Lives in United States NY, United States
Works as a Photographer, Teacher, Tech Consultant
Joined on Jul 21, 2017
About me:

A half century and counting in photography and almost anything photography related. It's all good. Simple or complex, a camera is just a tool to capture images.


Total: 99, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Wow, there really are divided opinions here on 110. The same could be said for 126. Look at it from the photo business side.

Low cost cartridge loading cameras kept the candid photography business going a long time. The only thing more accessible and profitable were disposable cameras. These cameras printed money for the camera makers, film makers and minilabs. Think of it. A 20.00 camera generating hundreds, if not thousands, per unit in revenue for years. Many people were happy with their 3.5 X 5 prints because they were as acceptable as the same sized prints they got from their old box cameras. Same difference.

The low end 110's were "eh". The higher end 110's were very good and could pull a decent candid 8X10. I do think they needed better film, but the film tech wasn't there yet - and a pressure plate.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2021 at 11:55 UTC as 3rd comment

I had the kit. What an amazing and clever little camera system. Once you added the flash and winder it did get a bit big, but still, a lot of fun. Since I had my own darkroom I did process and print some nice black and white images. I also had the Minolta 110 Zoom (1st gen).

The negatives/slides were approximately the same frame area as Micro Four Thirds.

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2021 at 10:25 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

f1point4andbethere: I gotta say, as much as I'm rooting for Adobe to bring competitive ai functions to their products (since I'm a paying user), so far their "Sensei" has been a series of swings & misses. Looking at some of the ai results coming from Luminar, DxO, Topaz, every Sensei function feels like pre-pre-beta with laughable results.
C'mon Adobe, you're taking my money, so use it to improve, or else it may stop coming sooner than you'd like.

I agree with you on Sensei in LR.

I'll give Elements credit for the excellent "hand-holding". The guided functions are very good.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2021 at 13:09 UTC
In reply to:

Vince P: I'm not getting tied into buying software licences this is outrageous, where are the subscription options. :-)

True, but I had the option of upgrading. Adobe made a bit deal out of being able to push out updates/upgrades faster. Initially, there were a few rapid updates, but nothing I'd really call an upgrade. And then it tapered off.

I don't want to distract from the question/topic. Elements is a good value, but there's a lot of new software out there to consider, too.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2021 at 13:02 UTC
In reply to:

Vince P: I'm not getting tied into buying software licences this is outrageous, where are the subscription options. :-)

Debatable. I had the full, and later, the photo subscription since it came out (2013) and gave up this February. Added all up, Adobe didn't provide enough value. My guess is I spent about a grand on the subscription over the years. LR and Photoshop should have been a lot better for that cost and time.

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2021 at 00:20 UTC
In reply to:

ewelch: I remember when Olympus declared they were getting out of support of the professional photography business altogether and going with point-and-shoots as their bread and butter. What a disastrous mistake. And then the corruption in the company. And then their resurrection and producing their fantastic MFT system. I even bought into it for my personal cameras at one point. (Big mistake for a pro shooting full frame at work.)

Magnum photographer Eli Reed and I disagreed on the best choice for SLRs. He was big-time into Olympus (they gave cameras to Magnum for free) but he loved his Leica M. I was Leica R 100 percent and he used to laugh whenever we ran each other. He called me "Mr. Leica R." Way, way better photographer than me to say the least. But always friendly and happy to chat about gear and show his photos to us photojournalism students.

I was with you up to MFT. Olympus botched that and Panasonic shot ahead. Olympus made a big deal about the Pen prototype and then delivered the half baked E-P1. The Panasonic GF1, G1 and GH1 were much better cameras.

