citizenlouie

Joined on Jan 25, 2012

Comments

Total: 177, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Here's why your beloved film SLR is never going digital (281 comments in total)
In reply to:

Scottelly: The main problem is demand. If there were tens of thousands of people who wanted to replace the back of their Nikon F3 with a digital back, then it would be done, but that's not going to happen. The vast majority of Nikon F3 owners have found that the Nikon D700 or D750 is a perfectly good camera, so they wouldn't dream of spending $2,000 for a full-frame digital back for their F3. The same goes for every fantastic old film camera out there. There might be a few hundred or a few thousand people who would be willing to pay a decent amount of money for such a device, but the vast majority of people who have an old film camera, that they really like, would not spend more than a few hundred dollars for a digital back to convert it to digital.

That's all there is to the equation - not enough demand.

Think about it. Someone spent $1,000 for a camera, got years of use out of it, built a nice system of lenses for it, and now they have a good digital camera. Will they convert the old camera?

I am a seasoned film shooter. I've scanned my own film myself, which I don't do it nowadays because it takes a lot of time and the result is still not as sharp as digital at even 3MP. Your photos show a lot of artifacts, which is something film will never really beat digital. That said, film just has a lot of different characters, but resolution isn't one of it. In fact, the lack of sharpness and resolution are what make some of those charms, and that's what I was trying to say in my original post. Not everything is quantitative, and that's something most people don't quite understand. I have Olympus 35 SP myself. While I love that camera, but it's not a camera to show off sharpness (OM, film version or digital reincarnation both beat that camera). The fun of shooting with that camera is the degree of innovation embedded to it.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 00:37 UTC
On article Here's why your beloved film SLR is never going digital (281 comments in total)
In reply to:

Scottelly: The main problem is demand. If there were tens of thousands of people who wanted to replace the back of their Nikon F3 with a digital back, then it would be done, but that's not going to happen. The vast majority of Nikon F3 owners have found that the Nikon D700 or D750 is a perfectly good camera, so they wouldn't dream of spending $2,000 for a full-frame digital back for their F3. The same goes for every fantastic old film camera out there. There might be a few hundred or a few thousand people who would be willing to pay a decent amount of money for such a device, but the vast majority of people who have an old film camera, that they really like, would not spend more than a few hundred dollars for a digital back to convert it to digital.

That's all there is to the equation - not enough demand.

Think about it. Someone spent $1,000 for a camera, got years of use out of it, built a nice system of lenses for it, and now they have a good digital camera. Will they convert the old camera?

I think you got the general idea right on the financial aspect, but it's not just for Nikon SLRs. But I think most people with digital as their first camera nowadays fails to understand the charm of film SLRs. Film gears won't be sharp like digital. If people want sharpness or dynamic range, most advanced P&S digital or some high end camera phone will do a better job. If you from freedom to choose your own color, digital will do a better job. However, it's the final output, and the way film SLRs operate (manually, mechanically, and intuitively) that attracts film folks. It doesn't help most film folks don't know how to articulate why silver halide processing looks better than digital interpolation. It's not about resolution, because film look is very lo-fi, but how silver halide organically forms with adjacent particles when exposed to light, rather than showing noise, it shows grains. Most art people aren't good at science, which may cause the communication issue.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 15:15 UTC
On article Here's why your beloved film SLR is never going digital (281 comments in total)

Richard's article says there are these obstacle yet to be addressed:

1. Sensor/film plane alignment
2. Compatibility across the dwindling supply of film SLRs
3. Space for batteries and processing hardware

In the video (in the official Kickstarter site, not Nikon Rumors), it appears I'm Back does provide a mean to do #1 (manually adjust) and #2 (it has a moving part to affix it to the tripod mount). #3 can be easily addressed (that thing is huge, like the original Kodak DCS back for Nikon). I think the problem is, after fixing all those part into place, it's just as large as a Nikon D5, which diminishes a lot of the charm of the film SLRs. And with the current prototype (as of 10-11-17) it seems to me the final product will be 3D printed....

