UKoenig: Hello Barney, nice and despite it's maybe a little off topic, informative photos!! Wich camera / lens combination did you bring to that shooting? Like the colours and dynamic range, the wide angle must be a good one (images 3 and 4).
I would like to see more of that kind of trips. Cheers, Ullrich
I was just joking. No offence intended.And that's Cosmo for you... :D
Man, that's totally off-topic. Just shut up and enjoy the pictures!
Artistico: I find this slightly amusing, for what's ethical and sustainable about being a camera business these days? Not much considering that all cameras have - in effect - become disposable cameras, most of which will only be used for a few years before being thrown away. Like most other things it's become a consumable rather than something built to last "forever". Building things to last is bad economy as it doesn't create the imaginary growth of money that people seem to want despite the fact that it is eating its way through finite resources at an alarming pace.
I suppose making a limited collector's edition camera is the only way to keep people from disposing of their cameras. A bit like buying a small patch of the rainforest to prevent it from being cut down... Except the resources going into making the limited edition will never be used for or recycled into something more useful.
Artistico, you're spot on. Gone are the days when cameras were built to last. Only Leica does it now." Planned obsolescence" is the name of the game these days. Even for cameras.Hubertus: "virtually all of today's cameras have reached a quality level many people will be content with for many years to come" is mostly a true statement, but the marketing people will come to the fore at some point to convince you the camera you bought two years ago is now irremediably obsolete and you need to replace it with one which has one more megapixel and one more ISO step. So there are not many people who preserve their cameras for many years to come. That's how the industry keeps producing at high rates. Can you imagine what would happen to Canon if people kept their cameras for decades, like they did in the days of film?
Damien Demolder: I thought you'd enjoy this one! :-)
The serious note though concerns camera brands trying to appeal to the female audience, which currently they are not especially successful at managing. Would you agree that in general terms cameras are either very masculine in appearance, or plain unstylish? Or shouldn't it matter?
It shouldn't matter. Did Diane Arbus, Eve Arnold, Vivian Maier, or Dorothea Lange give a damn about how their cameras look? I don't think so... what Canon people are trying to do is sell more cameras. More cheap cameras for a lot of money.Curiously, I'd say men care more about the camera's aresthetics than women. The latter tend not to be so hedonistic about their cameras. They're just more practical. I'm afraid Canon is doing it wrong. Yet again.
What's the interest of manual settings when you're stuck with a fixed aperture lens? Shooting with the iPhone is akin to shooting with a conventional camera in A mode and automatic ISO. The lengths they go to sell apps...
goloby: All I'm asking is for every hobbyist or professional photographer out there that has never tried film to give it a go. Get an old film camera, they are cheap. Most of your digital lenses will work. Buy a few rolls of Provia slide. Or some negative film, Portra, Ektar, Pro400h. Send them to a proper lab for dev and scan. You might be pleasantly surprised.Or if you are into instagram and filters get some cheap film, kodacolor, superia200/400, colorplus 200, vista 200. See where all the hype comes from.Are you a b&w buff? Then you have to try T-Max and Tri-x. There's no substitute.
Not meaning to get on with an argument, but many people are just fed up with digital. I haven't been photographing for such a long time and when I started it was with digital. It was OK, but I could never help feeling some part of the photographic experience was missing. Only when I got a film camera I realized what was missing: the unpredictability of results; the fact that you really need to master exposure in order to get good results. Digital is like walking on the wire with a net below; film is having no net at all. Not so safe, but a lot more exciting. Of course I learned a lot while using digital - as a result, I got all but one exposures right with the first film roll I shot -, but I feel my creativity expanded a lot after starting with film. And you know what? I never got back to digital. I haven't shot with my digital camera since last July - and even then I took only two photos! So it's not retro chic and definitely not a fad. It might be so for some, but surely not for me.
No, not 'retro chic' at all. Just a more authentic photographic experience that defies your skills. Let's say this is the way people tell the world that digital photography has gone too far down the road to numbness.Unlike digital, film photography demands you to think before you shoot. And it is more fun. It's something you'll have to try for yourself before making any bold assertions or sticking labels on.
@Eugene: I dig your pictures on Flickr! Especially the minimalist, black and white ones. There's a structural quality in them I really enjoy. Well done!
Gesture: I expect price point to be high, but at least Epson is upgrading scanners. Many of us have old 120 and 4x5, etc. film negatives to scan.
Many of us still shoot 120 and 4x5, etc.
Eugene232: bear in mind that a 35mm film camera is a full frame. Actually it's THE real full frame camera, because digital full frame is an analogy to 135 film. You can get a fully functional Nikon FE2, Olympus OM-2, or Pentax K1000 for as little as €100. And a good 50mm-f/1.4 lens will cost you roughly the same price. If you take into account the price of a digital full frame camera and matching 50mm-f/1.4 lens, you'll realize you could buy, develop and scan lots and lots of film rolls with the price difference between the two systems. It would take you years to top that difference (by which time your DSLR would be obsolete). It's not so expensive after all when you put it like this, is it?
Actually there are great substitutes for the black and white films you've mentioned - I just don't know whether they're available in the US. Agfa APX100 is splendid, way better than t-Max in contrast and resolution, and Fomapan is an inexpensive film from the Czech Republic also capable of greatness. And then, of course, there's Ilford: their films are at least as good as the Kodaks (though I find Tri-X more pleasant to use than HP5 when it comes to high sensivity films, due to the former's better grain).As for colour, watch FILM Ferrania closely. They're about to release new films. The Ferrania Solaris 100 has the most alluring colours I've ever tried and is absurdly cheap.
I liked this interview. Mr. Ishizuka is thoroughly honest, realistic and straightforward. He acknowledges that photographers tend to build systems around their lens collection, so he reckons Sony need to offer more lenses if they expect to counter Canikon duopoly. That's a breath of fresh air; given the way consumers are specs-led, it would be easy for Sony to concentrate on offering cameras with over-the-top specs, but they don't. Sony seem serious about the photography business. Some decades ago it was different, with pseudo-innovations that were obsolete in a few weeks' time and loads of useless gadgetry. Now Sony are more down-to-earth. That's very welcome.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Hmm, what have we got here? A manufacturer that makes the best lenses south of Leica and Zeiss, with a wonderful tradition of quality throughout its history. They make no less than six full-frame models, all of them highly respected by their image quality; they are at the forefront of their industry in terms of effective, useful innovation and, despite relying almost exclusively on their cameras and lenses, they are still the second largest photography manufacturer. Professionals all over the world use Nikon for the most demanding jobs. I'd say they deserve some respect for all this, but how do people react to a simple interview? - We want 4K; - We want cropped sensors; - We want crappy mirrorless; - We don't care for wonderfully bright viewfinders, we just want dumb electronic ones;- We want E-mount;- And X- mount;- We want useless features that add nothing to image quality.The photography community has gone insane.
Save for one or two, these replies only show how far customer insanity has reached. Happycyclist is right: it seems nowadays people buy cameras on specs, not because they've built a system or on the grounds of image quality.It's laughable to read that Nikon hasn't kept up with technology just because they made the worthless '1' system. As if mirrorless were that important in terms of revenue, or were anything more than a niche, a fad that's steadily declining. P. S. I'm not, and I've never been, a Nikon user. I just try to be fair.
Hmm, what have we got here? A manufacturer that makes the best lenses south of Leica and Zeiss, with a wonderful tradition of quality throughout its history. They make no less than six full-frame models, all of them highly respected by their image quality; they are at the forefront of their industry in terms of effective, useful innovation and, despite relying almost exclusively on their cameras and lenses, they are still the second largest photography manufacturer. Professionals all over the world use Nikon for the most demanding jobs. I'd say they deserve some respect for all this, but how do people react to a simple interview? - We want 4K; - We want cropped sensors; - We want crappy mirrorless; - We don't care for wonderfully bright viewfinders, we just want dumb electronic ones;- We want E-mount;- And X- mount;- We want useless features that add nothing to image quality.The photography community has gone insane.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Dear Ricoh people: please give the Pentax brand the mercy shot. The brand formerly known as Asahi Pentax, which gave us spot metering, does not deserve being subjected to so much ridicule. Just call every camera "Ricoh". It's OK. Ricoh has a nice reputation for great cameras too. I'd rather never see a Pentax-branded camera again than see gold point and shoots (and DSLRs with LED lights on the handgrip) with an once prestigious name on it.
D1N0, stop embarrassing yourself. You've gone too far down.
Oh, latin... I'm so impressed!Did you expect me to enter a serious debate with someone like you? What would it be like? Something childish like "I know more about cameras than you do?" "My sensor is bigger than yours?" Sorry if I disappoint you, but I'm not going to waste of time with someone like you. You're grotesque.
Dear person who hides under the D1N0 nickname: your reply is just a foolish remark from a bitter, ill-bred person. I can't understand why people like you allow themselves to delve that low. It's certainly a matter of education.
Dear Ricoh people: please give the Pentax brand the mercy shot. The brand formerly known as Asahi Pentax, which gave us spot metering, does not deserve being subjected to so much ridicule. Just call every camera "Ricoh". It's OK. Ricoh has a nice reputation for great cameras too. I'd rather never see a Pentax-branded camera again than see gold point and shoots (and DSLRs with LED lights on the handgrip) with an once prestigious name on it.
ThatCamFan: I will NEVER understand why people buy a film camera for 3800$ nor why they will buy a full frame camera for 8000$ when they can get far better camera's for far less a price, let us not kid our self's, you are paying ONLY for the name, not the image quality that comes third, second place being build quality.(guess Leica doesn't care so much about image quality huh?)
ThatCamFan, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Maybe one day you'll see a print of a Henri Cartier-Bresson's picture. That will enlighten you. Chances are you'll feel sorry you've made such hasty statements (both about film and Leica's image quality).
Kudos to DPR for having posted those M-A pictures. This may be a digital photography website, and the industry has certainly moved on, but film is still pretty much alive and is where photography roots are.