Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

Download AlbumFamiy software at http://www.albumsfamily.com to help
you
With its Image Browser, you can manage your images as easily as you
can imagine; its Image Viewer shows your images in the most advanced
Virtual Album; the PhotoEdit and Photofun functions give you wide room
to adjust your images and make all kinds of prints such as postcards,
cards, stationery and so on; what's more, the Bundled Functions allow
you to scan images and send images to your specified destination just
by a single click. With AlbumFamily, You can establish the most
beautiful albums for yourself, your family and your friends, you can
produce your own style stationery on your desk. You will never find
another application software which fits you so well and satisfy you so
much!

Raphael Bustin wrote:

On 25 May 2004 22:27:57 -0500, (Bob Monaghan)


Those of us who want "more" may have to wait... or be
willing to pay hefty premiums. OTOH, we're familiar with
that situation, being from the MF world.



Speak for yourself there Ralphi, the medium format cameras I've bought are
-cheaper- than most 35mm stuff. Just picked up a mamiya 645, a 35mm and
55-110 zoom all for under $1000. The bitch with digital is it's buy new at
premium prices or buy last years "garbage"... Maybe after the market has
settled down I'd be interested.

BTW why do you always seem to pipe up when the word digital is mentioned?
You have a searchbot looking for that word in this group? I've never seen
you make one coment/responce about the kind of film camera you own in this
group!

--

Stacey

Download AlbumFamiy software at http://www.albumsfamily.com to help
you
With its Image Browser, you can manage your images as easily as you
can imagine; its Image Viewer shows your images in the most advanced
Virtual Album; the PhotoEdit and Photofun functions give you wide room
to adjust your images and make all kinds of prints such as postcards,
cards, stationery and so on; what's more, the Bundled Functions allow
you to scan images and send images to your specified destination just
by a single click. With AlbumFamily, You can establish the most
beautiful albums for yourself, your family and your friends, you can
produce your own style stationery on your desk. You will never find
another application software which fits you so well and satisfy you so
much!

Download AlbumFamiy software at http://www.albumsfamily.com to help
you
With its Image Browser, you can manage your images as easily as you
can imagine; its Image Viewer shows your images in the most advanced
Virtual Album; the PhotoEdit and Photofun functions give you wide room
to adjust your images and make all kinds of prints such as postcards,
cards, stationery and so on; what's more, the Bundled Functions allow
you to scan images and send images to your specified destination just
by a single click. With AlbumFamily, You can establish the most
beautiful albums for yourself, your family and your friends, you can
produce your own style stationery on your desk. You will never find
another application software which fits you so well and satisfy you so
much!

What the ****? What's up with Spamming the photo news groups? If you
don't have anything to contribute, get lost.

Neil Gould wrote:

Depends on how much money i could save on film and film processing,
doesn't it?

Not if you have to spend it on editing hardware and software, storage
media, etc. [...]

True, sort of.
For very many of us, those costs are part of daily expenditure already. You
can shoot film but still need to produce digital files, burn CDs etc.
So if you can avoid buying and processing film, you really do save money.
And time.

Same with digiback's: sell me a proper one today, and charge a
reasonable price for it, and i'll be using it for years. And so, i
think, will many others with me.

The question is: why? No currently available MF digiback can even approach
the quality of a mid-range MF film scanner, not to mention the price
point. Film scanners in the price bracket of MF digibacks are even further
beyond digital performance capabilities.

Two reasons why:
First, while i always scan my film at max. resolution, and store the
resulting huge files, i rarely ever have to use a file that big. What
*scanners can do* is not a measure of what *we actually need*.
Second, it saves time. Heeps of it.

And then, this is not (yet) an either-or thing: sell me a proper digiback at
a reasonable price, and i can still fall back on scanned film if and when
needed. Right?

But that's all besides the point, which was that given a rpoper one you
don't need to upgrade every 6 months. You only need to "upgrade" anything
when it begins to disintegrate. Not each and every time a supposedl "new and
improved" version comes along.
Consumerism is rife, but that's no excuse to behave as a consumer would.
;-)

I disagree that the days of LF are gone. LF has always been best suited to
large gallery prints. Sorry, but your Kodak/n is just not going to
displace LF in that deparment. OTOH, LF for catalog work is simply
misapplied technology.