I think the main purpose though, is to allow some people already with a large collection of film gears to use their lenses. I've adopted some film lenses to m4/3 mount, and I think film lenses aren't designed for digital and result is poor.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 15:01 UTC as 79th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

LEGACYMOMENTSPHOTOGRAPHY: Tiny sensor, no point. I get the idea but do it like Fuji, have it on a menu for diff styles.

I think both of you probably have never shot films..., therefore not getting why people would buy such camera. People who would buy such camera usually are film shooters, and analog photos have pretty low resolution, and that doesn't really bother film shooter, because they're looking for characters of the final output, rather than technicality of the cameras. Film shooters usually prefer more involvements with their creation, rather than automation. While this camera is a shutter priority camera, but it still makes their users THINK. It states very clearly in the Kickstarter page of this product that without the delete button, it makes its users think more carefully how to frame their photos. If you have ever shot with a film camera, you need to pre-visualize your photos and evaluate if a photo can be made with that particular frame, whether the lighting is feasible, because you don't want to waste a costly film frame. Adding operation un-intuitiveness slows down creativity.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 04:43 UTC
In reply to:

fullstop: Some people are impressed enough to back the product so there is a method to the madness. It has a nostalgia hands on appeal and there is a heap of smartphone photographers who just want a new experience, good on them and I bet they have a heap of fun

@fmaxwell

I hear you, but this is a $150 camera. It's probably a $30 camera to produce, but they have to pay for the small volume production and R&D. If they made it with your specs, the cost will probably pass onto the consumers and it'll be a $500 camera..., which would make the volume even lower, and ergo the production cost would be even higher per unit..., and it might not even get funded (i.e., would you buy a $500 low specs fake film camera, despite having great workmanship? $150 yes, $500 is a no for me).

I'd love to see a faster lens though. Original Yashica 35 GSN is a 45mm f/1.7, probably a simple Planar clone. 35mm focal length with f/2.8 is okay on a 35mm format, but this is a 1/3.2" sensor.... Holga got it right with 43mm despite being f/13, but Holga uses "Full Frame" film.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 04:26 UTC
In reply to:

deep7: This could be fun. Real film has got ludicrously expensive to process round here. I hope it does well for them. Maybe not for me, though. A lot of the charm with film cameras (the earlier ones anyway) was in the build/engineering and I can't see that being great at this price!

Leica built a digital rangefinder with no screen for reviewing/deleting. That one was a tad pricier...

You are thinking out loud and basically answered why some of us would love to see how this Yashica works. I'd love to buy a Leica Monochrome myself, but the price tag is just a bit inhibiting (and you need to buy super expensive lenses on top of that already expensive camera body). This Yashica is just $150, so you can have fun with it without breaking the bank. Yeah, film processing is pretty expensive nowadays. $52 for two rolls of film processed and scanned to high resolution (btw, high res film scan is still far lower than 14MP, usually just 5-8 MP for 35mm films). Film itself is about anywhere between $3 to $15 per roll depends on which film you use.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 04:05 UTC
In reply to:

Toselli: I won't add what I think it's wrong with this camera, there's plenty of comments, but I'd like to know how the "digital cartridges" work: the sensor seems to be fixed, same for the lens and the memory card, so it seems that there isn't anything functional inside of them. Can they just be a piece of plastic that pushes some pins to set the iso and the colour / black and white?

Since it doesn't look like there is a memory card slot inside the camera body, so I would think the cartridge works as a memory card reader, with a USB port. It probably has a processing engine inside it so it will add grain profiles before the camera record the image into the memory card.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 03:53 UTC
In reply to:

citizenlouie: The project is already fully funded and I opted for the cheap option. I think it'll be fun to shoot again without knowing what the result would be like until you brought the cartridge home and develop it (by connecting to the USB port) since there is no LCD screen in the back. Just wish the viewfinder is big enough and rangefinder is accurate and parallax corrected. 1/3.2" sensor is kind of small for 14 megapixels..., and it really should have f/1.4.... I don't mind if they released a 8MP or 5MP version. But ideally, it would be fun to have a 1" sensor with 8 or 10MP, which would not increase the size too much but will give much prettier photos. But I guess it's because it uses only 2 AA batteries so they have to opt for the small sensor.

EDIT: And they forgot to put the atomic symbol on the camera to look like the real Yashica 35!

@Mistral75.

Minimum focusing distance is 1M not 2M, so there is still room for focusing. A P&S rangefinder camera I use once a while is an Olympus 35 ECR, which is similar in concept (except it's a real film camera) and it has a rangefinder.... Zone focusing yes, but it still has a rangefinder. And where does it say it's plastic? This thing costs $150, which I am sure they can use some inexpensive metal chassis (which most cheap P&S's from 60's and 70's often used). Most of the cost for the production is R&D, not materials. This camera has inexpensive innards....

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 03:34 UTC

The project is already fully funded and I opted for the cheap option. I think it'll be fun to shoot again without knowing what the result would be like until you brought the cartridge home and develop it (by connecting to the USB port) since there is no LCD screen in the back. Just wish the viewfinder is big enough and rangefinder is accurate and parallax corrected. 1/3.2" sensor is kind of small for 14 megapixels..., and it really should have f/1.4.... I don't mind if they released a 8MP or 5MP version. But ideally, it would be fun to have a 1" sensor with 8 or 10MP, which would not increase the size too much but will give much prettier photos. But I guess it's because it uses only 2 AA batteries so they have to opt for the small sensor.

EDIT: And they forgot to put the atomic symbol on the camera to look like the real Yashica 35!

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2017 at 19:14 UTC as 179th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Tom Schum: Things I wish they would think about, from the viewpoint of a Fuji mirrorless user:
Weather resistant build. Fuji has some of these now, bodies and lenses.
Detachable rear LCD (usually I don't need it because the EVF is that good). Too soon to expect this kind of innovation though.
Short flange distance goes without saying.
Big battery. Fuji and most others have smaller batteries that don't run for long.
Functional adapters for legacy lenses (Fuji makes only one so far as I know, an excellent M-mount adapter). Nikon would have to do at least two, so all legacy Nikon lenses would be supported (full manual in the worst case, but supported without leaving the Nikon garden).
I hope they will decide to leave video out of the equation, or produce a strictly video alternative.
Small lenses please! Fuji has only recently started with some of these and the idea is a very good one. Nikon needs only one lens to get the mirrorless product going, then users will use adapters.

@Tom Schum Well, Olympus cameras can already do that for years.... Like mentioned before, it's the WiFi bandwidth issue. You can either choose to let the smartphone to work as a remote, or Liveview to compose, and with Liveview mode, you can choose either the quality priority mode or speed priority mode (not both) since the WiFi bandwidth is limited. If you just don't need LCD, very simple, just turn the articulating LCD screen so the screen facing inside, so you don't see the LCD. Rear LCD for Olympus cameras are not merely convenience..., but part of the control of your camera. Nikon really has no faith in LCD so it really doesn't make LCD an integral part of the camera control like Olympus does.... Which is why Nikon Df's LCD screen really doesn't really do much other than for showing Menu items.... I wouldn't miss Df's LCD screen given the way Nikon implement it.... Actually it would make Df behave more like a film camera...

