Robert Eckerlin: Since I have very few color-photos printed on paper but a lot of Kodachrome slides: I am looking for a Software running under Windows that will restore the colors of scanned versions of old faded Kodachrome slides. Are you aware of such Software?
Notes: my Kodachrome slides have been scanned with a Nikon "Super CoolScan 9000 ED" scanner. I am already using "Digital ROC Professional" as a filter to "PhotoShop Elements (PSE)"; but too often, I am not happy with its results. And even if the combined use of PSE and of the great NIK Filters is useful, their use to restore faded colours requires too much work/time.
I've used Digital ROC Pro some years back but they've stopped updating it and never got the 64-bit version out. It was actually working reasonably well on most shots - it felt like with a few more tweaks exposed it could've been great. Alas, never happened.I actually got very good results restoring old photos by applying tricks from Dan Margulis' Photoshop LAB Color book.
How exactly is this different from a Gigapan Epic with some decent camera and a long lens?As an experiment, I've tried stitched images of some metal sculptures a few years ago (like this: http://gigapan.com/gigapans/135049), 300MP was not a challenge, could get to 1GP or more with a longer lens easily. The subject is probably equivalent of 2x4 meters, a bit bigger than typical painting but not that far scale-wise. 72 shots took a few minutes. Granted, it would take a bit longer indoor but not much longer. Hugin is not particularly fast but Autopano Giga would do it under hour for sure.With the images they have now there is still that problem that light sometimes reflects directly toward the camera and overexposes small paint patches causing those white dots. Getting soft light for proper oil paint reproduction can be surprisingly hard.
bgbs: Who ever events a long zoom lens the size and price of a 50mm lens will become a millionaire. You know, these zoom lenses are ridiculously long, some science breakthrough is needed.
Like Canon DO lenses?
Frank in Bridgewater: Moore's Law applied to sensors I guess. At least for a couple of years more it seems, with stacked and BSI technology now becoming common.
Very simple: simpler camera -> cheaper camera -> decreased profit margin -> higher cost to the company to continue in that business... Or: no moving parts -> fewer parts to break -> less profit on repairs -> higher cost to the company... I am not sure if I am joking or not.
arhmatic: I would't call this "retro-styling". It's the "natural-styling" - because this is really the size and feel a camera should have. It happens to look retro, true. Well done, both Olympus and Fujifilm.
Of course, that's my opinion. I have to correct that I never said it is a fashion statement. I said that it contributes to the fun part of using a camera. For many people here having fun is actually the goal, not getting the best pictures. Some of them will not even admit that.
If retro-styling was the only goal we would see brown wooden box, collapsible bellows, or, at least, a digital TLR by now, would we? Thinking of it, how many people here would buy a digital TLR?On a bit more serious note, I can see retro-ish style as an attraction point for cameras - photography is largely an art or (way more often) artistic aspiration for many involved. Arts are generally conservative and nostalgic - having tools of art styled that way triggers some sense of connection with the art and, importantly, disconnects from technology which is perceived as unimportant in this case. That makes camera more fun to use for people that feel that way. Nothing wrong with that. Honestly, I prefer to see people using cameras that look like they came straight from 60s than those running through Yosemite with iPads or proudly demonstrating top of the line Nikons and Canons permanently glued in green mode.
Ain't Holga without light leaks...
phazelag: Another Olympus in a Casio body.
In the past Casio collaborated with Pentax on occasions. It's been a while...
Nathan Cowlishaw: It's going to be fun watching the Micro Four Thirds Consortium eat the rest of the photo industry alive and position themselves at least as a leader and authority that will make all other companies wonder why they didn't follow suite. ;) I love Micro Four Thirds, with all the selection of lenses and manufacturers really chiming in: Panasonic, Olympus, Leica, Kowa, Voigtlander, SLRMagic. Man, the sky is the limit with this open standard.
Those are four manufacturers that make bodies compatible with the mount, which is an important part of the standard - in a sense, more important than the sensor size (GH2 had slightly different sensor size; other systems commonly have multiple sizes).BM small cameras are very different but the company found their unique niche in the system which means that if, say, GoPro (just kidding) decides to join the system they will have problems distinguishing themselves against one of the established players. For more conventional manufacturers (like Sigma) it is even worse as they need to offer something that neither Olympus nor Panasonic have.
No matter how open the standard is, there will be very few body manufacturers - those require a lot more expertise to make something distinguishing, and the margins are almost invariably worse. Suppose, Sigma starts making m43 bodies. What would it have to bring to the equation to convince people to buy those instead of Olympus, Panasonic, Black Magic, or bargain Kodak?With lenses, there are niches. One company may do superbrights (Voightlander), another figures out a set of cheaper nice primes (Sigma), or really compact circ fisheye (Samyang), or supermacro (don't even remember the name).As far as "standards" go, this seems to be reasonably accessible, if not open. It's not open in the sense that you can download a PDF with tech specs - but, seriously, would that affect the quality of your (or anybody else's) photos? Does the lack of this document render your photos inaccessible in ten years?
Wow! I've been using m43 for a few years and I love the format but expecting it to "eat" anything "alive"... The format is perfect at what it is: a versatile compromise. It works for me and would work for great many people but there are a lot of cases when compromises just don't cut. Then again, after seeing 80+% of those people in national parks using near top of the line Nikons and Canons set to "green square" mode one might wonder if the only thing between m43 and global dominance is the notion that "bigger is better" ;)
Ben Stonewall: Not an anachronism - an expensive gimmick.If it was that great an idea everone would be doing it.It's like buying a fake painting, the more you pay, the more you convince yourself the fake is the real thing.
;) Opinions, of course. I was mostly commenting on the expensive side and why it has to be that way with Leica. There are quite a few other companies that use the same principle. The painting is not necessarily fake but it has to be expensive because the price is the part of the painting. Strip that painting of that price and it becomes just a good one, average, or outright junk.
Not a gimmick, just a niche product. There is a market for true b&w cameras but it may be too small for the likes of Canon and Nikon to warrant going after it. As for expensive - Leica would not survive the other way. They are not big enough and they have to play on their image of status symbol as well. Should they put a lower price tag on their camera it will fail and tarnish the rest of the image. Marketing plus psychology. That said, this strategy used to work somewhat better in the past.
Kelvin L: I'd definitely be interested in a monochrome digital camera with panchromatic and infrared sensitivity - but in a body with modern features such as autofocus and live view.
I think the trouble may lie in the lack of commodity monochrome sensor suppliers - perhaps the cost of the Leica is partly due to the use of a bespoke low-volume sensor.
With the exception for Foveon, all current sensors are monochrome to begin with. It is even possible to mod some production cameras, people tried and shared their experience online. For less adventurous, MaxMax has this: http://www.maxmax.com/b&w_conversion.htm.
photo_rb: I'm a little worried this might somehow affect support of high resolution camera imagery.
Let's hope not. Autopano Giga is the best panoramic tool at the moment and I would prefer not going back to Hugin. That said, combo of GoPro and Kolor does make certain sense. It will also increase Kolor's visibility - it is not well known in the US market now.
AbrasiveReducer: Marumi filters are excellent but they have had poor distribution in the USA. I think their entire line still comes from Japan. These guys can make an ND filter that's actually gray.
Yes on both points - excellent quality and poor distribution. Took me 2 months to get mine but it was worth waiting. Bought from 2filter.com - in case if anybody is looking for alternative suppliers.
Diablorini: Will be interesting to see how these perform compared to fixed density screw in filters from the likes of B+W, Hoya, Formatt Hightech, Tiffen and so on.
I wonder if that ND 100.000 filter is strong enough to image the sun in full?
ND100,000 is a little bit more than 16 stops. I've used stacked 10-stop and 3-stop to photograph transit of Venus and the solar eclipse three years ago. Worked just fine at f/11 1/1600 ISO100 in the middle of the day (https://www.flickr.com/photos/68051897@N02/7343830138/in/set-72157630062860896). 16-stop may even be a bit too strong.
Vasyl Tsvirkunov: Interesting. B+W 110 has slight brownish cast, I never thought about it being near-IR pollution but it does make some sense. Would be really interesting to see how this one stacks against 110 after color correction.
Are you sure? https://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/filters/WorldOfFilters.pdf shows a different picture (page 19). It actually looks like 110 is about 10 time more transparent to IR than to the visible light. That said, the cast looks uniform and easily correctable - I would pretty much expect IR leak to brighten floral subjects and it is not happening. Next time I use 110 I will try combining it with CC1 or something like that, out of curiosity but I don't really think there is a real problem there.
Interesting. B+W 110 has slight brownish cast, I never thought about it being near-IR pollution but it does make some sense. Would be really interesting to see how this one stacks against 110 after color correction.
Andreas M: Shooting film requires a certain discipline, born of limited frames and undeveloped images, something that is lacking in digital photography. Can't say I really miss that, but keeping a film factory open and producing does keep some options open.
I do miss getting a significantly higher ISO by buying a new roll of film rather than buying a new camera.
There is something to be said for that discipline. We used to have a photoclub at work and went on those "assignments" once in a while. One of the assignments was to pretend to use film - fix ISO, limit number of frames, could not discard any shots, extra points for using fixed focus, limited processing. Two things came from that - it was the most fun assignment, and the resulting photos were considerably better than usual.