stanislaff: I have and still use two Olympus DSLR and one Pro lens - 14-54 II. I was waiting for E-M1 to be sure that I would use my 14-54 while having an up-to-date sensor. Regarding the huge price of E-M1 and the absence of cheaper alternatives able to use fully my main lens I realize, that I will never switch to u4/3, cause price-wise and IQ-wise there are a lot of better solutions, then invest into pro lenses and bodies from Olympus. Size and weight is not an issue for me, moreover I already have Samsung NX1000 as a travel camera, so I decide to buy a FF DSLR in the near future. The prices of E-M1, pro 7-14, 12-40 and 40-150 are just prohibitively high.
@ Marty4650 I doubt that the expensive lenses were the cause of 4/3 failure because they were not that expensive when compared to competing equivalents. Actually the mid range 4/3 lenses were the best lenses both quality and price wise compared to any other maker. 4/3 lenses just kept up the original Zuiko inheritance and reputation.
What killed 4/3 was more Olympuses lack of proper strategy, a lot of unfounded prejudice about the "small sensor" and maybe lack of more third-party lens support.
m4/3 on the other hand does not look appealing at all. It seems to be generally lower in quality while also being much more expensive. Also there's no proper lens strategy like there was with 4/3.
nerd2: I've been using 'crop' bodies for almost a decade, but still I hate olympus and its delusional marketing strategy which plagues many people.
To be equivalent to FF counterparts, smaller format body/lens should be:
a) FASTER to achieve the same total light and same DOF.b) SHARPER to achieve the same sharpness.c) has the similar MP count.
For example, to compete with A7 plus 24-70 f4 lens, one needs a 24MP m43 body and 12-35 f2 lens that is TWICE sharper than 24-70 f4. Of course most lenses (even $100 kit lenses) are now very good and can be used for professional purpose, but that does not justify Oly to charge the same money for inferior lenses.
What are you talking about? I have not used much of the m4/3 stuff but the original 4/3 lenses are absolutely the best lenses I have ever used. They certainly beat anything else out there when it comes to color rendering and sharpness. Olympus is one of the best optics makers in the world that is easily in the same class as Leica and Carl Zeiss.
riveredger: Observation: film guys really are full of themselves.
Exactly. Most of the people these days will probably learn nothing beyond the rule-of-thirds.
Battersea: Wonderful news. There is no downside to this, nobody is taking your cell phone or DSLR away. It's great to have options. Film is an excellent learning and creative tool.
Film is still a better learning tool. First how many people shooting have that kind of self discipline. Probably very few. Most will opt to shoot 100 images more or less randomly and then selecting the better ones. And secondly shooting film is quite a different experience as you have to imagine the results first always taking into account the particular film type you are shooting with. Then you have to live with those images in your imagination until you get your film developed. And only then you can analyze what you did right or wrong. You are much more emotionally and intellectually invested and you gain a much better learning experience.
I shoot both digital and film but on recent years I have realized that I enjoy shooting film much more as it gives way bigger emotional satisfaction and as every successful image is more valuable.
AlanG: I'm trying to understand the economics and business plan.
With only $250K they plan to rescue this equipment, modify it to run smaller batches, presumably move it somewhere, lease space, hire the technicians and chemists to make all of this work, fund the materials and chemicals they need and do the testing, packaging and marketing? Thisfilm will
You're not the sharpest pencil in the box, aren't ya?
Jonathan Mac: Anyone not capable of getting good shots from a film camera should not be calling themselves a photographer. Many people choose digital because it's easier and cheaper, and many choose digital because they're not competent enough to get good images if they don't have auto-everything and the chance to take 20 photos and choose the best. Most of these people will never improve. Some choose digital because it's the best tool for the photography they want to do, and they can produce good results from it. However, many have used digital and become bored with it's often flat, dull look and have now gone back to film.
I use both, but I enjoy film more. The Ferrania re-start is good news, especially once they get around to producing print films.
Very well said.
JohnEwing: Woo hooooo!!!! I must get in a sack of brown coal to power my Weston Hyper IV.
But seriously though, while a hard core will keep at it I think that for most nostalgics initial delight will pall after the first couple of shots, when the pictures fail to appear on the LCD the camera doesn't have. Retro look is great, retro tech maybe not so attractive.
That's the beauty of it. You have to imagine the results first with both film characteristics and camera settings in mind. Then you have the image in your minds eye until you get the film developed. If it turns out as you imagined then it's a great feeling (much much more satisfying than looking at LCD and then shooting another 100 images just in case). If you failed to set the technicalities right then the image probably will fail too, and you will be quite angry. But you also have learned a valuable lesson.
nerd2: I am old enough to actually grow up with film camera and just cannot understand why people are romantizing film that much. It was just magnitudes more bothersome, and even the (now pre-histroic) 2.6MP D1 was a gospel compared to film cameras.
Anyone can easily duplicate the film experience by duct taping all status LCD and most controls (ISO and WB), using 16MB SD card (I have one!), shoot only in JPEG and then directly giving the SD card to the lab. Now good luck.
I'd say the technical advantages of film are pretty much debatable. And you are right about film being more bothersome. But there is another side to it: more effort needed -> if good results = more satisfaction.
After moving back from digital to film I have found that I'm enjoying photography again because I need to put more effort into it. If I screw up, I'm more angry. If I can capture something on film just the way I imagined before in my minds eye, I'm more happy.
Digital has made everything pretty easy and greatly diminished the value of a single image.
nunatak: photography is the art of capturing photons — and whether one shoots on chemical emulsions or digital sensors is simply their preference. some people prefer to machine gun their photos for instant publication, while others prefer to see them cook slowly while maturing into a pleasant surprise. others don't care either way as long as the IQ is "good enough" or "inexpensive enough".
i'll add that there's one thing I found inherent to film which other technologies have yet to successfully emulate, and that is the concept of a one-of-a-kind original. the scarcity of the negative makes it ideally suited to fine art initiatives. JMO.
Great point! This is exactly what I'm thinking. I shoot both digital and film, but on recent years I have gone back mainly to film for just that reason - the value of a single image. I know I have to put in a lot of more effort with film. And when I get things right I feel much bigger satisfaction with film. I'd say there is not much technical advantages of film over digital, but there is absolutely no doubt that shooting film is emotionally more satisfying.
I think film guys have a right to be full of themselves because film requires much more effort and skill to get it right.
Wye Photography: I have the v700 at home and access to a v750 at work. During a quiet time a couple of years ago I did extensive tests on both with the same negatives and found that the v750 is a tiny smidgin better. It's obvious that if you are already a v700/v750 owner, then upgrading is probably a waste of money.
Overall, I am very pleased with my v700, I scan mainly 6x6 negs and they are excellent. I also scan 35mm and half frame and obtain very good scans that produce more than acceptable A3 prints.
Silver fast is pants. Two months after I bought my v700 I upgraded my system software (MacOS) SF then failed to work with it and after months of waiting and trying SF updates which still didn't work, I gave up. Epson - get rid of that rubbish!
The amount of detail in the highlights that can be rescued from Kodak Portra 400 when using the v700 is just amazing.
It would be great if the v800/v850 film holders fit the v700/v750
What are you talking about? Silverfast AI Studio is a absolutely a must.
Though I agree that the included version 6 is not the best piece of software I have seen, the new Silverfast Studio Ai 8 is a godsend. It's absolutely worth the upgrade price and makes scanning so so much better experience. It also has a great revamped interface too.
AksCT: I have 15 years of 35mm film (carefully preserved) waiting to be scanned. Ability to scan multiple film strips is a big time saver, but the question is quality: resolution, Optical Dynamic Range (D), color depth (bits/channel), effective dust/scratch removal.
I have no experience scanning 35mm film with Epson flatbed scanners. For those who have tried previous model (V700), how does it compare to dedicated 35mm film scanners (e.g. Plustek OpticFilm 8200i)? http://plustek.com/usa/products/opticfilm-series/opticfilm-8200i-se/
I'm working with V750 and have got mixed results.
First, Silverfast Studio AI8 is a must. It makes a world of difference especially when scanning negative film.
Second, you need to get the film holder to proper height. I have found that the default setting (of the possible 3) is not optimal.
Third, you need to get film completely flat. Special film flattening glass can be obtained from www.betterscanning.com and they make a lot of difference.
Fourth, you also need a lot of patience and time. Usually I manage to scan a roll of film in a day. Scanning is very slow and pre- and post processing takes a lot of time too.
If you want a proper film scanner, I'd recommend Reflecta Proscan 7200 or the new RT10 or even the MF5000 over Plusteks.
Superka: For those who claim that Epson V750/700 (and I think 800/850) can produce any good resolution for film, go for http://filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV750Pro.html
Epson V750 does actually quite acceptable job in conjunction with Silverfast. There are two caveats though: you need to get optimal film holder height, and, film must be completely flat.
A proper film scanner beats it still.
RolliPoli: I don't think these should be called "film scanners". They are flat bed scanners on which film can be scanned. Especially from a miniature format like 35mm, sharp, high quality results are best made with a dedicated film scanner. Unfortunately, there aren't many left on the market.
Reflecta recently announced a new Proscan RT 10 that supposedly does pretty high resolution scans. Still no autofocus though. Proscan seems to be pretty good otherwise, and possibly the only way to get a new film scanner that has acceptable quality.
me_tarzan: For heaven's sake. How much extra would it have cost Epson to put in automatic focus? How difficult would it have been to have glass film carriers to ensure perfect flatness of the film?I'd hardly call LEDs and "improved" plastic carriers mind boggling. I'd call this a minor, minor, change. Am I being unreasonable here?
Good point. Working with V750 quite often and it's really hit and miss if the film is even slightly curved. Betterscanning.com glass film flatteners help a lot, but with some stiff curved film the results are still not optimal.
It seems that V850 is not much of an improvement indeed. Also their resolution and D values are severely overestimated.
h2k: I agree that PaintShop X6 seemed confusing compared to Photoshop, but it may be the case that we are all used to Photosho too much.
I think that a person who never handled either Photoshop or PaintShop would not find PaintShop that much more confusing - maybe a little more confusing.
I guess to get better reviews, Corel needs to make PaintShop more similar to Photoshop, just so that the reviewers used to Photoshop won't scoff at PaintShop's "unconventional" solutions.
Of course then PaintShop may be called a copycat.
Certainly in several areas PaintShop offers at least more than Photoshop Elements, simple things like macro recording and curves.
"Why not just use PSE? It does it's job and cost 1/10th of the full PS."
PSP Ultimate is just so much better value for the money. If I had to choose between the two then PSP would be clear winner.
Michael Piziak: No need to buy any retouching tools now that I've got Gimp.
GIMP has 10x more horrible interface than any of the Corel programs. It's a graphics software made by programmers for programmers.
Corel has all the necessary components to make a killer image editing app. They should lift interface from Corel Painter and combine features from Paintshop Pro and Photo Paint into one professional image editing app. It could easily rival Photoshop. Instead they still have three separate image editing products, of which two are not completely satisfactory. Painter is fantastic for many things like serious retouching but it is not image editor per see. But it's interface is excellent, very similar to Photoshop. Photo Paint has all the necessary image editing features but it's interface is quite bad and obviously meant for office types. Paint Shop Pro is catering to the same users that would use Photoshop Elements but it is way more advanced. Interface is a bit cluttered and oriented toward people who are not pros.
brycesteiner: I used Corel for their clipart back in the '90's back with Aldus Pagemaker. I'm sure their software is mostly good, but I just don't find it relevant for me today. Maybe I'm biased because their price is too good to be 'professional'?
Corel products are very professional. Corel Draw is actually more advanced than Illustrator, for example. Paint Shop Pro on the other hand has always been cheap because it is meant for regular users and not for professionals. It's very complete image editor that has been around for ages, so it should do everything any serious hobbyist needs. It certainly beats Gimp.
Mayeye: Would love to hear from some DP members as to how this software stacks up against Lightroom/Photoshop combo or DxO Pro
All the Corel products are very solid and feature rich. This has never been problem with Corel. The biggest problem I have with Corel is that their user interface is not that good. It's extremely customizable but it just does not look good. They still have kind of MS Office 97 look and that sucks big time.Corel Aftershot Pro is quite nice. I have not yet used the new version 2 but I have been mostly satisfied with 1.2. The only gripe I have is that rotating and cropping is not very straightforward. Also Corel seems to be pretty slow when it comes to releasing support for new cameras.PaintShop Pro X6 has all the features most would need/except. It is already very capable and complete image editor. Only thing that puts me off is the interface.Corel also has Photo Paint that is bundled with Corel Draw. Again, feature wise very solid product, but interface is completely horrible.