Light theme [beta]
We're testing a lighter alternative to the regular DPReview theme. Both options will stay.
For more information, click here. Don't forget to leave some feedback.

Raymond Cho

Lives in New Zealand (Aotearoa) New Zealand (Aotearoa)
Joined on Jun 16, 2003

Comments

Total: 14, showing: 1 – 14
On article Retro Nikon 'DF' emerges from the shadows (1394 comments in total)
In reply to:

nathondetroit: The only thing that sucks about this generation of cameras is that we're paying more money for less features. There are benefits of usability, and some construction/durability benefits, but in general stripping cameras down to their basics should yield some cheaper bodies as well.

Why not replace a mode dial with a shutter speed dial on the D3200? Why not replace a high res screen with a low res one? (Think M9–If the screen isn't the primary finder, then its performance isn't a necessity). There could be a pretty "hip" plastic rendition of these cameras...

Once "simple" and "retro" break through the "premium" class of cameras, there will be a huge reaction; Throw some real dials on entry levels cameras and give purist consumers a chance to reap the benefits on technological advancement–not pay a premium to get a luxury replication of bricks of the past.

motor vehicles get cheaper over time despite features crammed in ... what's the next major camera technology going to cost us then .... and look at the cheap point and shoot cameras they're not $500.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2013 at 09:04 UTC
On article Retro Nikon 'DF' emerges from the shadows (1394 comments in total)
In reply to:

Debankur Mukherjee: The body should be without grip and auto focus to call it a true retro design....

i woudl jsut shoot film myself, was shooting Fuji ProC 160 just a moment ago today. It's never gonna be a retro as a Leica digital, it's like a Fuji with a grip? And even Leica digital isn't that retro. A sensor output isn't gonna be like TriX or HP5+. Some places like Japan film is still quite popular than other countries. You can walk in and buy a brick of 20 rolls of film.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2013 at 04:57 UTC
On article Retro Nikon 'DF' emerges from the shadows (1394 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marksphoto: Looks like the F2 is back and looking good, but where is the chrome?

I was waiting for a camera which would give me the option of using simple layout such as shutter speed dial, apperture dial and we need a WB dial with ISO dial so that we can create perfect jpegs on the fly without the hassle of going into the comlex menus to do the same thing 4 simple dials would do for manual mode shooters.

love a real manual focus only. just like the good old days. hope it doesn't have pop up flash too. aperture ring only, shutter dial on top only, no func button, DOF preview and a lens removal button and a bright viewfinder. a mechanical screw in cable release on the shutter button. if only ....

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2013 at 04:52 UTC
On article Retro Nikon 'DF' emerges from the shadows (1394 comments in total)
In reply to:

nathondetroit: The only thing that sucks about this generation of cameras is that we're paying more money for less features. There are benefits of usability, and some construction/durability benefits, but in general stripping cameras down to their basics should yield some cheaper bodies as well.

Why not replace a mode dial with a shutter speed dial on the D3200? Why not replace a high res screen with a low res one? (Think M9–If the screen isn't the primary finder, then its performance isn't a necessity). There could be a pretty "hip" plastic rendition of these cameras...

Once "simple" and "retro" break through the "premium" class of cameras, there will be a huge reaction; Throw some real dials on entry levels cameras and give purist consumers a chance to reap the benefits on technological advancement–not pay a premium to get a luxury replication of bricks of the past.

even in the film days when new they were cheaper. F100 body $1000US, $2000US was it for the F5 top of the line, much cheaper was the FM3A or FM2N. these days it's $3,000 or $6,000 is it and the non pro $2,000US D610/600 for a F80 full frame film camera in the day.

if they wanted reto they could have just made it manual focus ONLY. if one really go retro i mean look at APUG analogue forum you can place that $6,000US less the NIB condition film body of your choice then the $5,000+ into film and lab every 4 years.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2013 at 04:49 UTC
On article Retro Nikon 'DF' emerges from the shadows (1394 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kodachrome200: Everyone is saying this is going to be 3000 bux and to me this is just nuts. no way it is. this is just like when every one said the d800 was going to be 4400 it made no sense in the market. this is an attempt to gain some of the cool factor mirrorless has and have a hit. its tech specs are great but there is nothing to make you think it will cost more than 1800-2300 range. And dont say the d4 sensor. the s4 sensor is not what makes the d4 expensive

more pro features than the D610. AF-ON button, round viewfinder, normally reserved for the pro cameras like the F100, F series, D series, D700, D800. I think it's more than the D610 but prob at least the same as a D800 (body). i doubt its gonna be the D700 replacement that some think .. it's a retro, not a fast dynamic AF machine, fast FPS ... it's not a semi sports / wedding camera.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2013 at 08:57 UTC
On article Retro Nikon 'DF' emerges from the shadows (1394 comments in total)

would not a die hard fan just shoot film film and lab services are readily available in cities plus b/w processing is easy, got my first one done without issues just a few months back. it's like getting a mustang and put in a electric engine with builtin satnav and complaining that it doesn't have auto wipers or it may well have that too .. that may be $3,000 per product cycle into film and lab cost.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2013 at 02:55 UTC as 264th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

jon404: I have a Sony RX100. Now, I don't know if I'm comparing apples with oranges, but why on earth would someone buy this Leica?

to an extent isn't this with all cameras even with the SLRs too? when you look at what most people use their cameras for. don't get me wrong SLRs is very versatile, some are built for studio strobes, sports, wildlife. but what do most users use them for and what do many crave for. and every few years bodies upraded and every couple of years lenses are upgraded. doesn't it come a point in time when i have enough or do we keep on upgrading just because .. some do spend few hundreds on sunnies, but i've been told by some why do I spend thousands on photo gear .. i don't make any money out of it, it's just a hobby.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2013 at 03:46 UTC
On article 17 signs that you were alive before digital photography (149 comments in total)

I just developed my first roll of b/w last week. My first camera in 1999 was a Canon Rebel (film) or the EOS 3000. It is not hard at all .... having owned a 2003 dSLR and now the Nikon D600 I find that over time this is the new look we have now and woudl probably change again. Without going into plugins or the advanced techniques, digital cannot get a look to the old style b/w film. On my spreadsheet a kit cost $25US some chems last 6 months and some last 3 or 5 yrs but provided you use the cheaper powder developer, each 6 months it does 6 rolls and you do this for the 5yrs so you don't waste any chems. Per roll of film $2US to develop. I'll use digital for colorful snaps ie high ISO night cityscape portraiture, weddings, wildlife, sports etc ... but streets, real timeliness family shots, landscape i prefer film color or b/w...... Looking at developing my E6 now with home kits. Since I import fresh film and export for development to the USA. Roll of Velvia cost $35US here.

Link | Posted on Sep 3, 2013 at 00:14 UTC as 14th comment

For fast pace sure digital will be better suited but if one is doing it as a hobby or fine art as a job, film is still ok when you don't need a quick turnaround. But for those who compare digital to 150 rolls of film. Did you guys use that much film for a hobby in the film days and when film back then was much cheaper? But again, certainly for work or hobby like weddings, wildlife, sports I would never dream of shooting film but if it's just a special outing, like travel, landscapes, walk about at the campsite holiday, do you shoot that much ...

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2013 at 21:20 UTC as 17th comment | 1 reply

My first real camera was a 1999 year old Canon Rebel or an EOS 3000 and simply shot Fuji Superia and Kodak Gold. I just developed my first roll of b/w film last week. It is so easy I don't know why they don't do it themselves.