Olympus had the name, and the heritage, but they also had the scandal, and a lot of "burnt" photographers with orphan systems. Amazingly, Panasonic, with no real film heritage, managed to launch the Lumix brand, get cameras into photographer's hands, and respond to the feedback.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2021 at 21:26 UTC
In reply to:

thinkinginimages: A Maitiani modular 35mm design would have been great for Olympus. Olympus made a few missteps starting in the film days. The OM's were brilliant, but they needed a a whole new system to get to electronics and autofocus. The OM bodies and lenses were too small.

Rollei sold a similar modular concept called the Rolleiflex SL2000

I had an Olympus E-510. it was quite good camera. It wasn't a matter of favoring a brand or a sensor size, but that Four Thirds was a clean sheet design. Olympus didn't have to worry about legacy. There were two "problems": if you had a 35mm OM, this was not a successor by any stretch. It didn't feel like an Olympus, but a generic camera with an Olympus badge. "E-Volt" didn't help any, either.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2021 at 21:17 UTC

A Maitiani modular 35mm design would have been great for Olympus. Olympus made a few missteps starting in the film days. The OM's were brilliant, but they needed a a whole new system to get to electronics and autofocus. The OM bodies and lenses were too small.

Rollei sold a similar modular concept called the Rolleiflex SL2000

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2021 at 11:29 UTC as 20th comment | 2 replies

Wow. I was afraid to watch this since I was in the area when it happened.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2021 at 20:53 UTC as 20th comment

Switched to all the Affinity apps from Adobe recently and am doing fine. Affinity does need a Bridge equivalent, or at least plugins for Explorer and Finder. Photo needs better Wacom support.

I was a big LR user but it lost its focus (whatever that is.)

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2021 at 17:48 UTC as 14th comment

Good question. I often wonder that myself. The simple answer is options and image quality. An interchangeable lens camera gives you more shooting options because you can change lenses. They also have bigger sensors. Whether you will ever need those options or image quality is up to you.

This drifted into SLR vs. Mirrorless vs. everything else, and it shouldn't have.

Very basically, a bottom line SLR starts at a lower price point than a mirrorless these days. They're less sophisticated, but they are familiar to a lot of people. They're more still photography oriented and that's fine.

We're slowly seeing less expensive mirrorless cameras fill in the bottom end as the market sorts itself out. At some point they will replace the bottom line SLR's since they're less complicated/costly to manufacture (less parts).

It still comes down to "buy what you can afford, does what you want it to do, and feels good in your hand".

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2021 at 13:03 UTC as 4th comment

Off the top of my head:
828: a paper backed, sprocketless, 35mm alternative,
620: a skinny roll of 120
116: a sightly bigger version of 120
127: a narrow roll of 120

I'm coming at this from a pro-lab point of view:

APS was designed for minilabs. Because you could change image format midroll there needed to be a way to automate that. On some cameras all sorts of info could be added.

Disk was a bad idea from the get go. It required all new film processors and printers. (I don't know of the existing equipment could be adapted, but I doubt it.)

Those two formats came to market as digital was gaining traction. Too little, too late.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2021 at 03:07 UTC as 25th comment
In reply to:

Kipplemaster: Like Polaroid it's bad enough to still exist, unlike much newer APS. APS is dead because it was worse than 35mm but with no unique look. 110, like Polaroid, has a certain lowfi charm.

I was looking through some scans of prints from a 110 camera. As small prints, say up to 4X6, they're "OK" - in a hilariously oversaturated way. As scans and on a big screen? Well, they're going to take a lot of work.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2021 at 21:01 UTC
On article Head to Head: Apple Final Cut Pro vs Adobe Premiere Pro (272 comments in total)

Razer? I would have gone with the HP Z's. It's been a while since I checked but some configuration were Avid and Adobe certified workstations.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2021 at 15:57 UTC as 77th comment
In reply to:

davesurrey: So much hate against 110! No one said it was better than 135 or 120 or any other format. No one said it was marketed to change the World of photography. The reality is that it put affordable, easy to use photography into the hands of the everyday person. And for that it was a success.

