Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

On Thu, 27 May 2004 09:51:07 +0100, Chris Brown
wrote:

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.



Ah, so there's some hope yet for Western Civilization.
What a relief.

Just be careful, as time goes on you develop a tolerance
for image surface area and start demanding more and
more of it.

Just kidding -- I enjoyed reading this.


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

From: (Bob Monaghan)

Right now you pay a huge premium for large (color) prints

Not really, not any more. Here's a link to one of the best fine art digital
labs in the country, used by guys like Frans Lanting and Galen Rowell etc ...
since the Epson 9600 and 7600 models came on the market and ate much of their
large-print business by do-it-yourselfers they've lower prices to $9/ sq ft for
LightJet 5000 prints ... so 20x24's are $30, 30x40's $75. I'm sure you can get
it even cheaper elsewhere, but considering the lab this is a real bargain
compared to 3 years ago.

http://www.calypsoinc.com/

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?

Most of their large-print customers are shooting 4x5 and medium format already.
There is no "push" for MF use ... I just read a magazine's report on the Feb
PMA show and they mentioned there were zero new medium format bodies announced
and zero new medium format lenses announced at the show ... the only MF news
was announcement of a couple of digital backs and even those don't seem to
attract much attention since you can buy a 11 Mpixel dSLR from Canon with
better-than-35mm image quality that's enough for many pros.

Bill

"Raphael Bustin" posted:
"... 4x6" just happens to be the lowest common
denominator (if not 3x5") for the prints that
consumers generally expect. ..."

Excuse me ... but isn't this

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format ? ? ?

Since the participants of this forum are here because they "go the extra mile" to use
medium format equipment, isn't it a bit DUMB to "assume" that they would be interested in
limiting themselves to "the lowest common denominator ... of the consumer market?"

If so .. we would all be using APS cameras, and settling for machine prints from the local
drug store!

My comment stands ... as posted.

Bob Monaghan wrote:

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

Yes. Very different times though. Very different MF too.
;-)

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.

Oh sure.
Old cameras do not die, but fade away. (well... ;-)) It's not as if MF will
cease to exist from one moment to another.

It's about whether the cameras we're using are currently available (i.e.
replacable and/or repairable) or "classics". And about what our options are
once our beloved MF cameras do finally pack in. In short, it's about the
industry.
We're at a turning point. Now not in world culture, or perhaps even
something really important, but merely in photography. Decisions to be made
by the industry right now will decide the future in a way decisions rarely
have been able to.

But even so it will affect us directly too. If, say, our the people at our
favourite brand MF announces tomorrow they will quit their jobs, we will
indeed think twice about our spending habits. We might start hoarding the
things we fear will go first and will be most needed in future, or we might
decide to freeze our MF investment, and start looking for other things to
put our money towards.

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 ;-) ?

The chip may be $3, but getting the pictures produced with it out of the
telephone will cost many times that. After all, that's the only reason they
put cameras in phones, isn't it? ;-)

I think we should forget about low-end vs high-end. I think digital will
inevitably take both consumer and professional ends of the market (you can
find "both low" and "high end" in the hands of both consumers and
professionals, can't you?).
Where film will persist is in the "special" end of the market, the bit where
today we find people doing bichromate gum-prints, wet-collodion, oil-prints,
screen printing, etc.
And yes, i think it will be inevitable that digital takes over. There never
was any doubt about that, The thing that was, and is, debatable is when. Not
if. And along the way towards "world domination" there are points at which
this progress makes itself more felt than at others. As may be clear by now,
i think this year, early next, will be one of those stages at which the
inevitable could well manifest itself a bit more pronounced than it has done
so far.

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 " ".

Well, mass market? Perhaps if the periphery grows accordingly, making it as
easy to use (and benefit) from 16 or 64 MP images as it is today handling 3
MP images?
But we're talking about the effects of this digido on MF, aren't we? MF and
mass-market are strangers to each other.

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?

I just talked to yet another photographer who just said goodbye to his MF in
favour of 35 mm based digital. He was giving me the sums on how not buying
and processing film alone would result in a profit in less than a year. And
that's just the running costs side, not counting, say, time saved.
Now we can speculate about "requirements" and costs of "constant upgrades"
(if you really can amortize the thing and turn a profit in less than a year,
who cares? ;-)), but while we do people like that *are* switching, making
fun of our well considered worries... ;-)

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...? ;-)]

I don't think so. "Killer app"? Just like we needed a "killer app" to make
people want ever faster computers?
People will want "more" all by themselves. They do not need stimulating.
And you know what, once given 64 MP sensors/images, people will find a good
use for them too. All by themselves.
;-)

RSD99 wrote:

"... a digital back for Baby Rolleiflex :-) ..."

Hey ... that's actually a pretty interesting idea!

You know the miniature Rollei TLR Minox made? The one you can actually take
pictures with?
They also made a miniature Leica M3, with digital sensor.
So nothing's impossible. Not even unlikely...
;-)

Raphael Bustin wrote:

Ahhh, one must work for all that "quality,"
even in the digital darkroom.

It generally takes me an evening -- say
four or five hours' work -- to scan a roll
of 645 (15 frames.)

The good news is you only have to do
that once.

Yeah. "Once", per film...
8(

Neil Gould wrote:

I was looking at it more from the aspect of pride in one's work. You may
be right that the largest portion of the bell curve is occupied by people
satisfied with doing as little as they can, or with the fastest result
regardless of quality. But, I'd rather think otherwise of MF shooters.
We've already sacrificed convenience for quality.

There's a middle way between doing things only because of how it makes you
feel, and doing as little as possible to get the job done.
There's that entire realm of "adequacy". And (before it is misunderstood)
that is not a pejorative term. It indicates that you can do something as
well as it need to be done, and be very satisfied with it, because you have
done something as good as any reasonable standard would demand.

Sure, you can always strive to do things better.
But i tell you, people doing that (and there are many too, yes) are rarely,
if ever, happy with what they did. They always want to forget about today
and look forward to tomorrow's opportunity to do it better. They, the people
really striving for the best, the people who are literally driven by how
their work makes them feel, are not the ones often being filled with pride
in their work.

Remember "more than good enough"? You must be able to leave something alone,
sit back, and enjoy the "more than good enough" aspect, the "adequacy" of it
to be able to take pride in what you have produced.
;-)

Well, if the result of this logical buying decision is that the
already owned MF gear is used less, or even not at all anymore, one
could argue that there indeed is competition.

Whether one uses their MF gear less is an unanswered question. [...]

In part, yes. But i mention that not because i have visions of that
happening, it's because i actually see it happening around me.
I wouldn't dare to claim that it's an universal phenomenon. On the other
hand, i think it's a very reasonable and not unlikely suggestion that it
could well be.

If the result also is that people now rather spend the money they
might have spent updating their aging MF gear spend it on new digital
products (because now it starts to make sense), i'm sure the MF
manufacturers would think there is competition too.

It's too early to say whether this is a long-term or short-term trend.
Perhaps some people have made a complete commitment to digital photography
(I know a few). However, those that have *not* abandoned film are not
likely to buy a digicam every 6 months. How often are you planning to
update your digicam?

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

Tell you the truth, most of what i do could be done very well using one of
those Kodak SLR/n cameras. As long as such a thing would not break (which
electronic things always appear to do. And when they do, they can't be
repaired), i could use one for quite some time without needing (which is not
the same as "wanting" ;-)) a new one.

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.
And that's the point: keep insisting to be paid astronomical amounts for
those thingies, and i *will* be using a Kodak SLR/n soon. Once i do, i may
want to upgrade now and again (despite what i just said above ;-)), but
never again will i be looking for a digiback...

I'm not selling post-processing short by suggesting that nothing beats a
clean original, be it digital or film.

Sure. But we're dealing with a visual medium. And that means that if you can
make something appear as well as something else, even though it may not be
the same, you're there.
People are presented with myriads of images, heavily post-processed, every
day. As long as they even just think these images look good, there is
nothing "clean originals" have over post-processed images.
And post-processing will make images look better than the original. That for
me is the major attraction of digital: it is all so much easier to do.

Well... why shoot LF in the first place? Certainly not *just* to avoid
grain? I suspect that one wants to achieve the best possible image
quality, but that quality comes at a cost of convenience and speed. The
job that can get done with less hassle by shooting digitally is
inappropriate for LF, anyway. Those trying use digicams for the jobs that
are appropriate for LF must be misinterpreting their use, lack the visual
literacy to understand the requirements of the job, or suffer some other
problem such as having too little money or interest to do the job right.

Or vice versa: those trying to do a job on LF thinking that it is the
appropriate thing may be misintepreting the capabilities of other ways to do
the job, lack the savvy to know that while LF was a must some time ago,
those days are gone now, or suffer from an inexplicable yet wide spread "the
things we know of old are far better than the things of today" syndrome.

LF quality is rarely necessary. It's that "more than good enough" thing
again.
The only true benefits LF cameras really have are their movements.
And even those can be faked. Not perfectly, but very well.

Why shoot LF in the first place indeed... ;-)

It's a rather awkward term anyway, "typical". In a situation like
that of today's photography, where things are in full motion, the
"typical" of today is the "rather excentric and quaint" of tomorrow.

Ah, this is a different matter. I think that the introduction of digital
photography has stirred the pot, but when things settle down, I think
there will still be an appropriate use for MF that can't be satisfied by
other options.

Yes, perhaps.
But it was not intended to be a different matter. It was intended to show
that calling upon the "typical" anything in a dynamic world (and when were
things not in motion?) is either always missing it's aim (moving target...
;-)), or appealing to that archetypal figure from the Golden Days, the figur
e not quite (well, not at all) fitting in todays situation, yet pressed upon
us a *the* definitive model of how we should (imperative!) be.
Either way, it's not something that is real, is it?

