If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
portable (smallest) 120mm camera?
In article ,
craigatcraigschroederdotcom wrote: Consider making a committment to the format and buying something like the folding Fuji 645. Superb optics, accurate meter and easily slips into a coat pocket. [...] I just checked www.keh.com and they are reasonable. Question - do you, or have you actually used the cameras in question? How rugged are they, and do they use conventional batteries? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
portable (smallest) 120mm camera?
... if this is the same guy I tuned him out when he
said jpeg was a better format than RAW From: (jjs) That's a strong assertion. I'd prefer to see the citation. Some sample quotes ... "RAW is needlessly tedious if you can get the right image to begin with. RAW always requires extra steps to process from the camera into a usable format, the files can only be opened with very special software, requires far more time for everything and therefore slows workflows ... RAW looks no better than JPG for real photos. It just takes up space, wastes your time and runs the risk of not being able to be opened now and in the future." http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm To each his own Bill |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
portable (smallest) 120mm camera?
In article ,
dy (Bill Hilton) wrote: Some sample quotes ... "RAW is needlessly tedious if you can get the right image to begin with. RAW always requires extra steps to process from the camera into a usable format, the files can only be opened with very special software, requires far more time for everything and therefore slows workflows ... RAW looks no better than JPG for real photos. It just takes up space, wastes your time and runs the risk of not being able to be opened now and in the future." http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm Thanks, Bill. I should have got off my virtual butt to find the citation myself. I don't understand his complaint about 'extra steps' given the automation tools we have today. To be sure of the last - might it be okay to use virtually _lossless_ JPEG format is adequate? (I mean JPEG format but with little to no compression)? I don't do professional digital-source photography, so I remain ignorant in practical applications of shooting to JPEG.) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
portable (smallest) 120mm camera?
In article ,
(jjs) wrote: In article , dy (Bill Hilton) wrote: Some sample quotes ... "RAW is needlessly tedious if you can get the right image to begin with. RAW always requires extra steps to process from the camera into a usable format, the files can only be opened with very special software, requires far more time for everything and therefore slows workflows ... RAW looks no better than JPG for real photos. It just takes up space, wastes your time and runs the risk of not being able to be opened now and in the future." http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm Thanks, Bill. I should have got off my virtual butt to find the citation myself. [... snip ...] I take back my earlier question, Bill! (Man, I need some sleep.) I see from the article that the author is limiting himself to some rather low-fi applications, persuaded in part to make as much money in as little time as possible, so maybe JPEG is good for him. Dunno. I'm not of the right mindset to compromise quality. It's hard enough to get quality without messing with the current in-camera digital crap. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
portable (smallest) 120mm camera?
The film for 120 cameras is generally similar to that used for 35mm
(sometimes identical). You get the same film quality with the advantage of the bigger negative. In general, there is no substitute for square inches when it comes to photo quality. Medium format cameras (using 120 film) come in a number of different formats. The smallest commonly found is "645", roughly 6X4.5 cm. This gives you 16 pictures per roll of 120 (32 per roll of 220). The negative area is a bit over three times the size of a 35mm negative, and the increase in quality is very apparent. The 6X6 format (12 or 24 exposures) is larger, but it is often cropped to about 645 size for printing. The other common sizes are 6X7 cm (10 or 20 exposures) and 6X9 cm (8 or 16 exposures). These are 10 to 12 times the size of 35mm, and give almost large format quality. The down side of medium format is that the cameras are bigger, heavier, and have less features and automation than you find in 35mm. You also get fewer exposures per roll of film, and the film is more difficult to load into the camera. There are still several excellent medium format cameras that are not too big and have features comparable to a 35. You might look at the Bronica 645, the Fuji GA645Zi and the Mamaiya 7II as examples. "Mike Henley" wrote in message om... I like small cameras and just got a mju-ii and minox gt-s. Some guys over at 35mm newsgroup suggested i get an SLR (35mm) if i want to get serious about photography. I don't feel very enthausiastic about 35mm SLR because i don't see that they add much to my preferences other than the size, meaning i'd have to wear the camera around my neck or in a bag rather than i do currently carrying the minox/mjuii in a small belt pouch (i don't like zoom, i don't like flash, i don't like buying lenses, i just simply like available light photography, nature and some landscape). Now, i just realized that i can get 120mm film for about the same price as 35mm film (from a web supplier), and to be honest if i'm going to carry a camera that doesn't fit in my pocket or a bet pouch, i may be more tempted to get a smallest possible 120mm than a 35mm SLR ('cos after all, i'd carry either in a little rucksack and the 120mm would give me something different from the minox and mjuii). Now, 35mm film has advanced considerably lately, and my preferred film is the fuji superia xtra 400 (good enough and i can get it cheaply); What would a medium format offer me that 35mm doesn't? is enlargement potential the only advantage? Also, if so, i can use iso50 35mm film on the mjuii and iso25 35mm on the minox gt-s, would these rival iso100 or iso400 120mm film (those are the ones cheaply/widely available)? the lens on both is f2.8 and so far i feel i can use a slow film (low iso) while still getting adequate exposure. So, i know you guys would probably not welcome my apparent comparison of 35mm compact (p&s) to 120mm but i'm just respectfully asking whether the format offer significant advantages over the *finest* 35mm film, and i think this is a reasonable question to ask. Also, if so, what's the smallest and lightest 120mm camera? I don't really care much for features as my style is mostly point & shoot and i think more about composition than technique or technology. Regarding automation, i don't care much about shutter speed (i don't really photograph action/sport) but i would like to have control over focusing and aperture, though not necessarily. regards |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
portable (smallest) 120mm camera?
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
portable (smallest) 120mm camera?
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
portable (smallest) 120mm camera?
Nick Zentena wrote:
Mike Henley wrote: snip Folders. Designed to slip inside a coat pocket. You'll need a handheld meter. Less then $100 can get you a good example. Nick Nick is right. Those old folders are wonderful. I just developed and printed a roll from my Zeiss Super Ikonta 530/2 [negative image is 2 1/4" x 3 1/4"] and printed at 8x10 without any visible grain at all. It could probably enlarge easily to 16 x 20. Size matters. Francis A. Miniter |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
portable (smallest) 120mm camera?
In article k.net,
"Norman Worth" wrote: The film for 120 cameras is generally similar to that used for 35mm (sometimes identical). Pretty much true, except in the case of Tri-X "professional" vs Tri-X "pro". The down side of medium format is that the cameras are bigger, heavier, and have less features and automation than you find in 35mm. You also get fewer exposures per roll of film, and the film is more difficult to load into the camera. Weigh some loaded 35mm pro cameras before you say that 120s are always heavier. Fewer exposures? Hah. The total square area is about the same per roll. If loading a 120 camera is an obstacle for an able-bodied person, then they should go miniature-digital and be done with it. They might be the same people who hover like buzzards around a shopping center looking for a parking place six feet closer than the one available. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What's your digital camera history? | David Dyer-Bennet | Digital Photography | 67 | July 3rd 04 10:56 AM |
Starting camera | Scott M. Knowles | Large Format Photography Equipment | 17 | July 2nd 04 01:35 PM |
Sony Cybershot DSC-W1... Bad Camera...Bad Customer Service by Sony... Read on... | unavailable | 35mm Photo Equipment | 38 | June 29th 04 06:45 AM |
For Sell --- SLR camera and a Point & Shoot APS Camera: Toronto | slrcamera | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 4 | April 1st 04 09:59 PM |