There is a lot of truth in what you say. But you must not forget to consider
that is is far from uncommon that "large gallery prints" are produced using
those miniature 35 mm cameras too. I'll even bet you that the vast majority
of "large gallery prints" are produced on 35 mm film.
So yes, LF seems to be eminently suited to produce large prints. But (again)
reality runs circles around our well considered conclusions.

A Kodak SLR/n may not be able to replace 35 mm for this type of print, no.
Enlarged grain and pixelation do not quite produce the same visual effect.
So there's room for 35 mm film still... ;-)

Even MF cameras offer full movements...

Take a look at the Rollei X-Act 2... (yes, I know you've seen it, but this
is a wider discussion than just us)
http://www.rollei-usa.com/bellows/index.htm

My advise to anyone considering to buy one of those was and still is to
think again. And if movements are demmed to be absolutely indispensable, to
get a proper 4x5" thing and hang a 6x9 back on it.
Anyway, that's another discussion.

That's even more true of digital. Chances are very good that I'll be able
to maintain my Rollei for far longer than one will be able to maintain
*any* digicam that one buys any time soon. I'll even give them a 2 year
head start. Those cameras are being treated as "disposables", even though
one needs significant "disposable income" to buy in.

Yes, that is even more true for digital.
But i was pointing out that availability of film is not the only thing we
need to worry about when (no, not if) digital takes over.

Digital cameras will still be in production once digital has taken over
completely, right? It may be impossible to get one fixed, but you can always
get a new one.
But not discontinued items: you can only hope to get those repaired using
old parts taken from things even more broken than the ones you hope to get
repaired.

But let's not get too far ahead of ourselves, and of things to come.
MF and film is still with us today. It's just that this year will (and i
strongly believe that) be a deciding one in photography's history. And if
things go like i think they likely will, the effects will still not be felt
immediately. Though things will change soon enough. Too fast for comfort.

"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...


in short, I don't think digital is going to take over all film niches
anytime soon. I expect the opposite to happen. I expect folks who suddenly
realize their digicam is obsolete after 2 years, and now they have to
shell out major bucks for the new models, and new software and all that,
to start wondering if maybe things were better and cheaper with buying a
film SLR every decade or so? ;-)



What is your take on the newest generation of photo enthusiasts, that were
first introduced to photography using digital gear, and who never knew what
it was like to use a film camera, or to have film processed?

This population might be very large right now, but give it a few years, and
.. . .

Just consider all the 35mm aficionados whose only experience with camera
equipment has been with plastic bodies, electronic circuit boards and kit
zoom lenses. They've never handled any of the legacy camera bodies and
lenses, and probably have never had to determine exposure using a handleld
meter, because their camera did all that for them.

How will this population see the benefits of returning to film, if they have
never had any experience with the medium?

Bob Monaghan wrote:

I disagree with several points:

Good! ;-)

a) I don't think digital will take over every photo niche over film; for
example, I think high quality portraiture may continue to be done on film
rather than 8 MP digicams, and architecture may be on sheet film with view
cameras just as it has for decades of cheaper MF and 35mm competitors ;-)

Digital photo's real strengths seem to be in speed (if uploading images to
the web, see camera cell-phone popularity) and convenience, but not
image quality or even total costs and skills required. As noted by PMAI
stats and user surveys, 89% of digicam owners NEVER print ANY images (!!!)
The skills needed to get good computer scans and prints are very different
from making good photo compositions etc.

Stats again...
Who did they survey? And how are the percentages photographers who need
(!!!) to produce prints and the percentage that don't?

And skill? You really don't think it's difficult, do you? So difficult even
that most of us won't be able to master it in less time than how to learn to
program our VCRs?

