portable (smallest) 120mm camera?

In article ,
dy (Bill Hilton) wrote:

From: (jjs)

Drifting OT, but consider this amusing
quote" "The megapixel myth is also prevalent because men always want a
single number by which something's goodness can be judged." -- Ken
Rockwell (See http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm)

Lurching either further OT, if this is the same guy I tuned him out when he
said jpeg was a better format than RAW ... OK, not much to learn from
that site


That's a strong assertion. I'd prefer to see the citation.

In article ,
craigatcraigschroederdotcom wrote:

Consider making a committment to the format and buying something like
the folding Fuji 645. Superb optics, accurate meter and easily slips
into a coat pocket. [...]

I just checked www.keh.com and they are reasonable. Question - do you, or
have you actually used the cameras in question? How rugged are they, and
do they use conventional batteries?

... if this is the same guy I tuned him out when he
said jpeg was a better format than RAW

From: (jjs)

That's a strong assertion. I'd prefer to see the citation.

Some sample quotes ...

"RAW is needlessly tedious if you can get the right image to begin with. RAW
always requires extra steps to process from the camera into a usable format,
the files can only be opened with very special software, requires far more time
for everything and therefore slows workflows ... RAW looks no better than JPG
for real photos. It just takes up space, wastes your time and runs the risk of
not being able to be opened now and in the future."

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

To each his own

Bill

In article ,
dy (Bill Hilton) wrote:

Some sample quotes ...

"RAW is needlessly tedious if you can get the right image to begin with. RAW
always requires extra steps to process from the camera into a usable format,
the files can only be opened with very special software, requires far
more time
for everything and therefore slows workflows ... RAW looks no better than JPG
for real photos. It just takes up space, wastes your time and runs the risk of
not being able to be opened now and in the future."

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Thanks, Bill. I should have got off my virtual butt to find the citation myself.

I don't understand his complaint about 'extra steps' given the automation
tools we have today.

To be sure of the last - might it be okay to use virtually _lossless_ JPEG
format is adequate? (I mean JPEG format but with little to no
compression)? I don't do professional digital-source photography, so I
remain ignorant in practical applications of shooting to JPEG.)

In article ,
(jjs) wrote:

In article ,
dy (Bill Hilton) wrote:

Some sample quotes ...

"RAW is needlessly tedious if you can get the right image to begin with. RAW
always requires extra steps to process from the camera into a usable format,
the files can only be opened with very special software, requires far
more time
for everything and therefore slows workflows ... RAW looks no better
than JPG
for real photos. It just takes up space, wastes your time and runs the
risk of
not being able to be opened now and in the future."

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Thanks, Bill. I should have got off my virtual butt to find the citation
myself.

[... snip ...]

I take back my earlier question, Bill! (Man, I need some sleep.) I see
from the article that the author is limiting himself to some rather low-fi
applications, persuaded in part to make as much money in as little time as
possible, so maybe JPEG is good for him. Dunno. I'm not of the right
mindset to compromise quality. It's hard enough to get quality without
messing with the current in-camera digital crap.

The film for 120 cameras is generally similar to that used for 35mm
(sometimes identical). You get the same film quality with the advantage of
the bigger negative. In general, there is no substitute for square inches
when it comes to photo quality. Medium format cameras (using 120 film) come
in a number of different formats. The smallest commonly found is "645",
roughly 6X4.5 cm. This gives you 16 pictures per roll of 120 (32 per roll
of 220). The negative area is a bit over three times the size of a 35mm
negative, and the increase in quality is very apparent. The 6X6 format (12
or 24 exposures) is larger, but it is often cropped to about 645 size for
printing. The other common sizes are 6X7 cm (10 or 20 exposures) and 6X9 cm
(8 or 16 exposures). These are 10 to 12 times the size of 35mm, and give
almost large format quality.

The down side of medium format is that the cameras are bigger, heavier, and
have less features and automation than you find in 35mm. You also get fewer
exposures per roll of film, and the film is more difficult to load into the
camera. There are still several excellent medium format cameras that are
not too big and have features comparable to a 35. You might look at the
Bronica 645, the Fuji GA645Zi and the Mamaiya 7II as examples.

"Mike Henley" wrote in message
om...
I like small cameras and just got a mju-ii and minox gt-s. Some guys
over at 35mm newsgroup suggested i get an SLR (35mm) if i want to get
serious about photography. I don't feel very enthausiastic about 35mm
SLR because i don't see that they add much to my preferences other
than the size, meaning i'd have to wear the camera around my neck or
in a bag rather than i do currently carrying the minox/mjuii in a
small belt pouch (i don't like zoom, i don't like flash, i don't like
buying lenses, i just simply like available light photography, nature
and some landscape). Now, i just realized that i can get 120mm film
for about the same price as 35mm film (from a web supplier), and to be
honest if i'm going to carry a camera that doesn't fit in my pocket or
a bet pouch, i may be more tempted to get a smallest possible 120mm
than a 35mm SLR ('cos after all, i'd carry either in a little rucksack
and the 120mm would give me something different from the minox and
mjuii).

