(OT) What would it take?

It seems, as far as the masses are concerned, that 35mm film is history. I
never considered myself one of the masses anyway, but as one who sells
cameras all day the questions arise- if peer pressure won't do it, and if
the desire to possess technology won't do it, what will it take for me to
"go digital"?

I keep working my way around the current models, thinking "hey, high
resolution would do it" or "maybe using manual lenses and slowing the whole
process down would do it". But I think i've compiled my list- a small,
metal, traditional SLR or RF design, manual focus lenses, moderately high
resolution, a big sensor and a really big, bright viewfinder; all that in a
reasonably priced package might just about do it. The total disappearance of
my favourite films would almost certainly do it. Whether i'm waiting for a
Digital M7 or FM3D or what, I don't know- but I know I can't buy it yet.

So, all of you who haven't " gone digital"- what would it take?

--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."

"Martin Francis" wrote in message
...

So, all of you who haven't " gone digital"- what would it take?


Winning the lottery. No, serious. And it better be the PowerBall too! How
else are you going to be able to keep up with the latest in technological
improvements? Every 18 months, your $6K camera is old and worth a plug
nickel. Not to mention software upgrades and replacements and that PC is
going to only get slower for the 'darkroom' side of the process. And darned
if they stopped making ink refills for that printer of mine (after three
years). Then there's glasses for staring at a monitor and the same picture
for 2 hours a day. Going digital (IMHO) is worse than a house and it's
maintenance and upkeep costs. About the only investment that doesn't
turnover every 18 months is lenses - for now. What if the manufacturer of
your system decides to reinvent the wheel and reengineers the mount (al la
Canon).

Some of what I said is tongue-in-cheek, but based in truth. The cost
factor, the long term cost factor, is keeping me analog for now.

Jim

"Martin Francis" wrote in message
...

So, all of you who haven't " gone digital"- what would it take?


Winning the lottery. No, serious. And it better be the PowerBall too! How
else are you going to be able to keep up with the latest in technological
improvements? Every 18 months, your $6K camera is old and worth a plug
nickel. Not to mention software upgrades and replacements and that PC is
going to only get slower for the 'darkroom' side of the process. And darned
if they stopped making ink refills for that printer of mine (after three
years). Then there's glasses for staring at a monitor and the same picture
for 2 hours a day. Going digital (IMHO) is worse than a house and it's
maintenance and upkeep costs. About the only investment that doesn't
turnover every 18 months is lenses - for now. What if the manufacturer of
your system decides to reinvent the wheel and reengineers the mount (al la
Canon).

Some of what I said is tongue-in-cheek, but based in truth. The cost
factor, the long term cost factor, is keeping me analog for now.

Jim

Martin Francis wrote:

It seems, as far as the masses are concerned, that 35mm film is history. I
never considered myself one of the masses anyway, but as one who sells
cameras all day the questions arise- if peer pressure won't do it, and if
the desire to possess technology won't do it, what will it take for me to
"go digital"?

Lots of people at eat McDonald's, but I would almost rather starve than go
there. I doubt peer pressure, or the actions of the masses, would ever
influence me. That would be too much like becoming a lemming, and I am not
ready to run over the cliff just yet.



I keep working my way around the current models, thinking "hey, high
resolution would do it" or "maybe using manual lenses and slowing the whole
process down would do it". But I think i've compiled my list- a small,
metal, traditional SLR or RF design, manual focus lenses, moderately high
resolution, a big sensor and a really big, bright viewfinder; all that in a
reasonably priced package might just about do it. The total disappearance of
my favourite films would almost certainly do it. Whether i'm waiting for a
Digital M7 or FM3D or what, I don't know- but I know I can't buy it yet.

So, all of you who haven't " gone digital"- what would it take?

Escaping the limits of the Bayer pattern. Sony has taken an interesting
direction by altering the Bayer pattern colour filters, though they introduced
other problems. Perhaps more work will result in some gains.

Resolution is the issue most point towards, since it is the most quantifiable
comparison. With the Fuji S3, Leica Digital R Module, Kodak DCS 14n, and full
frame Canon, the resolution is there. I might actually buy one of these used in
a few years, when the cost is too low to ignore. Most of these will do
publication size single page, with possible two page spread capability.