Portraiture, by the way, is one of those fields in which digital has already
taken off big. But you mentioned "high quality" portraiture, not the "high
street photo shop" type, right?
We'll see... ;-)

And that cell-phone thing again....

b) The people who sell digital on lower costs fail to account for many
hidden costs, including the opportunity costs lost during photo
manipulations and learning software and so on.

The guy i mentioned who did his sums for me (and i'm not sying his sums are
corect, just pointing out that these considerations are actually "out
there", people do base certain decisions on this premisse) already scanned
almost everything he shot. Very many do.
So what hidden costs? And learning digital post-processing is, buying
software, etc. is not something on the "to do" list.
And missing opportunities? Why, they'll have more time to take on new jobs.
That's potentially more income, not less.

Today, there is huge
depreciation which is ignored in evaluating the relative costs of digital
vs film.

Yes, i can see that may often be the case. But is it always ignored?
The same guy's sums said that he could afford to buy a new digicamera in the
same price range (who knows what you'll get for that money next year) at
least as often as once every two years. It would eat most if not all the
profits not buying and processing film produced. But with less times spend
scanning these films, time that could be spend doing mre productive
things...

c) Is digital really more convenient than just dropping off your film at
the lab for scanning and printing (half-digital? ;-) ?

No. Not more convenient than letting someone else do all the work.

But letting a lab scan your film is extremely expensive.
So the photographers i know (including myself) rather spend the money to get
a scanner, and the time to scan the film, and do it them(our)selves. And
that, on the whole, is a very sensible thing to do.

And as you will know, if you want anything done proper, you must do it
yourself anyway.

Is digital really cheaper than just billing your client for film and lab
costs? Maybe it _is_ cheaper for the client, but is it more profitable for
the pro photographer? Didn't they add overhead to film and printing costs
too? Are photographers doing extra hours of digital photo manipulation and
editing for free, because they can't raise their rates given they are
supposed to be saving so much $$ from using digital over "costly" film?
;-)

You know, times have changed already. Could photographers not so long ago
charge extra if the client wanted the images in digital form, the client now
demands to get CDs, and will actually pay less if you don't supply images in
digital form. After all, he needs digital files, so the images will have to
be scanned, and it costs him, the client, money to have them scanned.

So while bills always have included film and lab costs, they now include
"digitizing" costs. The bills have not gone up because of that, the one just
replaced the other.
The photographers still using film do have to pay film and processing costs.
So if they eliminate these, they do create a profit.

in short, I don't think digital is going to take over all film niches
anytime soon. I expect the opposite to happen. I expect folks who suddenly
realize their digicam is obsolete after 2 years, and now they have to
shell out major bucks for the new models, and new software and all that,
to start wondering if maybe things were better and cheaper with buying a
film SLR every decade or so? ;-)

We'll see... ;-)

If the archival problems now being forecast for low cost media, plus the
huge number of folks not doing any backups (per Fuji UK's study I cited),
then I expect a Backlash!!! against digital from folks who have lost their
treasured family digital photos and snapshots, yes? ;-) Most are just one
worm or crash away from digital photo amnesia now, right?

Well, most of us are not in the archive business. We do not keep historical
records. Many people earning their living selling images know that images
themselves have a shelf life too. Ask a large agency how often they expect a
protfolio to get updated, and you'll see.
And most of professional photographers do not sell stock images, but produce
on demand. 99.9% of that is single-use stuff. You can archive the things,
and store them safely for the next 100 years, but they'll never get used
again.
Even most family snaps are only looked at once, and are than put away never
(almost) to be seen again.

This "archival problem" is something that is real for historians hoping that
the very valuable, to them, recording craze started when photography (and
later film and video) started will provide a comprehensive document for
future generations.

in short, I see the future of digital photography using mid-$ cameras and
MP sensors to be a niche market, with the masses using camera cellphones,
yes? But a film based MF camera line is easier to sustain over 25+ years
(see hassy 500cm, pentax 67 etc.) than a digital DSLR over 2.5 years
today, yes?

