|
Post by GeneW on Apr 26, 2007 10:56:51 GMT -5
handling the plastic fantastics leaves me cold and bored compared to a heavy old chromed beastie. I couldn't agree more, Curt. I enjoy my digital cameras but in the same way I enjoy using a fast, up-to-date computer. I've owned many computers that, in their day, were 'screamers'. Now they're land fill. That's the way it is with digital cameras -- they're half computer, with all the obsolescence and continual 'improvements' that implies. I don't see them as collectibles at all, though there may be a few who do, just as there are some folks who collect old computers like TRS-80's, Commodore 64's, etc. Old manual cameras, now, they're something else. There's really nothing to 'upgrade' to so they're stable. Even better, they feel great and are wonderful to use. I really like it that we can discuss this with so much civility and equanimity. It's just two different kinds of photography and there's no requirement to use one kind or the other, and nothing to stop anyone from enjoying both types. But you nailed it on collecting. Digitals, you just use 'em ... end of story. Then at some point you 'upgrade'. Sigh. Gene
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Apr 26, 2007 11:57:05 GMT -5
One reason I like this forum above others is that here I can post an image that I've taken with any of my cameras without regard for marque, format, color or B&W or whether it's film or digital. A fellow yesterday asked for images of one of my cameras and I ran off five very quickly with the Pentax *ist-DS digital. They were cropped, sharpened and off to him inside of 45 minutes. There's no way I could have done that with film. While pixel count and sensor sizes are increasing, I've read of experiments with placing all of the image on a single pixel. If it comes to fruition, it may end pixelation, noise and make astounding image sizes possible without loss of detail. The future of digital seems boundless but I still like my film too. I can live with both. Walker
|
|
Reiska
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 558
|
Post by Reiska on Apr 26, 2007 12:25:02 GMT -5
Now I know with what kind of gang I have attached myself. I thought, that you are devotees of film cameras but now it came clear to me, that most of you already belong or are going to join in the digital camera users fan club. I have collected here some evidence to proof it. Wayne: "I guess as a "collector" I'm a film person. As a photographer, I'm pretty much digital." Peter: "My main collecting interest is from the early days of photography up to about 1960, and I don't very often use many in my collection even though I prefer to have them in working order. I could go on, about storage life of digital medium vs film, but this is far too long a posting already, so I'll shut up and let others have a say." (The storage life of digital media is taking huge steps forward every year (edit/ad comment/) Gene: "The factor often ignored is how much FUN digital is. The freedom to try shooting anything and everything at no additional expense is a great liberator, and great teacher." Walker: "Both images are untouched except for slight lightening of the B&W picture. Neither have been sharpened or otherwise altered." (sharpening a digital image, especially DSLR is completely legal John: "This is the only forum I've seen where there isn't an acrimonious ongoing debate on the subject. I like to think that the members on here have far more sense!" This time it is much more sense in my writing due to several quotations. And one more quotation from Peter freely modified. I agree absolutely with what you say. Regards from the film camera collector and digital shooter Reijo
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Apr 26, 2007 13:56:48 GMT -5
Since there seems to be a lack of attitude here on film vs digital I would like to post two shots for a very unscientific comparison. One was taken with a pre war uncoated Elmar 50/3.5 and the other with an FZ50. From these and other shots I am tending to think for net use you could use either and be accepted. The newer lens has punchier colours and is more flare resistant but at middle aperatures the two are pretty good considering the 70 odd year difference in age. Bob I am not saying that they are identical by any means.
|
|
Reiska
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 558
|
Post by Reiska on Apr 26, 2007 16:41:14 GMT -5
Paul Rudoph, who worked in Carl Zeiss Jena, designed the famous Tessar in 1902 and Elmar is much like it (four elements in three groups) This construction became popular after the patent protection was ended.
Better optical glasses, coatings and especially computers has made it possible to make much more complicated and better lenses today. We can say, that only the prise is something that matters. Advancing sensor technology is soon challenging the lens technology and what it comes to image sharpness the wavelength of the ray of light.
Regards
Reijo
" When you own an old camera, you like to take pictures with it much in the same way like you want to drive an antique car you own. When the weather is proper, and you want to get a good mood."
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Apr 26, 2007 17:03:22 GMT -5
Modern lenses are a lot like modern airplanes. Many modern aircraft would be uncontrollable using the old manual controls. Computers constantly monitor and stabilize the aircraft in flight.
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Apr 26, 2007 17:23:42 GMT -5
Since there seems to be a lack of attitude here on film vs digital I would like to post two shots for a very unscientific comparison. One was taken with a pre war uncoated Elmar 50/3.5 and the other with an FZ50. From these and other shots I am tending to think for net use you could use either and be accepted. The newer lens has punchier colours and is more flare resistant but at middle aperatures the two are pretty good considering the 70 odd year difference in age. Bob I am not saying that they are identical by any means. Bob, not only are they not identical but there are elements in each that could be attributed to the lower contrast of the Elmar and other details that could easily be the digital print. Purely a guess but the bottom one is - I think - the Elmar shot. Walker
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Apr 26, 2007 17:44:41 GMT -5
Stop It !!
You're all starting to go there. Who cares? A 12Mpx camera compared to a 6Mpx camera vs 400ASA Fuji Superia. We're all limited to a 200kB file size on here - and you can't tell the difference. Get a life!!
John
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Apr 26, 2007 17:54:16 GMT -5
Oh yeah! Well my digital sensor is bigger than yours!!!
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Apr 26, 2007 18:17:41 GMT -5
Stop It !! You're all starting to go there. Who cares? A 12Mpx camera compared to a 6Mpx camera vs 400ASA Fuji Superia. We're all limited to a 200kB file size on here - and you can't tell the difference. Get a life!! John Now, now John. Calm down and don't blow a gasket. That's what you have that new car for..... isn't it? Walker
|
|
|
Post by Just Plain Curt on Apr 26, 2007 21:04:03 GMT -5
Hi Guys, Don't worry Ron, in 50 or 60 years you might be on the same shelf beside the digital so you could admire it always, LOL. Wayne you've definitely got a point with the airplane comparison. While I enjoy flying I'd sure hate to return to the days of wearing a leather helmet and goggles, they muss my hair so, LOL. P.S. I always suspected it was true about smaller frame guys with big hands and feet having larger sensors. John, relax, kick back in that gorgeous Alfa, crank up the tunes (unless you like rap, that ain't music) and enjoy the high speed pursuit with the police, LOL. Now what was the name of that movie where Jason Statham was driving the Audi and how come he didn't have an Alfa? Just kidding, I'm green with envy from head to toe.
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Apr 26, 2007 21:35:36 GMT -5
John could do a U.K. version of the 1970s ( maybe it was '60s) movie "Vanishing Point."
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Apr 26, 2007 23:48:13 GMT -5
1971 Wayne.
Walker
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Apr 27, 2007 5:40:37 GMT -5
Stop It !! You're all starting to go there. Who cares? A 12Mpx camera compared to a 6Mpx camera vs 400ASA Fuji Superia. We're all limited to a 200kB file size on here - and you can't tell the difference. Get a life!! John That is the whole point, on the web it does not matter either will do. Didn't mean to wind anyone up. Bob
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Apr 27, 2007 5:42:56 GMT -5
Walker
I had to look it up but the top is the Elmar.
Bob
|
|