If I had given my parents anything other than a 110 they would hardly have used it. The photos I have today of them and their travels would not have existed. In fact some of my photographs on trips to places where my OM1, OM2 and assorted lenses might have put me at risk of mugging were only possible as I carried my Pentax Auto 110.

It’s very similar to the situation today when folk carry their camera phones and take shots which they might never have taken before.

Not everyone is a camera junky and feels the way most of us here on DPR do. In fact most people don’t…which may come as shock horror to some.

I agree! 110 was a fine format, so was 126. At the basic end, these cameras captured millions of moments and create millions of small prints and slides (if not more). At the higher end, they could rival 35mm for sophistication.

There were dual cartridge/easy loading films before 126 and 110. 126 and 110 made loading film fool proof and created a standard design.

Where the "problem" was for 110 and 126 was there was no pressure plate to hold the film flat. There was no film tension either. The film was just "there". Add the simple meniscus lenses on the basic cameras and they pretty relied on depth of field and focus to get a decently sharp image. At the same time, people were getting used to 4X6 after years of smaller prints. It was a design compromise.

Still, it was better than Disk.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2021 at 15:36 UTC

There were some great 110 cameras. The Pentax A110 and Super, the Minolta Zooms, come to mind because they pushed the boundaries or design.

110 was easy to handle in a minilab. It was only a little trickier in a pro-lab. At most I needed a carrier, a recessed lens mount and a shorter focal length lens on the enlarger.

As for home processing, yes a tank and reel are ideal for room light processing, but you can tray/tank process the film in the dark. A 24 exposure is approx. 24" long. With a little care the film won't scratch.

Where 110 fell short was film. The newer, finer grained emulsions came later.

Now, why Kodak didn't use 16mm and 35mm stock in a cartridge I have no clue. Kodak did like to "create" new proprietary film formats and proprietary cameras often.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2021 at 14:05 UTC as 21st comment

I don't completely agree with some of the generalizations, like "expensive" and "difficult". There are plastic/simple 120 cameras and loading and unloading is less problematic than 35mm (in general). Small and medium format will require an enlarger (and darkroom) if you plan to print at home.

As for large format, I'm not sure where the "difficult" part is. Yes, loading the film holders takes a little practice, but it's easy to master. True the film is more expensive, but it's a more deliberate shooting style so you use less of it. On the plus side you can contact print large format. Not enlarging equipment needed. Here's a fun option: you can use printing paper in a large format camera, make paper negatives, and contact print those.

Link | Posted on May 28, 2021 at 22:36 UTC as 9th comment | 1 reply

There's also copies of their straps and connectors. The "knock-off" market is nothing new. Amazon has turned into a flea market and you have to be very careful about who you're actually buying from. If I want something from Peak Design I order from Peak Design.

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2021 at 11:49 UTC as 97th comment
In reply to:

BrentSchumer: JIP = RIP.

Maybe Panasonic can buy their M43 PDAF IP?

I don't think Panasonic struggles, exactly. They've got a nice lineup between still and video and the Leica connection. They're just not a high volume, big marketing, brand like Canon, Nikon, or Sony.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2021 at 01:05 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): my favorite story is Olympus and Panasonic had a deal that Olympus would stay out of making video centric cameras. According to the story that is why despite the industry leading IBIS, Olympus video is so poorly implemented. Specifications like 4K 60p would be easy since one camera already shoots 60 fps full sensor resolution.
And one of the results of this sale is it frees up the new company to compete in video and implement all the things Olympus contractually held back.
Do I believe it? I put it at an 8% chance of being real, 92% of being fake. Is that over optimistic? 😎
But it makes a great story..

I wasn't aware Olympus sold any video cameras made by anyone. I was a big, loyal, Olympus user but something went "off" when they went to digital. I'll leave that there.

I hope they do well with a new owner. I hope they can bring back that "magic" from the old days. So many brands have gone away...

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2021 at 00:59 UTC
Total: 99, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »