Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

In article , Raphael Bustin
wrote:

On Wed, 26 May 2004 20:49:41 -0500, (jjs)
wrote:

If you prefer to see it all as part of a long decline in
Western Civilization, that's certainly your prerogative.

I never said that, Rafe, and you know it. I resent your attemp to put
words in my mouth. But if you want to know, we have degenerated in some
respects, and you simply resent the fact.

That you would wish for people to lose their photos
is just your fu*ked up karma being manifest.

It's a fact. I see it every day.

Can you desist from being a wiseass jerk, ever?

With fish like you in the pond?

Now what is your agenda, smart-ass?

yes, some good points. However, I think we already see a small market for
mechanical and simple electrical repair parts, such as the nikon resistor
used in many metering systems, from some experimenters who have developed
a replacement. There are 9V battery alternatives for the varta hassy ELM
battery. Springs can be substituted easily, and kits are available. My
guess is that people who learn to repair their own MF cameras, or learn
from manuals etc., will continue to offer repair services to others at
some price, and build their own stores of replacement parts. The reality
is that most pro cameras fail at some bad design weak point, in many
cases, so if you can replace that weak element, then you are okay.

I should add that I have considered that some electronic elements might be
replaceable with future substitute microcontroller devices, at least for
some of the simpler electronics, by reverse engineering the functionality.
An example might be the first autoexposure MF camera, the bronica ECTL
series, where the electronics are simple enough to be literally "Scoped"
out, and thus replicated on a simple reverse engineering replacement
board.

On the other hand, the only source of shutter timing FRE flex circuits for
a nikon FE is another nikon FE, and that is one of the most common
elements to fail. The chips are proprietary, and the supply from nikon has
been used up.

But I do feel that the repairability of mechanical cameras, as
demonstrated by their long history to date, is much higher than today's
digital cameras, which are characterized by rapid obsolescence and
changes.

Gordon's point about changing software is very well taken; I have several
digital cameras I can't use on my newer XP PCs because they don't have the
right port cabling, and even if I hacked one up, there aren't software
drivers for them. The companies want to sell me newer models, obviously;-)

The reverse is also true; I can't run my digital video mini-DV into
anything less than an XP or more recent system, even if the cables fit;
the software drivers really want to be in an XP environment including
video extensions ;-) If there aren't software upgrades with the next M/S
OS, then I guess I'll have to buy a new mini-HDTV digital camera and junk
my obsolete mini-DV camera? ;-)

so it goes ;-)

grins bobm

--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

actually, the foveon chip I cited is a typical CMOS device, flat sensors,
and NOT the three wavelength tunneled sensor designs in sigma cameras
IIRC.

It is quite true that the sensor sites are relatively large w.r.t.
light, but the active area can be rather less (often 40% is photo-active
area on some chips), and there are serious issues with depth of sensor
wells or walls blocking side light, diffraction at these edges, etc. etc.
And don't forget all those devices have to be wired together somehow, and
that many of those "wires" are now quite high features laid onto the
faster chips. That isn't a problem with most chips, but shadows can be an
issue with light sensor chips, along with edge diffraction on these walls,
and reflections, and so on ;-)

It all adds up, along with noise issues which are even more controlling
for image quality, to lead folks to conclude that the physics is getting
limiting, and to imply that sensors are more likely to get larger rather
than smaller. Larger means more like MF size than smaller like 35mm ;-)

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

MF is now a niche market, though it once was the main consumer market ;-)

I think there will be a place for MF in the future, at least the future I
expect to experience (? ;-), if only because I expect film in 120 to be
available for some decades yet.

I expect digital to take the low end, as it already has, with even
disposable digicams (really recycle-able). Foveon _has_ failed to achieve
volume production, but somebody is going to achieve serious volumes in
sensor chips for cell phones in the next few years, and a demand for
better quality there coupled with broadband wireless access could easily
create the mass market for 16MP chips that they have projected. I don't
think folks "need" a 16MP cell phone camera, but hey, if the chip is $3
why not ;-) ?

I do think there will be a demand for higher resolution imagery, at least
for military and scientific needs. Whether MF sized sensor chips will
become affordable is another issue; I can't see the same mass market for a
64MP device, given the reaction to 8 and 11 MP cameras today even among
pros, and the relative lack of demand for 16MP digital backs " ".

I don't agree this is a now or never situation. I think folks are already
discovering the real costs of digital (including constant upgrades and
archiving etc.). I think it is possible that a niche for MF quality
imagery requiring 32MP or 64MP cameras might arise. My question is if
those cameras will be today's MF camera descendents, or some hybrid? I
would find it much more likely that three $10 16MP chips would be linked
up in a tri-sensor RGB 48MP camera (for $30+ sensor cost) than users
running out and buying very expensive limited production 32MP or 48MP or
64MP sensor chips at $1k or more a pop?

Again, it all depends on finding a killer app which mandates high end
digital sensor chips of 64MP or similar capacity with low noise, which
seems to equate to MF sized cameras and lenses and potential digital back
designs? Perhaps robotics and stereo vision? [but static human vision is
only ~6-8 MP equiv. as it is, so...? ;-)]

grins
bobm


--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

some years back we got a "D" sized HP plotter which rolls large paper
sheets back and forth for one of our labs. Dang near wore it out doing
banners and stuff ;-) Now we have local print shops offering banner
services, large poster sized photocopy machines (!) for fast promos, and
color printers which already can do long panoramic prints up to their max.
width (17" IIRC?). We also have several of the Texas Instruments DLP light
projectors that do HDTV and better image quality projections in classrooms

All of this is greatly reducing the cost of large image projection and
printing. I think the real future of MF might be in high quality digital
prints at modest costs, and high quality large digital image projection
technologies (as in bill board sized still and video ads, using modulated
lasers or ??). When you start to get into 40x60" prints, even with digital
interpolation, the extra quality of MF imagery (possibly scanned from
film, or a 64MP back with MF sized sensor, if available affordably?) comes
in to play in the future as today.

Right now you pay a huge premium for large (color) prints; if picoliter
inks make it possible to do 40x60" or 60x80" prints for the price of
today's 11x14" or 16x20", then that could really provide a push to MF use?

If there is still an MF, as QGdeB worries (me too ;-)

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

yes, consumers don't make their own prints now, except those with digital
printers I guess ;-) My model suggests this will all happen first in the
labs and digital kiosks, where folks will come in and ask for big prints
of vacation shots or family gatherings, just as they get 8x10" or 11x14"
prints at Ritz photo today, yes? Again, I'm assuming the same kinds of
price reductions that have dropped the cost of large plastic color banners
to $20 from hundreds of $$ in the past. And we have an 8 story building
sized color print on the side of some buildings downtown too, so size
isn't the limit anymore, just cost ;-)

the key here is again that such large images will benefit greatly from
larger MP quality from MF scanned film (with better scanners, anyway) and
larger (64MP?) digital backs with MF bodies etc.

This might not be a big market, but if it is a niche market with good
sales it could easily sustain the present 50,000 MF cameras/worldwide
sales that is the current industry, yes? Or at least, I hope so? ;-)

grins bobm


--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

well, if you liquidate the MF mfgers, who will you liquidate them too?
What element of those assets can be used to make modern digital cameras?
Or will they end up in third world low labor cost countries, still turning
out hasselblad-ski's ;-) /?/ ;-)

this is the counter argument. Pentax has been using the basic tooling of
the Pentax 6x7 for decades. So is hasselblad with 500cm etc. models. Once
you pay for the R&D for lens and body design and build the tooling, it
costs very little to keep the production line going periodically
(semi-annual runs?), provided you have other lines to keep skilled workers
employed productively.

so old MF cameras don't die, their tooling just wears away...

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

On 26 May 2004 23:48:25 -0500, (Bob Monaghan)
wrote:


Right now you pay a huge premium for large (color) prints; if picoliter
inks make it possible to do 40x60" or 60x80" prints for the price of
today's 11x14" or 16x20", then that could really provide a push to MF use?


This gets back to what I said earlier that "other"
technologies would have to catch up with, and
keep up with digicams in order for digicams to
keep evolving. If nothing else, they're going to
have to get cheaper, easier to use, and more
reliable.

Does anyone know the "distribution" of prints
sold, by print size, at places like Shutterfly,
Pictopia, or Ofoto? What portion are 4x6,
what portion are 16x24 or larger?

I don't know about 40x60" prints, but 24x36"
LightJet prints run about $60, and that's pretty
reasonable, IMO.

An Epson 7600 could do a print nearly as nice,
same size, with around $15-$20 worth of ink and
paper.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

In article ,
Raphael Bustin wrote:

I see, a silver lining to the dreaded digital invasion.

And why should it not be so?

Digital will introduce (or reintroduce) people to
photography. Eventually, some will take it
seriously, and begin to look beyond digital.

(Either that, or agitate for better and better
digital.)

I dare say it's happened to me. I jumped to
MF four years ago. To digital two years ago.
And to LF just these last few months.

I'll stick my hand up here. Got into photography relatively recently when
DSLRs became affordable - I got a D30 when they came out. Subsequentally
upgraded to a 10D. More recently, I started to shoot 35mm film seriously
using a Voigtlander Bessa-R, before my use of 35mm had been limited to
taking snapshots with a cheap P&S camera, and the occasional play with a
friend's EOS.

Last week I bought a secondhand twin lens reflex. I've run my first roll of
Velvia through it, and I'm absolutely thrilled with the results. I think MF
is something I'm going to really rather enjoy.

Bob Monaghan wrote:


All of this is greatly reducing the cost of large image projection and
printing. I think the real future of MF might be in high quality digital
prints at modest costs, and high quality large digital image projection
technologies (as in bill board sized still and video ads, using modulated
lasers or ??). When you start to get into 40x60" prints, even with digital
interpolation, the extra quality of MF imagery (possibly scanned from
film, or a 64MP back with MF sized sensor, if available affordably?) comes
in to play in the future as today.

Right now you pay a huge premium for large (color) prints; if picoliter
inks make it possible to do 40x60" or 60x80" prints for the price of
today's 11x14" or 16x20", then that could really provide a push to MF use?


The premium at each step happens with more and more of the masses dropping
out of the market. 4x6/5x7 are common enough you can afford a dedicated
machine. Already at 8x10 you're starting to talk custom. Any size above that
is even more niche. I just checked the B&H price for 20x24 paper. It's less
then $2 per sheet of Kodak Portra. Enlargers to handle that aren't exactly
rare. The problem is how many people want double 20x24 prints? How many
people need or have the room for anything bigger then 11x14?

Nick