Jack Simpson: wow, I can just imagine attaching a long 645 lens to my Q7 :o
I have some old view camera lenses here you can have. Along with some cardboard tubes, black spray paint and duct tape may give you similar results.
I need some help understanding the sensor size and lens line up offered: If in fact these lenses are designed to cover the original 6X4.5 cm film area then they would be designed around a larger image circle and therefor be less than optimal? The sensor size seems to be about 73% of the 6X4.5 cm area making the lenses have a comparable magnification factor of about 1.4?If someone makes an 80mm TS lens for this, I'm all in.
smafdy: As usual, Pentax offers the highest quality and feature set in a camera format, at a comparably affordable price, and . . .
. . . some people have an immediate sh!t hemorrhage over it.
Everybody knows that it would have been much easier to just make this pocket-sized, with a mount that would accept any lens ever made, a pop-up 72" Octobox w/1600 WS internal flash, red-eye reduction, noise-free ISO 50 - 102400, high speed (2,000 fps) video capture, waterproof to 3,000 meters, and a few more essential features like a screw driver, bottle opener, scissors, a compartment to hold emergency gear (firestarter, fish hook and line, at minimum), and a secret message decoder.
Pentax just can't get it right.
You forgot to mention GPS.
Monochrom: Remember when no one could believe the price for the RED ONE to be true?Five years later and you get about the same specs for a quarter of that money.A shame that the lens you'll need will still cost you at least 10K...
You're referring (I'm assuming) to cine lenses?
SithTracy: There is a BFH in the shot... is that the tool?
Hammer, vise grips and duct tape - you need anything else?
The Gauss Goose
papa natas: Well, does the name Sally Mann ring a bell?
Yes. First thing I thought of - less stylized here though.
Peiasdf: He got himself an expensive movie prop. Ha ha
Probably owns some "original" Salvador Dalis' as well. Next stop on the list, Brooklyn, NY - "Bridge for sale, famous architect, some wear."Where's the wire viewfinder?
BGM: Gee I thought the camera was Nasa property and hence belongs to the US tax payers.
NASA, all caps.
100 exposure Ektachrome 64 on a cellophane thin Mylar base (acetate would become too brittle and break under the cold and vacuum) was no small feat either. Ah, Kodak could when it had to.
Robert Newman: While touring the LBJ Space Center in Houston several years ago with my young children, I perched my 10-year old son up on a ledge to get a better view of the Moon Rover on display including a NASA modified Hasselblad like the one mentioned on a short hinged arm. When we got ready to move on to another exhibit, I started to pick my son up and put him at floor level. I did not notice that he had braced himself with a foot on the metal arm holding the Hasselblad. A little push from his leg sent the camera crashing into the Moon Rover with a loud thud. We quickly moved on before some NASA employee could detain us. I don't think anything was broken, but we could have easily destroyed a very expensive artifact of the lunar missions.
From the mouth of babes file: Touring the staged Saturn V's various stages, my daughter commented that the LEM looked like a school project (tin foil and all)!
t.c. marino: they also took a modified NIKON F to the moon.i beleive they left the nikon behind on the moon...SOOO if you're looking for a very RARE Nikon F..you will find it on the "dark side of the moon"
"There is no dark side of the moon really. Matter of fact it's all dark." ; I believe Pink Floyd set us 'straight' on that back back in '73. This much I do remember.
EssexAsh: ive had this same broom for 20 years. Its only had 10 new brushes and 8 new handles.
If the reserve on that broom is over $10,000 I'm out. Otherwise I'd like a shot on that dustpan - does it really have moon dust on it?
PeterLHughes: There is a much easier and cheaper way. Shoot transparency film with a 5"x4" bellows camera. Scan that single shot at 4,000 ppi and it will give you a 320 MP image. Your shutter speed of 1/125th sec with studio flash means that your model can have expression rather than having to hold a death like pose for half an hour. Also if you look closely at the samples in the review above you can see stitching errors which are unacceptable for professional work. If 320 MP doesn't impress you, then get hold of a 10"x8" film camera. That will give you 1,280 MP images. In other words a 300 dpi print would be 11ft high. I've just checked on ebay and you can pick up all the camera kit you need for under £1,000.
I was a big fan of large format at one time too; Technical Pan and point source printing did it for me. On the other hand for practical purposes the high end digital stuff I use is often a bit much for portraits - I've taken to using a lens of "lesser" quality and a lot of judicious touch up work in Photoshop. Same thing goes on with HDTV and digital motion picture; noise, softening and even grain are added back in for a more pleasing look.
jadot: So nobody gets this? Reading the 'reviews' here I guess not.
Anyone thought about the implications of this kind of imaging for the future of photography?How about in the mid 1800s when sitters had to stay still for periods of time so that a picture wouldn't appear blurred?Psychologically speaking these studies are no different than those very early attempts and successes at photography portraiture. In fact it's this that makes them so fascinating. It also asks us how we define photography in 2014. Is this photography? Is this art? Is this imaging or science? Is this simply technology, nothing more clever than that (sic)?
To all of you a holes talking about bad lighting, or ugly/miserable subject matter, you need to get a better understanding of the conversation between art, technology, and the human condition.
Anyone who has read about the painstaking and arduous process that was the early photographic processes will appreciate these endeavors. thank you for your learned commentary.
Some here get it, most do not. It's clearly an understanding of the history and aesthetics of photography and an appreciation of the techniques and methods. This comes through educating one's self. The derisive and boorish comments are clearly from those who seek pleasure at criticizing the efforts of others.
Put a phone in it and make it water/shock proof and I'll buy one.
I always offer my clients a "menu" of three choices: good, fast, and cheap - I tell them they can pick two. For those who are so inclined, we can look forward to some quality selfies I suppose.
JEROME NOLAS: Actually I like it but Fuji needs new design for their cameras, I am tired of retro look...
So form follows function in it's most elegant is expressed in the classic Leica design; nothing is there which is unneeded.and it is aesthetically pleasing.. What exactly about Fuji's design is so tiresome?
Not a Canon 1DC by any stretch of the imagination but infinitely more affordable for the budding cinematographer.