I got a few utensils off my camera club. No labs quality is better than DIY. As a home user, the developer can be used as a one-shot and throw away, the stop bath you might want to use it just 2x of just as a one-shot since it last up to 5yrs. The fixer I mix up a litre at a time and just do a guestimate and pour it in b/c it has a long shelf life even after it is mixed with water. Ilford says you can use a litre for 6 rolls of film, I only do it 2 b/c an old timer said that you can but he was told by someone after you know how to look for fog .. With the USA chem prices, provided you do 6 rolls every 6 months b/c powder is cheaper. You do 6 so you don't waste it. Per roll it's $2US all up. Or it's $25US for the entire set, some last 6months or 5yr ..

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2013 at 21:16 UTC as 18th comment
In reply to:

jhinkey: Let's hope this new version is way way better than the old version which was not very good. If it is, then the $150 premium over the current will be well worth it.
Though I have the wonderful 17-35/2.8 AFS, rarely do I use it at f/2.8 and I'd love to save some weight if the IQ is very good and the ghosting/flare resistance is good as well.

Hopefully Nikon did a better update with this lens than it did with the 24-85AFS (which was not much of an improvement if any over the previous version).

Have Nikon been upping the prices. I got the older one for $350-400US (new). If one looks at the lenses that have been upgraded to AF-S like the 50mm's or the 85mm's it's gone up considerably. My 50mm 1.8 AF-D was under $100 for grey or US version for about $115. At least I am outside the USA and the USD has fallen. Even the pro zooms like the 70-200, before $1600US now almost $2500US. VR1 vs VRII. At least I am just a hobbyist with a bit of sense, getting pretty expensive out there.

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2013 at 20:49 UTC

people will just pay me thinks. but some may just use the old IR remote. remember when we had the D70 in 2004 and people complained about the price of the IR remote and how a few used their TV remote? and in the film days the cable release or even the extension cords ~$75 ..... there should be after market cheapies available as well as quality after markets too. maybe the 10pin controller is so much expensive b/c the 10 pin cameras are for the pro cameras only ... and they can cough it up. only the D300 and D3/4 have them for those current models. the 10pin design is pretty swell given its discrete size. try a pocket wizard combo .....

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2013 at 22:15 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

The Davinator: A nice digital back for my Nikon F5 please!

Costs for an amateur isn't that great. Instead of buying new dSLRs. I shoot the most impt shots only, on travel. If I shot 10 rolls per year even at the prices today's that's just 10x $10 for the film and 10x $8 for the development. Which is $180US for the year, not expensive at all. Esp for someone who likes film. The reason I still shoot a 6MP is b/c I don't use high ISO and it can print at 13" wide. Stil leaps and bounds more than 35mm at least technically. If one looks at some shots by national geographic slow shutter is one technique some employ. So it's not always the sharpest or the least grain etc ..... just what works. I can understand for wedding, events, sports, wildlife thou but not in that camp myself.

Could be protection. In case others design it and get them instead of buying dSLR bodies! I would think that there is more money to be made getting pple to buy bodies every few yrs than a back. Larger market/demand. Backs have a niche, $, maybe $2-3k min?

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2012 at 21:05 UTC
In reply to:

The Davinator: A nice digital back for my Nikon F5 please!

I still shoot film, recently more than digital. I just like the workflow. More a challenge, anticipate the result etc .. all in camera if I am shooting slides. Output is held to some white clouds. But I don't shoot action or mass amounts and I don't do it for pay.

I though, if one can get a used dSLR 6yr used or even a new low end body that's so cheap anyway. And dSLR tech have come a long way. Larger, brighter viewfinders, long battery life, huge memory cards, one can then shoot so much more and not care about costs, easier than scanning and that many dedicated scanners now have ceased, I got my Coolscan used with a hacked driver for Win7.

Basically for me is that there are so many fSLR that they won't fail, just get anohter new/used one. They would have less mileage than a dSLR too. I'll just buy a fSLR and a dSLR and not care about these backs. No reason they cannot make a back thou in theory .....

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2012 at 20:59 UTC
Total: 14, showing: 1 – 14