<span style="color: #FF0000;">WARNING! You have entered CYBER-GEEK land! There is no exit!</span>
<span style="color: #FF0000;">WARNING! You have entered CYBER-GEEK land! There is no exit!</span>
Glenn... > Lenses for the digital back are an issue, but the new Schneider Digitars may be up to the task.
Agreed, but I am using the same digitars on film, and they make the same remarkable improvement in image quality over the sharpest LF lenses, so future comaprisons should also take this into account. Of course, not all digital lenses can cover 4x5, but several can.... albeit at the sacrfice of some movements.
I also fully agree with you comments on placing too much emphasis on sheer resolution, as, the digital / film issue should be evaulauted, even with targets, as a which one looks better to you. As you mentioned, since they record differently, the comparison of target data is not apples to apples.... such as comparing MF film to LF film....
jj, I think Glen and many others understand your position. Digital is not for everyone, heck some people still drive Model T cars around, not liking all the sophistication of new cars. We all have different taste and needs. And Scott, I fully agree with your position.... everyone has "fall off" zones with technical endeavors. For example, 10 years ago, i was into every detail in to Hi FI audio, wasting too much money on gains that were rarely ever heard. But now, I have no interest in the nitty gritty details of such, it all sounds so good, I can't stress myself out pursuing the ever changing electronics of that field either. I may feel the same about photograhy in 5 years.
The reality of the situation is, for me, I am happy with what I have, (digital and film mix) but am always interested in the trend of digital, as you mentioned, it truly is a revolutionary breakthrough, probably only compared to the developement of film after glass plates, and that evolution took 40 years to develop to make plates obsolete.....but in this electronics age with computer aided designs, larger markets, public companies with huge R&D budgets, stockholders forcing growth, etc. Things progress so fast, it's almost a capitalism "case study" by itself, even if one is not a photographer. Just think, in 2010, film may be near obsolete. Can you imagine looking back then, and saying, 10 years ago, digital was more of a novelty then a serious competitor for film, which has been around for almost 100 years, and still continues to improve, as Fuji just released improved emulsions in 05 ! Truly amazing....
From the business side of this, I marvel how Fuji did not see this coming and make a huge move to digital to protect their future eroding film sales and profits. Kodak did react somewhat, but even they did not make the "power play" I would have anticipated. Hence why Canon and possibly a few others will benefit from the modern day "you snooze, you loose" business adage! Nikon did not attack digital with the vengence that Canon did, and they too are paying the price as 35mm was clearly the most vulnerable to the wrath of digital capture. Xerox / IBM is still kicking themselves in the butt by allowing others to handle the tiny and unprofitable task of a computers operating system software! :-) Hell, they were busy making short term profits on hardware, and getting big bonus checks each month......while Bill Gates when on to be the richest person on the planet in less then 15 years!
Rob.... that was short, but sweet, and all too true.....argggggggg......
But it's fun, calorie free and not harmful to your health, so why not indulge!
"But it's fun, calorie free and not harmful to your health, so why not indulge!"
I probably will at some point, but not while a high numbered MegaPixel camera is harmful to your pocket. A reasonable quality scanner is good enough for me at the moment.
incidentally, I recently went into my local town hall market. There was a photographer from the local camera club selling 18" by 48" local panoramas and smaller versions. I know him and asked about his sales sucess and whether it was profitable. He told me it pays for his equipment. He uses a 6MP camera and stitches images together in PS to make the panoramas which are printed on his epson 4000. He is completely non technical and gets his daughter to install software for him. From a sensible viewing distance the images look really good. A lot of them are printed on canvas. Get up close and very very soft is the best way to describe them. They sell. He is happy. His customers(tourists) are happy. Everyone is happy.
6MP cameras are cheap as chips and you can make money from them if you have a mind to do it.
ENGAGE BRAIN. GO AND DO IT!
"gets his daughter to install software for him"
Windows user.
Rob, when I mentioned "why not indulge", I was referring to the digital vs. film "state of affairs" progress. I was not referring to buying digital gear, although many have done this also, at least on the lower end. For many of us, its just as fascinating on a curiosity level as it is on an application level.
FWIW, I compared the same photo taken with am 8MP P&S digicam (Panasonic LX1) and with a Leica M6. I haven't kept up with digital arcana too much (eg what the differences are in chips of the same MP on a P&S and pro SLRs), so I'm sure someone will point out the numerous flaws in this comparison, but see this page on Flickr. Richard might find it useful as a visual comparison to draw some conclusions.
I'm sure you all know the comments that occured when the automobile was invented: "Get a Horse!" Well, the countryside then was only suitable to horses and walking. Infrastructure, roads made cars not only possible, but necessary. Digital is still at the brink of that change. Very soon the infrastructure will be complete. Assimulation will be complete. (Picture Homer Simpson saying that.)
I see LF poseurs, wannabes, look-alikers from time to time standing as close to their car as possible, stuck to the infrastructure they have presumed necessary.
It doesn't have to go that way. Not today. Not in a hundred years.
Question presumptions.
Scott,
("gets his daughter to install software for him")
"Windows user."
Ya, Windoze is soooo hard. Insert CD, click "install"....click OK. Ya, a Mac is WAY easier......you just follow the same steps as ......well, Windoze! Sorry, let's leave the OS myths aside shall we? Like the fellows at the Mac booth who tried to convince me years ago the Photoshop was easier to use on the Mac.....when the software is the SAME on both platforms.
Sorry Dave. Can't remember. Last time my P-4 crashed due to spyware clogging and the myriad of programs I had to go through regularly to keep it running and functional I couldn't get it to go again so I unplugged it and gave it to goodwill. I have no spyware or virus problems now. My mac is actually plug and play not plug and play and play and play and play and then unplug and reinstall then get forced into a system reinstall then .....
Well you get my drift. Let's not ruin this thread. I'm glad you like windows and are happy with it. I'm glad the whole world runs on windows. I enjoy living in the other simpler world.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks