*ist DS announced

In article ,
"Malcolm Stewart" writes:

And that was my point as I was specifying them for military equipment many,
many years ago. Without thinking about it, I'd simply assumed that our
(more expensive) modern gadgets used multi-layer boards, but for Pentax to
make an issue of it (for the *st DS) may suggest that they know otherwise.
Perhaps flexible multilayer boards are more difficult?


Double sided fleximble boards are not new. Maybe, as you postulate,
multilayer flexible ones are a new advance.

--

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

"Brian C. Baird" wrote in message
.. .
In article , "Bandicoot"
says...
"Switch" - absolutely not. Film is still so much higher quality and is
what
my market demands.

You'll come to the dark side soon enough, Luke.

NO! You are not my father...

Though once the market wants mostly digital, obviously I'll need to switch.
I'm thinking about a digital back for my MF SLR within the next year or so,
just don't like the prices - but that currently would only be for a few
markets, and most of the time I'd be shooting on film and then using the
digital back to take a digital capture as well. Most of my 'digital
customers' currently want big files that are better produced by scanning
film anyway.


But that said, I'll probably be buying one, just not "switching" in the
sense of using it instead of film. It'll be a great teaching tool, and
good
for images for the web. Not to mention all the pictures Sharon always
wants me to take of her with this group of friends, with that group of
friends, with the dogs, with...

Yes. Digital is great for things you want to take a bazillion pictures
of, but don't really want to pay the developing on.

Yeah, I can see quite a lot of non-work photography being digital. But
then, anytime I take a landscape that others would take for pleasure, for me
it is (at least potentially) work, but these are the types of shot I would
still prefer film for even if I was an amateur.


Peter

"Brian C. Baird" wrote in message
.. .
In article , "Bandicoot"
says...
"Switch" - absolutely not. Film is still so much higher quality and is
what
my market demands.

You'll come to the dark side soon enough, Luke.

NO! You are not my father...

Though once the market wants mostly digital, obviously I'll need to switch.
I'm thinking about a digital back for my MF SLR within the next year or so,
just don't like the prices - but that currently would only be for a few
markets, and most of the time I'd be shooting on film and then using the
digital back to take a digital capture as well. Most of my 'digital
customers' currently want big files that are better produced by scanning
film anyway.


But that said, I'll probably be buying one, just not "switching" in the
sense of using it instead of film. It'll be a great teaching tool, and
good
for images for the web. Not to mention all the pictures Sharon always
wants me to take of her with this group of friends, with that group of
friends, with the dogs, with...

Yes. Digital is great for things you want to take a bazillion pictures
of, but don't really want to pay the developing on.

Yeah, I can see quite a lot of non-work photography being digital. But
then, anytime I take a landscape that others would take for pleasure, for me
it is (at least potentially) work, but these are the types of shot I would
still prefer film for even if I was an amateur.


Peter

Malcolm Stewart wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04...entaxistds.asp



... and I note that they make a feature of using multi-layer boards. Does
this indicate that other digicams don't use them?


It also claims to have a viewfinder... by your logic perhaps the
others don't?

(FWIW I can't find what you're referring to).



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

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .
Malcolm Stewart wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04...entaxistds.asp

... and I note that they make a feature of using multi-layer boards.
Does
this indicate that other digicams don't use them?

It also claims to have a viewfinder... by your logic perhaps the
others don't?

Point taken g

(FWIW I can't find what you're referring to).

It's under the Press Release section
"Major Features
1 Compact, go-anywhere design"
snipped
"high-rigidity stainless-steel chassis, multi-layered electronic circuit
boards and high-density"

--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk\oddimage.htm

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .
Malcolm Stewart wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04...entaxistds.asp

... and I note that they make a feature of using multi-layer boards.
Does
this indicate that other digicams don't use them?

It also claims to have a viewfinder... by your logic perhaps the
others don't?

Point taken g

(FWIW I can't find what you're referring to).

It's under the Press Release section
"Major Features
1 Compact, go-anywhere design"
snipped
"high-rigidity stainless-steel chassis, multi-layered electronic circuit
boards and high-density"

--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk\oddimage.htm

Malcolm Stewart wrote:
r the Press Release section
"Major Features
1 Compact, go-anywhere design"
snipped
"high-rigidity stainless-steel chassis, multi-layered electronic circuit
boards and high-density"

In the context of that paragraph, which is about how compact the
system is, they enumerating the many design factors that allow
the compactness. Referring to multi layer boards is not very
sophisticated, but as a part of a list, acceptable. As another
poster pointed, if the multilayering is part of a flexible
assembly then extra kudos.

Cheers,
Alan


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

Malcolm Stewart wrote:
r the Press Release section
"Major Features
1 Compact, go-anywhere design"
snipped
"high-rigidity stainless-steel chassis, multi-layered electronic circuit
boards and high-density"

In the context of that paragraph, which is about how compact the
system is, they enumerating the many design factors that allow
the compactness. Referring to multi layer boards is not very
sophisticated, but as a part of a list, acceptable. As another
poster pointed, if the multilayering is part of a flexible
assembly then extra kudos.

Cheers,
Alan


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

Bandicoot wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Though once the market wants mostly digital, obviously I'll need to switch.

I have rented some high end digital because some clients thought it would be
better. Those were mostly medium format digital backs, which one could assume
to be the highest quality in direct digital. Comparing some final scanned film
images, the few clients whom have requested this type of work, thought the
scanned 35 mm was slightly better. With the scanned medium format, they were
then convinced that the scanned medium format film was the ultimate. I have
never had a repeat client that requested direct digital imaging more than once.
At the end of any assignment, they get a CD-R of images, so largely it really
does not matter to them how the images were captured.


I'm thinking about a digital back for my MF SLR within the next year or so,
just don't like the prices - but that currently would only be for a few
markets, and most of the time I'd be shooting on film and then using the
digital back to take a digital capture as well.

You might be surprised that some of the earlier Medium Format digital backs are
going for near $2000 on EBAY. There are not many of them, but they are starting
to appear more often. The colour quality and lower noise are benefits, even
with slightly older technology. Most are the 37 mm by 37 mm square chips, so
quite a crop from the full film frame size.

Most of my 'digital
customers' currently want big files that are better produced by scanning
film anyway.


Funny you mention film sizes. That is what has developed from discussions with
clients. When they find out that I can give them files so big that only three
or four fit on a CD-R, they often realize that scanned film is still high
quality. I think the basic idea is that they do not want to give up any
possible quality advantage, which was the point of them hiring a professional
photographer.



But that said, I'll probably be buying one, just not "switching" in the
sense of using it instead of film. It'll be a great teaching tool, and
good
for images for the web. Not to mention all the pictures Sharon always
wants me to take of her with this group of friends, with that group of
friends, with the dogs, with...

Yes. Digital is great for things you want to take a bazillion pictures
of, but don't really want to pay the developing on.

Yeah, I can see quite a lot of non-work photography being digital. But
then, anytime I take a landscape that others would take for pleasure, for me
it is (at least potentially) work, but these are the types of shot I would
still prefer film for even if I was an amateur.

Also that there is no real equivalent for panorama images from an Xpan, 612, or
617 camera, in the world of digital. I would be surprised if any company ever
makes a true (not cropped) panorama digital that is not a scanning (rotating?)
camera.

The other huge issue is that an RGB sensor just cannot capture all possible
colours. While films cannot capture all of them either, there are ways to
choose a bias in one direction or another. Also, there are colours approaching
some green, pure red, pure yellow, or especially cyan, that can be captured on
film, but all Bayer pattern digital chips struggle to capture. Compounding this
problem, is that most of these colour ranges don't display accurately, or at
all, on a computer monitor. Having that piece of film with the proper colour
really helps get the final printed item looking like it should.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

Bandicoot wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Though once the market wants mostly digital, obviously I'll need to switch.

I have rented some high end digital because some clients thought it would be
better. Those were mostly medium format digital backs, which one could assume
to be the highest quality in direct digital. Comparing some final scanned film
images, the few clients whom have requested this type of work, thought the
scanned 35 mm was slightly better. With the scanned medium format, they were
then convinced that the scanned medium format film was the ultimate. I have
never had a repeat client that requested direct digital imaging more than once.
At the end of any assignment, they get a CD-R of images, so largely it really
does not matter to them how the images were captured.


I'm thinking about a digital back for my MF SLR within the next year or so,
just don't like the prices - but that currently would only be for a few
markets, and most of the time I'd be shooting on film and then using the
digital back to take a digital capture as well.

You might be surprised that some of the earlier Medium Format digital backs are
going for near $2000 on EBAY. There are not many of them, but they are starting
to appear more often. The colour quality and lower noise are benefits, even
with slightly older technology. Most are the 37 mm by 37 mm square chips, so
quite a crop from the full film frame size.

Most of my 'digital
customers' currently want big files that are better produced by scanning
film anyway.


Funny you mention film sizes. That is what has developed from discussions with
clients. When they find out that I can give them files so big that only three
or four fit on a CD-R, they often realize that scanned film is still high
quality. I think the basic idea is that they do not want to give up any
possible quality advantage, which was the point of them hiring a professional
photographer.



But that said, I'll probably be buying one, just not "switching" in the
sense of using it instead of film. It'll be a great teaching tool, and
good
for images for the web. Not to mention all the pictures Sharon always
wants me to take of her with this group of friends, with that group of
friends, with the dogs, with...

Yes. Digital is great for things you want to take a bazillion pictures
of, but don't really want to pay the developing on.

Yeah, I can see quite a lot of non-work photography being digital. But
then, anytime I take a landscape that others would take for pleasure, for me
it is (at least potentially) work, but these are the types of shot I would
still prefer film for even if I was an amateur.

Also that there is no real equivalent for panorama images from an Xpan, 612, or
617 camera, in the world of digital. I would be surprised if any company ever
makes a true (not cropped) panorama digital that is not a scanning (rotating?)
camera.

The other huge issue is that an RGB sensor just cannot capture all possible
colours. While films cannot capture all of them either, there are ways to
choose a bias in one direction or another. Also, there are colours approaching
some green, pure red, pure yellow, or especially cyan, that can be captured on
film, but all Bayer pattern digital chips struggle to capture. Compounding this
problem, is that most of these colour ranges don't display accurately, or at
all, on a computer monitor. Having that piece of film with the proper colour
really helps get the final printed item looking like it should.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!