems and the camera was replaced.
As far as film cameras are concerned if used a lot they do not last anywhere near 25 years. Film advance mecanisms break or wear out quite frequently and regularly if used on an every day basis, and shutters demand regular periodic servicing to remain accurate and reliable.
I have two Canon DSLRs and a Minolta Maxxum 7 35mm camera. Guess which one has been in for repair? (Hint: Not a Canon.)
25 years without servicing or repair is nothing for a good MF 35mm camera with a metal shutter. Ever hear of a Nikon FM2n, F3, or Canon F1N? Ask a repair shop how many times they see those cameras.
Only someone with their heads buried well and truly in the sand would attempt to dispute the problems that have arisen with digital cameras and DSLRs. How could anyone deny digital camera problems when they are so prevalent - describing digital cameras that die after mild impacts, a drop or two of water, or many times, nothing at all. It would be nice if the magazines did a few stripdowns and objective reliability surveys, but people are mostly left on their own. I'd suggest visiting a few camera repair forums, or even photo.net, and see what's out there:
How representative is a handful of messages from web sites relative to 100's of thousands of digital cameras sold?
Really Canon F1n, that goes a ways back to when I was still shooting commercially almost every day. It took about 3 years to totally wear out a body in those days. Forty or more rolls a day will do that.
Sure a camera will last 25 years if it spends most of that life in a closet and only comes out for vacation and holidays.
I shoot about 50 rolls a year so I am one of those a camera can last a long time. I will have to say when using digital I cycled thousands of shots through my camera. It still works fine. I know our local camera shop has had a couple Canon 10Ds go in for sensor problems. I do not give that much thought though because I do not know how these people took care of their cameras. Monte Johnson.
Yep, nothing goes better with that first cup of coffee in the morning than an anonymous post of unverified, anecdotal evidence. Gee, I can't believe that Shutterbug missed all this stuff!
There's no way to tell how many of these incidents resulted from abuse at some level. For instance "a little drizzle" could translate into "left out in the rain". I wonder how many electronic film cameras would withstand "a little drizzle"? Some folks just have to learn the hard way that cameras ain't hardware from Home Depot.....
The concerns that I have red about regarding digital cameras are:
1- shutter lag relates only to p&s cameras and has been improved from what I have read in the reviews.
2-Sensor cleaning and dead pixels are the biggest problems with dslr's. Non existent with Olympus dslr's and any brand of non detachable lens camera.
Well, I expected about as much.
Ten minutes of surfing any digital camera forum will get you pages of complaints regarding new or nearly new DSLR and digital cameras. Even on this board, there's a fellow with a 10 month old 7D sending it in every three-four months at $60 a pop for warranty service (he's still waiting for an answer as to why that is, BTW). So many complaints and so consistent are the failures the owners have started to use their own acronyms to describe problems well known to the users (BGLOD, err18).
Of course, you can believe that this tidal wave of complaint is a massive conspiracy by digital-hating photographers to concoct numerless elaborate stories of camera breakdown, in many languages, from all points of the globe. Agreed, it might help if we got to see a few good articles on longterm DSLR reliability testing, moisture resistance, etc, but I don't have those resources, and I don't have to convince anyone, only myself, since it's my money.
My other points have gone unchallenged, so I repeat, when they can make a digital camera work for 25 years without need of servicing or repair, absorb occasional hard impacts and shocks, work flawlessly in temperatures of below freezing to 140 degrees F, hold the shutter open for six-hour time exposures or early morning shots without noise or overheating the sensor, eliminate chromatic fringe color effects, AND give me good fast super-wide angle lenses at something resembling an affordable price, then I will have something EQUAL to my current film cameras.
You are pretty safe with those requirements. My guess you will be using film camera a long time. One of the reasons among many I have not gone digital is their durablity and problems with shutters and senors. The other thing is if I spend a couple thousand dollars it better be an investment or I figure my money is wasted. With the price of used film camera and the fact I do not shoot as many images as many do, film is still cheaper when I see that digital cameras become outdated faster then computers. Besides for me my over all cost in say a three yesr period is less then using a digital camera. Higher resolution and detail is a bonus. Monte Johnson.