Now, 35mm film has advanced considerably lately, and my preferred film
is the fuji superia xtra 400 (good enough and i can get it cheaply);
What would a medium format offer me that 35mm doesn't? is enlargement
potential the only advantage? Also, if so, i can use iso50 35mm film
on the mjuii and iso25 35mm on the minox gt-s, would these rival
iso100 or iso400 120mm film (those are the ones cheaply/widely
available)? the lens on both is f2.8 and so far i feel i can use a
slow film (low iso) while still getting adequate exposure.

So, i know you guys would probably not welcome my apparent comparison
of 35mm compact (p&s) to 120mm but i'm just respectfully asking
whether the format offer significant advantages over the *finest* 35mm
film, and i think this is a reasonable question to ask.

Also, if so, what's the smallest and lightest 120mm camera? I don't
really care much for features as my style is mostly point & shoot and
i think more about composition than technique or technology. Regarding
automation, i don't care much about shutter speed (i don't really
photograph action/sport) but i would like to have control over
focusing and aperture, though not necessarily.

regards

From: (jjs)

To be sure of the last - might it be okay to use virtually _lossless_ JPEG
format is adequate? (I mean JPEG format but with little to no
compression)?

Hi John,

Wrong NG for THAT discussion (grin) ... but yes, low compression jpeg is fine,
with little image quality loss *until* you start to make many edits and saves.
And if your exposure or white balance is off to start with you're better off
making the first level of corrections when doing the RAW conversion.

I think Ken Rockwell does a lot of high volume portrait work (think I read that
somewhere) and for this, where you know the lights are right and you're
interested in volume without a lot of costs, jpeg is perfect. I have no
problem with that. But that's no reason to dismiss RAW as he did, especially
for people shooting outdoors under changing light conditons and different color
temps.

I think he has a tendency to shoot from the lip with the grand statement ...
here's a couple of other quotes for example ... regarding Genuine Fractals ...
"Genuine Fractals is a great program for resampling digital images to print
big." You're on the Photoshop NG ... run that one by Tacit and the other gurus
and see what they think

Or this one in his Canon 1Ds review ... "11 megapixels is no big deal compared
with 6 megapixels." My wife has a pretty good 6 Mpixel camera (Canon 10D) and
I have the 11 Mpixel 1Ds and when comparing prints the 10D is approaching 35 mm
quality but isn't really there for bigger prints, while the 1Ds files, when
properly resampled, will print great up to 20x30", much better than 35 mm film,
so it's a really giantic big deal of difference to me. I don't think he
actually even shot the camera before making this statement.

If you're curious about this and want to see for yourself send me an email
(change .comedy to the obvious) and if you want to send me a blank CD and
postage I'll send you a 1Ds RAW file, a free trial version of the Capture One
program I use to convert to tiff (so you can duplicate it), my converted file,
my enlarged file (didn't use GF ... LOL) to 20x30" @ 300 ppi, and a 2400x3000
pixel crop from this file you can print for yourself to see what a detail from
20x30" would look like, if you have a good inkjet printer. I think you'll be
impressed. I was.

Bill

From: (jjs)

I don't understand his complaint about 'extra steps' given the automation
tools we have today.

You can open a jpeg with pretty much any image editor but with a RAW file you
need to convert it to TIFF or similar first, so that's the extra step. It's
easy to batch this though.

Nick Zentena wrote:
Mike Henley wrote:


snip


Folders. Designed to slip inside a coat pocket. You'll need a handheld
meter. Less then $100 can get you a good example.

Nick


Nick is right. Those old folders are wonderful. I just
developed and printed a roll from my Zeiss Super Ikonta
530/2 [negative image is 2 1/4" x 3 1/4"] and printed at
8x10 without any visible grain at all. It could probably
enlarge easily to 16 x 20. Size matters.


Francis A. Miniter

In article k.net,
"Norman Worth" wrote:

The film for 120 cameras is generally similar to that used for 35mm
(sometimes identical).

Pretty much true, except in the case of Tri-X "professional" vs Tri-X "pro".

The down side of medium format is that the cameras are bigger, heavier, and
have less features and automation than you find in 35mm. You also get fewer
exposures per roll of film, and the film is more difficult to load into the
camera.

Weigh some loaded 35mm pro cameras before you say that 120s are always heavier.

Fewer exposures? Hah. The total square area is about the same per roll.

If loading a 120 camera is an obstacle for an able-bodied person, then
they should go miniature-digital and be done with it. They might be the
same people who hover like buzzards around a shopping center looking for a
parking place six feet closer than the one available.