Mostly, I choose lenses to get a specific look, and the body is much less
important a decision. My film choices are based upon the colour range specifics
of those different films. I would rather scan, and do minimal post processing,
than spend a great deal of time in post, so the time savings for my editing
methods, and few pre-press preparation, are still faster with scanned film.
Those are workflow issues, though a non-linear digital light table might help
with editing chores (nobody makes any software like I want). Nikon seem to
allow me to use manual focus lenses, as do several of the medium format
companies. The Leica R line is just too expensive for me to convert.

A direct digital rangefinder might be a choice, though the variables are many.
It seems that Zeiss is hinting at going that direction, and Leica will also
make that a direction. I doubt Nikon would ever make a manual control, simple
digital SLR, so I do not expect that. With the Sinar M system, or Horseman
DigiFlex, there are choices for using Nikon manual focus lenses with high end
digital backs, but at a large cost.

All my gear needs to make me money. My film expenses are billed out, so there
is no direct savings from that. Since there would need to be more time in post
processing with direct digital (I have used enough to see this reality), it
remains a choice only driven by some clients, and then largely rented gear. If
my time after doing the images is longer, then I basically loose money with
digital. I need to emphasize that my needs and working methods do not match
many on this group, so I am sure my reasoning will confuse some people.

I could see being more interested in medium format digital backs. One reason is
they are available on lease plans, with future conversion and upgrades as
better gear comes out. Another reason is that the camera is not tied to one
imaging chip, which avoids missing future improvements, and ending up with a
less than ideal technology level. There is also the possibility to mix film and
digital with the same camera and lenses.

If you scan film, you are already digital. When you can deliver a CD-R of
images to a client, they do not care how those images originated. When scanner
development stops, and only direct digital improves, then it is time to move
on.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Martin Francis wrote:

It seems, as far as the masses are concerned, that 35mm film is history. I
never considered myself one of the masses anyway, but as one who sells
cameras all day the questions arise- if peer pressure won't do it, and if
the desire to possess technology won't do it, what will it take for me to
"go digital"?

Lots of people at eat McDonald's, but I would almost rather starve than go
there. I doubt peer pressure, or the actions of the masses, would ever
influence me. That would be too much like becoming a lemming, and I am not
ready to run over the cliff just yet.



I keep working my way around the current models, thinking "hey, high
resolution would do it" or "maybe using manual lenses and slowing the whole
process down would do it". But I think i've compiled my list- a small,
metal, traditional SLR or RF design, manual focus lenses, moderately high
resolution, a big sensor and a really big, bright viewfinder; all that in a
reasonably priced package might just about do it. The total disappearance of
my favourite films would almost certainly do it. Whether i'm waiting for a
Digital M7 or FM3D or what, I don't know- but I know I can't buy it yet.

So, all of you who haven't " gone digital"- what would it take?

Escaping the limits of the Bayer pattern. Sony has taken an interesting
direction by altering the Bayer pattern colour filters, though they introduced
other problems. Perhaps more work will result in some gains.

Resolution is the issue most point towards, since it is the most quantifiable
comparison. With the Fuji S3, Leica Digital R Module, Kodak DCS 14n, and full
frame Canon, the resolution is there. I might actually buy one of these used in
a few years, when the cost is too low to ignore. Most of these will do
publication size single page, with possible two page spread capability.

Mostly, I choose lenses to get a specific look, and the body is much less
important a decision. My film choices are based upon the colour range specifics
of those different films. I would rather scan, and do minimal post processing,
than spend a great deal of time in post, so the time savings for my editing
methods, and few pre-press preparation, are still faster with scanned film.
Those are workflow issues, though a non-linear digital light table might help
with editing chores (nobody makes any software like I want). Nikon seem to
allow me to use manual focus lenses, as do several of the medium format
companies. The Leica R line is just too expensive for me to convert.