Let's be clear. The problem is not with your stand on digital cameras. As you say, it's your money. The problem is:
1. Authencity of your complaint allegations. How about posting some links to these websites, so we can judge for ourselves? You mention that the complaints come from "all points of the globe". How many of these complaints might involve gray-market equipment? Or used equipment purchased on Ebay, Lord help 'em. I learned a long time ago to take most things that appear on the internet with a large grain of salt, unless I can verify the source.
2. I don't know who you are, or what your credentials are. Not that it usually matters, except when someone shows up with an agenda. Then, it's good to know who's presenting it.
I shoot film, I shoot digital, and I love both. I have good equipment from Canon, Minolta, Hasselblad and Olympus and I take good care of it. I've never before heard of anything approaching the Hurricane Katrina level of digital dissatisfaction you refer to. So prove it.
By the way, if you carefully read James O.'s post re his 7D problems, he's sent it back to KM twice between December '04 and September '05. Two times too many, to be sure, but not quite the "every three or four months" you allude to. As they say, stuff happens in an imperfect world.
Mr. unregistered and anonymous:
Why should anyone believe your words? You don't stand behind what you say by registering and identifying who you are. Why should you have any more credibility than a spammer trying to sell counterfeit Viagra?
What tidal wave is there really other than the one you are trying to manufacure in peoples minds? Companies having been making and selling automobiles for a century and they do produce some lemons. Those companies that make too many lemons go by the wayside. I do not see that happening to Sony, Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax. And, I have seen when there has been a manufacturing flaw that those products have been replaced at no cost.
As to your requirements, it took film photography a century to develop what the film camera capabilities are today. If you want a moisture proof 35mm SLR you have to pay a premium price for a pro camera body. Photographers will get everything they want in digital cameras if there is a REAL demand and enough buyers to pony up what it costs to build it.
Bill: 1. Try photo.net, you may have heard of it. Try Camera Repair Bulletin. Try any number of digital camera forums catering to ongoing users of digital cameras. You can put parts of the quotes in Google and they'll pop up, you know. 2. Why do I need any more 'credentials' than you do? What possible relevance does that have to the qualities I've stated I need in a camera and which you've failed to refute? Why is it that I have an 'agenda' if I distrust the current reputation of digital cameras, but you don't even though you're heavily invested in them? 3. Your conclusions re: James' post are wrong. What he said was that he bought a new, very expensive 7D in 12/04, and that he's sent it back twice for repairs already, and that he's going to have to send it back AGAIN. That's about one repair every 3-4 months, no?
David: Digital cameras are not devices that can perform tasks not duplicable by any other technology at similar prices. Therefore they do not get a 'pass' from me when I read about numerous breakdowns, especially when they are consistent in their description. If film cameras can possess reasonably reliable internal mechanisms, survive hamhanded use by uncaring owners, and use film with high dependability rates, it's reasonable for a buyer who prizes these qualities to demand the same thing from digital cameras and DSLRs and their firmware/storage media. Otherwise, why switch?
We're not just talking about comparisons with shutter time, either. From what I'm reading - dead LCD displays, dead sensors, inexplicable complete electronic failure, parts falling off the camera, malfunctioning AF mechanisms, lines in pictures, broken zoom advances, dead ICs, main board failures, etc. there's a lot out there to be concerned about. Am I the only one who has heard the term "BGLOD"?
I think that if you can purchase a Nikon FM3a used grey-market off ebay that works flawlessly for two-three years, in good and bad weather, you ought to be able to expect the same performance from a vastly more expensive DSLR. At this point, I don't think that's the case.
It is hard for me not to agree with a lot said here because even in this small area there has been considerable problems with digital cameras. I do believe we the consumers have set the standards for what we will except. If the companies were not selling they would be doing something different. To me it is all about choice. My digital camera has been through a lot for three years no problem, but I have always been careful, on the other hand if both cameras broke I would fix the film camera in a second not the digital. The one thing that does make me angry is we buy into a lot of advertising. Not a bad thing just is not always the way it is. I know companies need to get back their developing cost and so on,but the truth known what it cost to put together a digital camera today we might be surprised how much is made from us. Where I am clear is that I have no problem with digital,just do not feel for myself it is worth the investment when All I can afford it a 35mm DLSR. I see the prints done here by photographers with digital camers. Portraits are good,but other things like landscape prints do not match medium film format. Not here anyway. Monte Johnson.