Not to worry. As I see it, new MF films are still being introduced, and as
long as people buy them, they'll be available. Personally, I think the new
Portra films are great, and they're from a company that many think is past
its prime in terms of innovation.

Film is one thing. Gear is another.
Recently i lost a lens adapter ring needed to mount a compendium on my lens.
It's still available, so nothing to worry about.
But what if i can't find such an adapter ring anymore, either new or used?
Will i (and if so how???) continue to use that compendium?
Just an example. All bits that make up our MF gear can play a leading role
in such a scenario.

Gordon Moat wrote:

But how about the future? ;-)

Rollei will still be around, though I have no idea on where the price of
their
6000 series will go. Mamiya is trying hardest of all, and have a few
famous
names behind them, so they might establish enough brand recognition to
push
other lines (digital P&S, co-branding, who knows?) . . . maybe even a
partnership with Epson.

So that leaves Hasselblad . . . a great brand name, but what direction?
While
the boutique is nice, I doubt many know about it. Perhaps Lambretta is the
example for them. The famous name of the past no longer exists as
scooters, but
there is a successful clothing line. Placing the Hasselblad name to
something
else, increasing the name recognition, might be enough to continue camera
production. Sounds crazy, but could work.

I notice you're a Rollei man.
We Hasselbladians like to think that the H1 is the single most "direction
giving" thing that happened in MF lately. It outdoes the Contax and other
645 contenders in all aspects.
So if there is a future for any of the current MF players, it is Hasselblad
leading the pack! Not Rollei with their quaint AF thing. Even less with
their retro-TLR (if anyone should like one (and why not indeed), they should
want a true 1950s-1960s one. One from the era in which TLRs at least could
claim to be king rooster in the hen house.)
;-)))

Recently, Q.G. de Bakker posted:

Neil Gould wrote:

I was looking at it more from the aspect of pride in one's work. You
may be right that the largest portion of the bell curve is occupied
by people satisfied with doing as little as they can, or with the
fastest result regardless of quality. But, I'd rather think
otherwise of MF shooters. We've already sacrificed convenience for
quality.

There's a middle way between doing things only because of how it
makes you feel, and doing as little as possible to get the job done.
There's that entire realm of "adequacy". And (before it is
misunderstood) that is not a pejorative term. It indicates that you
can do something as well as it need to be done, and be very satisfied
with it, because you have done something as good as any reasonable
standard would demand.

I agree with you, and "adequacy" is exactly the motive for getting jobs
done. The critical worker will never be convinced that they've achieved
the best they can do. However, having pride in achieving "adequacy" is not
an insignificant accomplishment. Jobs that can be done adequately with
small-format digital may not be appropriate for MF. Many of those jobs
were done adequately with 35mm before, so I'm not implying that MF is the
mass-market solution that will eventually stand out. It *is* a solution
without parallel for those jobs that can't be done adequately with
small-format digital.

If the result also is that people now rather spend the money they
might have spent updating their aging MF gear spend it on new
digital products (because now it starts to make sense), i'm sure
the MF manufacturers would think there is competition too.

It's too early to say whether this is a long-term or short-term
trend. Perhaps some people have made a complete commitment to
digital photography (I know a few). However, those that have *not*
abandoned film are not likely to buy a digicam every 6 months. How
often are you planning to update your digicam?

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. I just don't buy the supposed cost savings of digital.
Considering the useful life of a digicam, particularly those units that
can be "almost adequately" substituted for MF, I think it's a net loss.

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.

Or vice versa: those trying to do a job on LF thinking that it is the
appropriate thing may be misintepreting the capabilities of other
ways to do the job, lack the savvy to know that while LF was a must
some time ago, those days are gone now, or suffer from an
inexplicable yet wide spread "the things we know of old are far
better than the things of today" syndrome.

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.

LF quality is rarely necessary. It's that "more than good enough"
thing again.
The only true benefits LF cameras really have are their movements.
And even those can be faked. Not perfectly, but very well.

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

Not to worry. As I see it, new MF films are still being introduced,
and as long as people buy them, they'll be available. Personally, I
think the new Portra films are great, and they're from a company
that many think is past its prime in terms of innovation.

Film is one thing. Gear is another.
Recently i lost a lens adapter ring needed to mount a compendium on
my lens. It's still available, so nothing to worry about.
But what if i can't find such an adapter ring anymore, either new or
used? Will i (and if so how???) continue to use that compendium?
Just an example. All bits that make up our MF gear can play a leading
role in such a scenario.

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.

Regards,

Neil

On Thu, 27 May 2004 16:55:34 GMT, "RSD99"
wrote:

"Raphael Bustin" posted:
"... 4x6" just happens to be the lowest common
denominator (if not 3x5") for the prints that
consumers generally expect. ..."

Excuse me ... but isn't this

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format ? ? ?


Right, so why does bobm typically start off these
threads bemoaning the popularity of cell phone
cameras? Who gives a whoop?


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