A direct digital rangefinder might be a choice, though the variables are many.
It seems that Zeiss is hinting at going that direction, and Leica will also
make that a direction. I doubt Nikon would ever make a manual control, simple
digital SLR, so I do not expect that. With the Sinar M system, or Horseman
DigiFlex, there are choices for using Nikon manual focus lenses with high end
digital backs, but at a large cost.

All my gear needs to make me money. My film expenses are billed out, so there
is no direct savings from that. Since there would need to be more time in post
processing with direct digital (I have used enough to see this reality), it
remains a choice only driven by some clients, and then largely rented gear. If
my time after doing the images is longer, then I basically loose money with
digital. I need to emphasize that my needs and working methods do not match
many on this group, so I am sure my reasoning will confuse some people.

I could see being more interested in medium format digital backs. One reason is
they are available on lease plans, with future conversion and upgrades as
better gear comes out. Another reason is that the camera is not tied to one
imaging chip, which avoids missing future improvements, and ending up with a
less than ideal technology level. There is also the possibility to mix film and
digital with the same camera and lenses.

If you scan film, you are already digital. When you can deliver a CD-R of
images to a client, they do not care how those images originated. When scanner
development stops, and only direct digital improves, then it is time to move
on.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Martin Francis wrote:

It seems, as far as the masses are concerned, that 35mm film is history. I
never considered myself one of the masses anyway, but as one who sells
cameras all day the questions arise- if peer pressure won't do it, and if
the desire to possess technology won't do it, what will it take for me to
"go digital"?

Lots of people at eat McDonald's, but I would almost rather starve than go
there. I doubt peer pressure, or the actions of the masses, would ever
influence me. That would be too much like becoming a lemming, and I am not
ready to run over the cliff just yet.



I keep working my way around the current models, thinking "hey, high
resolution would do it" or "maybe using manual lenses and slowing the whole
process down would do it". But I think i've compiled my list- a small,
metal, traditional SLR or RF design, manual focus lenses, moderately high
resolution, a big sensor and a really big, bright viewfinder; all that in a
reasonably priced package might just about do it. The total disappearance of
my favourite films would almost certainly do it. Whether i'm waiting for a
Digital M7 or FM3D or what, I don't know- but I know I can't buy it yet.

So, all of you who haven't " gone digital"- what would it take?

Escaping the limits of the Bayer pattern. Sony has taken an interesting
direction by altering the Bayer pattern colour filters, though they introduced
other problems. Perhaps more work will result in some gains.

Resolution is the issue most point towards, since it is the most quantifiable
comparison. With the Fuji S3, Leica Digital R Module, Kodak DCS 14n, and full
frame Canon, the resolution is there. I might actually buy one of these used in
a few years, when the cost is too low to ignore. Most of these will do
publication size single page, with possible two page spread capability.

Mostly, I choose lenses to get a specific look, and the body is much less
important a decision. My film choices are based upon the colour range specifics
of those different films. I would rather scan, and do minimal post processing,
than spend a great deal of time in post, so the time savings for my editing
methods, and few pre-press preparation, are still faster with scanned film.
Those are workflow issues, though a non-linear digital light table might help
with editing chores (nobody makes any software like I want). Nikon seem to
allow me to use manual focus lenses, as do several of the medium format
companies. The Leica R line is just too expensive for me to convert.

A direct digital rangefinder might be a choice, though the variables are many.
It seems that Zeiss is hinting at going that direction, and Leica will also
make that a direction. I doubt Nikon would ever make a manual control, simple
digital SLR, so I do not expect that. With the Sinar M system, or Horseman
DigiFlex, there are choices for using Nikon manual focus lenses with high end
digital backs, but at a large cost.

All my gear needs to make me money. My film expenses are billed out, so there
is no direct savings from that. Since there would need to be more time in post
processing with direct digital (I have used enough to see this reality), it
remains a choice only driven by some clients, and then largely rented gear. If
my time after doing the images is longer, then I basically loose money with
digital. I need to emphasize that my needs and working methods do not match
many on this group, so I am sure my reasoning will confuse some people.

I could see being more interested in medium format digital backs. One reason is
they are available on lease plans, with future conversion and upgrades as
better gear comes out. Another reason is that the camera is not tied to one
imaging chip, which avoids missing future improvements, and ending up with a
less than ideal technology level. There is also the possibility to mix film and
digital with the same camera and lenses.

If you scan film, you are already digital. When you can deliver a CD-R of
images to a client, they do not care how those images originated. When scanner
development stops, and only direct digital improves, then it is time to move
on.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Martin Francis wrote:

It seems, as far as the masses are concerned, that 35mm film is history. I
never considered myself one of the masses anyway, but as one who sells
cameras all day the questions arise- if peer pressure won't do it, and if
the desire to possess technology won't do it, what will it take for me to
"go digital"?

I keep working my way around the current models, thinking "hey, high
resolution would do it" or "maybe using manual lenses and slowing the whole
process down would do it". But I think i've compiled my list- a small,
metal, traditional SLR or RF design, manual focus lenses, moderately high
resolution, a big sensor and a really big, bright viewfinder; all that in a
reasonably priced package might just about do it. The total disappearance of
my favourite films would almost certainly do it. Whether i'm waiting for a
Digital M7 or FM3D or what, I don't know- but I know I can't buy it yet.

So, all of you who haven't " gone digital"- what would it take?

Preamble.
I have some fairly expensive Minolta lenses (300 f/2.8, 100 f/2.8, 20 f/2.8
80-200 f/2.8 and 28-70 f/2.8) plus the humble, yet always sharp 50 f/1.7.
Except for the 300, I purchased all of the above new. (well, the 28-70 was a
few months old). There is no way I will get very much in return for that
collection of glass. So, for better or worse I'm married to the 7D path.
(Unless I win the loto which is hard to do as seldom as I buy tickets).

Now K-M are slow as tar on a cold day, getting closer to the great release. And
from what I've seen to date of 'casual' images taken by dpreview at photokina,
I'm not at all impressed (with either Askey taking shots), dpreview or the
camera). I need to see more before I'm convinced it's any good. (The K-M shots
posted on the web are very good. The both of them (!)).

Good enough? Yes and no. The largest I've printed in the last 12 months is
8x12. The largest I've printed in the past few years is 24 x 16. OTOH, I've
projected a hell of a lot of slides. Of course the possesion of a 7D won't
prevent me from shooting slides on the Maxxum 9 will it? Will it? C'mon, really?

Maybe I'll hold out to the 8 Mpix version, or maybe a full frame ... and even
more pixels... hard to tell...

I explored a used camera shop this midday ... lo and behold no 500CM's ("why?" I
asked. Well there are movies being produced and all the old Hassy's and glass
were rented out to the prod people...).

I rented a 500CM, 80 f/2.8 and 150 f/4 over the weekend and shot mainly
chromes... can't wait to see the results. Booked again for next w/e, where I'll
do more chromes, a little bit of negatives (color & B&W).

All that to say that before I layout CAD$1500 or so on a digital camera, that
same cash might end up being spent on MF instead.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Martin Francis wrote:

It seems, as far as the masses are concerned, that 35mm film is history. I
never considered myself one of the masses anyway, but as one who sells
cameras all day the questions arise- if peer pressure won't do it, and if
the desire to possess technology won't do it, what will it take for me to
"go digital"?

I keep working my way around the current models, thinking "hey, high
resolution would do it" or "maybe using manual lenses and slowing the whole
process down would do it". But I think i've compiled my list- a small,
metal, traditional SLR or RF design, manual focus lenses, moderately high
resolution, a big sensor and a really big, bright viewfinder; all that in a
reasonably priced package might just about do it. The total disappearance of
my favourite films would almost certainly do it. Whether i'm waiting for a
Digital M7 or FM3D or what, I don't know- but I know I can't buy it yet.

So, all of you who haven't " gone digital"- what would it take?

Preamble.
I have some fairly expensive Minolta lenses (300 f/2.8, 100 f/2.8, 20 f/2.8
80-200 f/2.8 and 28-70 f/2.8) plus the humble, yet always sharp 50 f/1.7.
Except for the 300, I purchased all of the above new. (well, the 28-70 was a
few months old). There is no way I will get very much in return for that
collection of glass. So, for better or worse I'm married to the 7D path.
(Unless I win the loto which is hard to do as seldom as I buy tickets).