>>If film cameras can possess reasonably reliable internal mechanisms, survive hamhanded use by uncaring owners, and use film with high dependability rates, it's reasonable for a buyer who prizes these qualities to demand the same thing from digital cameras and DSLRs and their firmware/storage media. Otherwise, why switch? <<
Digital SLR's do not function any differently, nor use AF or AE design that are significantly distinct from their film counterparts. In some instances the "internal mechanisms" you refer to are essentially interchangeable. It is a fact digital electronic control, and electro-servo mechanisms have been a part of cameras, especially 35mm, beginning long before an area array image sensor was put into a camera for public sale. In fact a couple of digital cameras I recently tested and reported on were only distingishable from their film counterparts by the fact they had an area array sensor, a large LCD display on the back and a recepticle for a CF flash memory card.
With medium format a digital sensor built into a magazine case can be interchanged at will with a 120 film magazine, and you can use the camera body whether Mamiya or Hasselblad in exactly the same way to expose film or diigital interchangeably.
The only significant difference between film and digital is the way the image information is recorded.
Your arguments are without foundation and your motives are suspect.
"Digital SLR's do not function any differently, nor use AF or AE design that are significantly distinct from their film counterparts. In some instances the "internal mechanisms" you refer to are essentially interchangeable."
In a very few instances, yes. But to what standard of quality are these new electronic circuits and mechanisms being built? Say, a Nikon F6 standard? Or something less? You're right that not all newer film cameras are built for the ages - some of the newer lowpriced AF 35mm cameras seem to be quitting after a only a couple of years. That doesn't really make a case for digital reliability. I do wonder how much, really, is left over in a DSLR or digicam manufacturer's budget for high quality, related component parts after building a new DSLR to a competitive price and subtracting the cost of sensor, new and larger display, ongoing toolup costs for constant new model introductions, while factoring in costs for added quality control needed for high production volumes, new factories and labor force, etc?
And why are these complaints are appearing at all? One would think that in a market where digital camera technology obsolesces so quickly, in some cases only a year or two, we would see almost no complaints of malfunctions for at least that length of time.
Reliability is only only two of the requirements I listed for a camera to equal what I use currently. There are several others, notably including durability and susceptibility to light impact damage, that have gone unanswered, but omission is an answer in this case.
I do not know what you are attempting to imply by stating that my motives are suspect. I know I don't promote or sell new cameras, film or digital, nor write publicity for them in magazines or web pages. Are you certain your irritation at me isn't partly rooted in the realization that I might just have a very tiny point, one that bears investigation? At the very least, why are those who do post complaints of digital camera failure seem to be largely ignored, dismissed as obvious cranks, or criticized as too ignorant to properly care for a camera?
I certainly hope more people start asking questions someday. If even to acknowledge that they know very well what "BGLOD" means. One day, digital sales will slow a bit, and someone will begin doing long-term reliability tests. In the meantime, I'll keep shooting film.
In other words, is the added cost
David, just for info: I looked at the photo.net site (interesting site, by the way) and check the forums but didn't see anything remotely close to the overwhelming failure complaints alleged. Then I did a search on BLGOD, which stands for Blinking Green Light Of Death (cute), and most if not all the references there were to problems with the Nikon D70. The interesting thing there was that (1) Nikon was fixing the problems for free; and (2) the owners still love their cameras.
As for the "Camera Repair Bulletin", I did a Google search on that term and found nothing.....
>>And why are these complaints are appearing at all? One would think that in a market where digital camera technology obsolesces so quickly, in some cases only a year or two, we would see almost no complaints of malfunctions for at least that length of time.<<
A decade ago, before there were any large scale sales of digital cameras, and film cameras still dominated, there was no appreciable internet with web sites millions now access. There is no basis for comparison, there was no medium with easy public access when 35mm sales hit their peak between 1975 and 1990. But I can say this, that there was almost as much forced obsolescence with new and different 35mm SLR film models coming out as fast as there has been in digital, although digital sales have now outpaced film, and the total combined camera sales areas high or higher than they have ever been. I know because I have been covering photography for national photo magazines now for well over 30 years, and of necessity keep close track on what the industry is doing.