Yes.
But that's no guarantee that film based MF camera lines will survive into
the future as current products.

the anti-digital photography backlash will focus on:

a) digital's hidden costs will be more obvious as folks have to upgrade
again and again for little image improvement, and learn over and over
again too ;-)

I really doubt that. I think it is no more but a chimaera originating in
anti-digital minds.

b) digital's major cost savings, in large sized prints, will also be
available to scanned and printed film users, while a large fraction of
print makers will be film users, not the 89% PMAI stat digicam owners who
never make prints, right? ;-)

Not right. ;-)
Digital's major costs savings is in time, and film + film processing.

c) improved displays (HDTV..) will mean the limits of low MP digicams
against film will be more obvious, esp. in MF ;-)

How quaint a thought... ;-)
Displays, especially TV, have a lot of catching up to do already.

d) 177 million film cameras already in use can't be wrong - or ignored ;-)

"In use"? ;-)

"Installed base"?
Of course they can and will be ignored. How many Brownies, or 126
instamatics, or disc-cameras are still in use?
They sold over 70 million instamatics alone. Not counting the ones not made
by Kodak.
And they pretty well ignored those without anyone giving a hoot.

They will (what am i saying... they already do!) ignore digital's installed
base too. And very few will complain.

in short, I don't think digital is going to take over all film niches
anytime soon. I expect the opposite to happen. I expect folks who
suddenly
realize their digicam is obsolete after 2 years, and now they have to
shell out major bucks for the new models, and new software and all that,
to start wondering if maybe things were better and cheaper with buying a
film SLR every decade or so? ;-)

I didn't know that "they have to shell out major bucks for the new models
and new software and all that" after two years if what they have works well
and suits their purposes. That rule must have been buried in the fine print
that came with my Nikon D100. I've had it for close to two years now, I'm
very happy with it, and now you tell me there's a rule somewhere that says I
have to get rid of it when it's two years old. And worse yet, I'll have to
get rid of Photoshop 6 immdediately since I've had already had it for more
than two years. What a bummer, I liked the camera and the software and had
been planning to keep both for a long time.

"Jeremy" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...


in short, I don't think digital is going to take over all film niches
anytime soon. I expect the opposite to happen. I expect folks who
suddenly
realize their digicam is obsolete after 2 years, and now they have to
shell out major bucks for the new models, and new software and all that,
to start wondering if maybe things were better and cheaper with buying a
film SLR every decade or so? ;-)



What is your take on the newest generation of photo enthusiasts, that were
first introduced to photography using digital gear, and who never knew
what
it was like to use a film camera, or to have film processed?

This population might be very large right now, but give it a few years,
and
. . .

Just consider all the 35mm aficionados whose only experience with camera
equipment has been with plastic bodies, electronic circuit boards and kit
zoom lenses. They've never handled any of the legacy camera bodies and
lenses, and probably have never had to determine exposure using a handleld
meter, because their camera did all that for them.

How will this population see the benefits of returning to film, if they
have
never had any experience with the medium?

In (Bob Monaghan) writes:

actually, the JCIA stats for japanese branded (including foreign factory
made) MF and LF cameras a

MF/LF
1999 60,000
2000 50,000
2001 49,000

see http://medfmt.8k.com/third/economics.html#99

The big drop was in Japan, dropping from 25k in 1999 to 16k in 2000 or 36%
decline in one year (!). I suspect something similar is now hitting other
markets, including Europe, USA, and perhaps China soon? The drop is blamed
on digital camera sales diverting people from upgrading to MF from 35mm
etc.

I don't see that logic. Upgrading to MF is in my view not compatible
to side-grading (or downgrading in some cases ;-) to digital. 35mm to
digital is generally not an upgrade I think.

Second, I doubt many people recognize leica or hasselblad or even zeiss as
brand names of quality cameras or lenses; perhaps the upper classes do,
but the average joe in the street?

Well, the ol' Blad still makes people go Uh Ohh and move aside. But in
principle you are right.

Heck! I don't care. I quite recently got myself the Blad and I just love
using it. I'm not a pro, I don't really like digital (even while I am
BSEE ;-) so as long as it makes fun and there is 120 film around I will just
stick to using it and enjoy it.


W/