Now K-M are slow as tar on a cold day, getting closer to the great release. And
from what I've seen to date of 'casual' images taken by dpreview at photokina,
I'm not at all impressed (with either Askey taking shots), dpreview or the
camera). I need to see more before I'm convinced it's any good. (The K-M shots
posted on the web are very good. The both of them (!)).

Good enough? Yes and no. The largest I've printed in the last 12 months is
8x12. The largest I've printed in the past few years is 24 x 16. OTOH, I've
projected a hell of a lot of slides. Of course the possesion of a 7D won't
prevent me from shooting slides on the Maxxum 9 will it? Will it? C'mon, really?

Maybe I'll hold out to the 8 Mpix version, or maybe a full frame ... and even
more pixels... hard to tell...

I explored a used camera shop this midday ... lo and behold no 500CM's ("why?" I
asked. Well there are movies being produced and all the old Hassy's and glass
were rented out to the prod people...).

I rented a 500CM, 80 f/2.8 and 150 f/4 over the weekend and shot mainly
chromes... can't wait to see the results. Booked again for next w/e, where I'll
do more chromes, a little bit of negatives (color & B&W).

All that to say that before I layout CAD$1500 or so on a digital camera, that
same cash might end up being spent on MF instead.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

"Martin Francis" wrote in message
...
It seems, as far as the masses are concerned, that 35mm film is history. I
never considered myself one of the masses anyway, but as one who sells
cameras all day the questions arise- if peer pressure won't do it, and if
the desire to possess technology won't do it, what will it take for me to
"go digital"?

I keep working my way around the current models, thinking "hey, high
resolution would do it" or "maybe using manual lenses and slowing the
whole
process down would do it". But I think i've compiled my list- a small,
metal, traditional SLR or RF design, manual focus lenses, moderately high
resolution, a big sensor and a really big, bright viewfinder; all that in
a
reasonably priced package might just about do it. The total disappearance
of
my favourite films would almost certainly do it. Whether i'm waiting for a
Digital M7 or FM3D or what, I don't know- but I know I can't buy it yet.

So, all of you who haven't " gone digital"- what would it take?

1. A full-frame Nikon of at least 12MP that doesn't suffer from all the crap
the Kodak does.
2. A full-frame SLR that can use the Pentax 645 lenses.
3. Either of the above at a reasonable price (for example, $3K for the
Nikon, or $6K for the Pentax)

Other than that, I'll keep shooting lots of film and taking snapshots with a
Sony 828. I simply don't see the point of sub-frame DSLRs, since I believe
they're a temporary solution and you'lll get stuck with some obsolete glass.


--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."

"Martin Francis" wrote in message
...
It seems, as far as the masses are concerned, that 35mm film is history. I
never considered myself one of the masses anyway, but as one who sells
cameras all day the questions arise- if peer pressure won't do it, and if
the desire to possess technology won't do it, what will it take for me to
"go digital"?

I keep working my way around the current models, thinking "hey, high
resolution would do it" or "maybe using manual lenses and slowing the
whole
process down would do it". But I think i've compiled my list- a small,
metal, traditional SLR or RF design, manual focus lenses, moderately high
resolution, a big sensor and a really big, bright viewfinder; all that in
a
reasonably priced package might just about do it. The total disappearance
of
my favourite films would almost certainly do it. Whether i'm waiting for a
Digital M7 or FM3D or what, I don't know- but I know I can't buy it yet.

So, all of you who haven't " gone digital"- what would it take?

1. A full-frame Nikon of at least 12MP that doesn't suffer from all the crap
the Kodak does.
2. A full-frame SLR that can use the Pentax 645 lenses.
3. Either of the above at a reasonable price (for example, $3K for the
Nikon, or $6K for the Pentax)

Other than that, I'll keep shooting lots of film and taking snapshots with a
Sony 828. I simply don't see the point of sub-frame DSLRs, since I believe
they're a temporary solution and you'lll get stuck with some obsolete glass.


--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."