>>But to what standard of quality are these new electronic circuits and mechanisms being built? Say, a Nikon F6 standard?<<
I think you will find, as I said before, very little difference between a top of the line professional Canon or Nikon film and digital SLR body, including the exposure sensor and control system, as well as the auto-focus sensors and system, as well as the shutter and mirror mechanisms. If you want a rugged titanium body and a system sealed to keep moisture out it only comes with the top pro models of either brand and with a relatively hefty price tag whether film or digital. Likewise with either film or digital consumer priced SLR's you obtain less because you pay less. finally your assumption there has been a wholesale change in the way cameras are manufactured and with a different workforce because of the sift from film to digital is not at all true. There have been changes but change would occur regardless film or digital, its the nature of highly competitive technology driven manufacturing.
>>I do not know what you are attempting to imply by stating that my motives are suspect.<<
Most of the people who regularly participate in the forum at least register and many of them identify themselves by their real names. Only bandits wear a mask to hide their identity!
When I look at what fuels my personal feeling it becomes clear that it has nothing to do with digital cameras, but more to do with the move to remove all film to replace with digital. I say let the digital move go it has found its place in our world of constant change. It will be the wave of the future, but lets not let film die in the process. Let history live through those who still love the format. That is part of the emotional response by many. It is great that things change, but many just don't want to lose it all in the process. Monte Johnson.
Maybe it's an age thing, Monte. Artistically and emotionally, I certainly don't want to see film photography die off. We simply have too much time invested in the medium to turn it loose easily. But right now, there's a whole generation of kids (from my perspective) who have a choice of film or digital, and they seem to be gravitating toward digital. Eventually, there will be a generation for whom film is a part of the history of photography and nothing more. This will happen when film and film camera manufacturers see the bottom line turning red, and call a halt. Oh, sure, someone will continue to make film until all of us old fart diehards are gone, but it will be expensive. So there you are. It's not pretty, but I think that's the future.....
Most of the people who regularly participate in the forum at least register and many of them identify themselves by their real names. Only bandits wear a mask to hide their identity!
While (probably/mostly) true, I would not say that posting under a pseudonym, or even anonymously, is indicative of either deceipt or of impure motives. There are many folks who are leery of their identity being scattered all over the Internet, both because of the possibility of fraud (for example, ID theft), and because of the ability to aggregate information via search engines.
Many people choose not to give up their film cameras for digital, and their reasons are as varied as the people themselves. I happen to have both -- but then I was always tempted by new toys. However, I too still shoot film -- I have slides and prints that are as old (some are older) than I am -- and in the digital world of "planned obsolescence" I am still not sure that current file formats will be usable 50-100 years from now (and I am pretty sure a lot of the media currently in use won't be!) However, I am fairly certain that, as long as the film is properly stored, it will be around longer than I am, and as long as we have scanners it can be converted into whatever the digital format-du-jour is. Besides, to my eye at least digital capture doesn't have the richness of color pallette that film does. For a lot of stuff digital is "good enough", but for the best quality image I still prefer film.
I will disagree on principle and practicality. Your identity is not made more secure by anonymity, but less. DNA testing in recent years has proven all too many people have been missidentified and held responsible for acts they did not commit. Internet identity theft cannot be accomplished solely by knowing someone's name. We are more at risk by not being able to prove that we are who we say we are.
As far as I am concerned charges made anonymously are just empty words. If a person has a claim against something anonymity simply says that person does not have the courage to stand behind what they say.
As for obsolescence and future access to digital information, I don't think we are any worse off and probably better off with digital image files. Do you want me to count how many film formats (sizes) like 110 are no longer supported? CD's are an ISO standard format that goes back almost 40 years. The entire world-wide music industry is invested in CD technology, and now the movie industry in its extension DVD.
Back in the 50's there wasmuch fear TV would destroy both radio and the movie industry. It didn't happen, and there is no indication it will in any forseeable future. Film will remain, but like radio it will change as it adapts, just like radio changed in the last 50 years.
Thats A nice way to put it. I like that. The one thing that is comforting to me is Companies like Mamiya and Hasselblad have made their camera so digital backs can be used on them. In Time they may even be affordable to people like me. Even Cameras like the ZD let me know it is coming. Monte Johnson.
It was almost 10 years ago when I tried the first digital medium format camera back. No modification of the camera is necessary, although the latest medium format cameras do have new features that make using a digital back more convenient and effective.
Don't get your hopes up about their becoming much more affordable than they are now. Those very large chips used in MF digital backs are very expensive to make. One of the reasons is with those big chips they only get a few from each 8 inch silocon wafer, while they obtain 50 or more APS size camera sensors from a single 8" wafer.
You are probably right. Big chips are exspensive and will stay that way. When working with digital cameras the nice thing is working with smaller files. For instance I merged two 645 images together in PS after reversing the two to each other. I think it might make a good print, but over a 100 meg in the file. Here is the attached image. Monte Johnson.
Personally I cannot see a justification for medium format digital that is not professionally based. For instance as you have said you prefer a 16x20 print size, and I expect the new 13 megapixel Canon 5D should reproduce with very fine detail to that print size, and without the grain limitation at that size 35mm film has. In B&W 35mm you just about had to shoot ultra fine grain films like Panatomic-X, Ilford Pan-F or Agfapan 25 to obtain really fine 16x20 prints, and those films were really slow. And the Canon 5D is about a 1/4 the price of a medium format digital back.
I would guess Canon is pushing it a bit gambling enough people will buy the 5D that the production volume will be sufficient to make it a profitable venture. Canon can do this possibly because they are the only 35mm SLR camera company that manufactures its own chips.
When I used 35mm I did not use ultra fine films so 11+14 was the best I got from 100 iso films. Part of the reason I moved to 645 format. Larger prints with more fine detail. I believe digital is on the way no doubt. The Canon 5D tells me what photographers are demanding to have. The nice thing is I have time because it is a hobby not a profession. It is amazing where cameras have gone in the last three years. It has been exciting watching the changes. I know there will come a time I will make the move. The problem is I have to save money for such things that is hard enough, but the hard part is to justify the purchase when I do. I remember when I bought my first digital camera. I saved and planed for a year the cost was 800 for the Fuji 602. I was thrilled when I finally recieved it,but not all I live with was. Now as my skills have improved so has the positive feeling with my wife. She still does not understand what I do,but does enjoy my prints. Point is It is hard for me to make a 3000 purchase even though it comes out in the over all cost of things, The thing is as before I am planning and watching because I know the time will come. For now I am just grateful to be able to do what I do. Monte Johnson.
While you're waiting, you can take advantage of the great prices on secondhand MF or LF cameras and have greater detail than 645. It is not merely sentimentalism that drives publications such as Arizona Highways to approve only film submissions.
I already do take advandage of the lower prices. That is why I moved to medium format. I love the detail I get with my prints. I am in no hurry to convert,just watching to see what happens. Monte Johnson.
I think today too many people "settled down" much too young, put their noses to the grindstone and waited to begin living when they are retired. I see all too many doddering white-haired people driving sports-cars with the top down afraid to go over 55, and others in their motor homes living like gypsies but hardly able to enjoy the freedom.
Adventure is for when you ARE young. I lugged an 8x10 all over the contry-side when I was in my 20's and am now in my 70's I'm content to photograph flowers nearby with a relatively lightwieght digital SLR.
I can understand what your saying. You have twenty years on me I am 54. Even now I cannot really see lugging around 4+5 camera. I can see where the light digital SLR has agood feel to it. One of the reasons I went with the Fuji 645ZI was it is easy to carry and light. I looked at buying a Rollei 6008 but changed my mind. I might be considered kind of lazy but I am tired a lot. So on this issue I have to agree with you. Monte Johnson.
While technically 645 is MF, it's hardly that impressive in terms of potential when resolving detail compared to larger film formats, the reason AZ Highways likes those big transparencies is because they are so good! My Bronica GS-1 6x7 weighs only about 5 pounds with lens, the Fuji 6x9 rangefinders are even lighter. My LF Crown Graphic 4x5 cost all of $250 used, weighs only 5 pounds and will outperform any DSLR I've ever seen. If you can't carry that much around with you, you probably could use a rest!
I will respond to that by saying this. I have considered buying a Fuji 690,but at this point the 645 works. I would love to have 4+5 format and in all honesty It would not be the hard for me to carry around. I would rather use 6+7 format then 645, but at the time I felt for the money I spent it was a good choice. Monte johnson.
It's not that a large format camera, or even a few lenses was that heavy. But add a 15-25 pound tripod and a couple of dozen film holders and you need one of those pack horses that were employed by landscape photographers in the early part of the 20th century.
I had a neighbor who shot 8x10 color mostly for calendars but also had quite a few of his images in AZ Hiways. He would jokingly refer to himself as a "parking lot photographer". If a shot were very far from where he parked his car it was not worth the effort or time to schlepp the gear much of a distance.
The lightest interchangeable lens 6x7 to 6x9cm MF system I worked with was the Horseman VHR 120 field camera. The camera, 4 lenses and 2 film backs weighed about the same as the sturdy tripod getting really sharp images demanded. Even so it was a sweat to hike very far with it that required a very good rest afterward.
I would love to haul around a 4x5 -- even including the tripod and film holders etc. Tripods aren't so bad, what with CF and the newer lighter materials -- and the ReadyLoad/QuickLoad type of film holders should help with the weight there, too. However, I have got to wait until the wallet says I can afford it (maybe next year.)
@David -- I think we will have to agree to disagree on the benefits of anonymous vs. "authenticated" posting. If the mods want to force people to logon to post, that is OK with me. We can discuss off-line, but I want to keep the thread on-topic (which is something that seems to work pretty well here.)
My problem with anonymity is twofold. It allows people (bandits) with an agenda to scam people and falsely advertise bogus products without fear of being identified and caught thereby avoiding a responsibility for their actions.
Second it allows people to hide behind a mask to also take advantage to pursue an agenda that is destructive and damaging to others without being accountable for their actions.
What you say may be true. I know for myself I feel more comfortable with people when I know their name. Many times I know some feel they can not give much information out on the internet and I understand that, but here is just a lot of photographers sharing what their experince is. I have found on most sites like these it seems to be okay. I feel people trust you more when you let them know who you are. Monte Johnson.
Yes the issue is trust. Sadly I think when it is withheld out of fear all relationships suffer. But because so much news is distributed about such things as identity theft and internet fraud, people often over-react. There is really no threat to anyone simply by using their real name and registering in a forum like this because identification alone does not risk anything. The only way an identity thief can take advantage is if someone provides a SS# or a credit card number, or bank account number in association with their name or stores that information on their computers. Knowing how to be safe in this regard is the only way to counter fear, and fear is the worst enemy there is to what we value.
OK, I'll bite for one more round...
To answer the first point, posting on this forum is NOT anonymous. In the title area of each post, there is a line like the following:
#2727 - 09/27/05 07:35 PM (188.8.131.52)
That set of 4 numbers in the parenthesis is the IP address the post was made from, In this case, the "name" associated with this address is "h-67-101-105-233.lsanca54.dynamic.covad.net". Sooo, if the poster had been pushing something scammy, the mods could simply ask the abuse desk at covad.net who had that IP, and then sic the land shark or Johnnie Law on them.
As to the second point: yes, it is possible to hide behind a "mask of anonymity" and pursue an agenda as you describe. Of course, since there is no vetting done when you register for an account here, I have to take it on faith that you are in fact "David B Brooks", as you have to believe me when I say I am "Ed Truitt". Now, since your sig says you are associated with Shutterbug, I have an extra piece of information (the belief that SB wouldn't allow you to claim to be a member of their team if you weren't), but I think you can see where I am coming from.
Anyway, I think we are basically more in agreement than not. I certainly don't have a problem with requiring "authenticated" posting, but as one in the Information Security business I know there are limiations to what that provides, and ultimately it is up to the fine folks who run these forums as to whether they configure them to require it or not.
Now, back to photography...
I'll not argue that your response is or is not valid as far as it goes. Or, that even if someone registers and supposedly uses their real name that is any assurance of anything.
But your claiming the IP address really says anything that is really an identity, as that address can be just any empty shell, is just like a corporation can be an empty shell that only appears to have substance. Your expertise should be couched in the fact there is really no identity security, that the better description is INSECURITY. Most ordinary users I am sure do not know the significance of an IP address, and if that address takes them to a dead end, would surely have no way to go further than someone trying to get a sherrif to make service on a dummy, shell corporation.
If those IP addresses were foolproof and ISP's really did police those that use their services, we would not be plagued by spam.
All I am really concerned about are people who are not really serious crimnals, but casual users who have a maliscious and destructive agenda, and who can and have made all too many forums places where up-front honest people don't feel comfortable. In other words it has been my experience forums which do require registration and using real names have more success maintaining an atmosphere that is congenial and welcoming to those who want serious, positive value from the forum.