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2017 at 06:16 UTC
In reply to:

citizenlouie: I briefly tried Nikon DF, but the reason I went back to Olympus is because the UI is clunky and outdated (requires a lot of button pressing for simple tasks, and no touchscreen) and the fact the lenses are expensive (if you want pro quality lenses, regular line of lenses are much cheaper than Olympus's however). If DF successor is mirrorless, why should I switch from Olympus when cost of switching platforms is so prohibitively high? If I were to go for Olympus/Nikon dual platform, they must be very differentiated. I.e., Olympus when I need small and fast (mirrorless) and Nikon when I need a larger sensor and an OVF+PDAF for certain calculated and slower work (OVF is vital when you use a polarizing filter). DF also doesn't have an articulating screen, which means I wouldn't use that camera when I need to use a tripod. To Nikon DF's credit, it is pretty small for a FF size camera. It has potential, but execution is clunky. The image is pretty, reminds me of old Olympus cameras.

Because EVF automatically compensates for exposure, which actually makes it difficult to observe the real effect of polarizing filter under strong sun light. If you have ever used that combination, you'd know.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2017 at 05:43 UTC

Nice photos. Some are better than others, but of course it's that way. But in general, emotion is captured. Some are more sensual (Sasha Dudkina, Adeolu Osibodu, and Robert Torrontegui's photos) and some are more technical (Guiga Pira, Denise Kwong).

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 02:23 UTC as 16th comment
In reply to:

Tom Schum: Things I wish they would think about, from the viewpoint of a Fuji mirrorless user:
Weather resistant build. Fuji has some of these now, bodies and lenses.
Detachable rear LCD (usually I don't need it because the EVF is that good). Too soon to expect this kind of innovation though.
Short flange distance goes without saying.
Big battery. Fuji and most others have smaller batteries that don't run for long.
Functional adapters for legacy lenses (Fuji makes only one so far as I know, an excellent M-mount adapter). Nikon would have to do at least two, so all legacy Nikon lenses would be supported (full manual in the worst case, but supported without leaving the Nikon garden).
I hope they will decide to leave video out of the equation, or produce a strictly video alternative.
Small lenses please! Fuji has only recently started with some of these and the idea is a very good one. Nikon needs only one lens to get the mirrorless product going, then users will use adapters.

From Olympus user's POV.

Detachable LCD. I've thought about this too, except Olympus already came up with WiFi, so you can use your smart phone as the second screen, but the problem is bandwidth is not that great, so I'd imagine that's the tech bottleneck to overcome for detachable LCD. Nikon's WiFi is very behind competitors'.

Short Flange. The only difference between m4/3 and 4/3 is flange difference. I've used both, and I believe longer flange distance has major advantage when it comes to telecentricity, which creates a distortion-less, CA less, and more natural looking photo. Shorter flange distance obviously has size advantage, so take your pick. Personally I prefer longer flange distance for that medium format like 3-D look.

Battery. Current Nikon DF's battery life is very good.

Legacy Lenses. Nikon has it covered. I don't think it's an issue for Nikon. The only thing I dread is Nikon doesn't have an updated 135mm lens. Zeiss 135mm is very expensive and MF only.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 00:18 UTC

I briefly tried Nikon DF, but the reason I went back to Olympus is because the UI is clunky and outdated (requires a lot of button pressing for simple tasks, and no touchscreen) and the fact the lenses are expensive (if you want pro quality lenses, regular line of lenses are much cheaper than Olympus's however). If DF successor is mirrorless, why should I switch from Olympus when cost of switching platforms is so prohibitively high? If I were to go for Olympus/Nikon dual platform, they must be very differentiated. I.e., Olympus when I need small and fast (mirrorless) and Nikon when I need a larger sensor and an OVF+PDAF for certain calculated and slower work (OVF is vital when you use a polarizing filter). DF also doesn't have an articulating screen, which means I wouldn't use that camera when I need to use a tripod. To Nikon DF's credit, it is pretty small for a FF size camera. It has potential, but execution is clunky. The image is pretty, reminds me of old Olympus cameras.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 00:00 UTC as 125th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Doug Frost: Animals don't have property rights. It's highly doubtful that a monkey, or, for that matter, any animal other than Homo Sapiens, has any concept of what property rights are. And it goes without saying that PETA has no standing to file a lawsuit on that monkey's behalf. I hope Slater takes PETA to the cleaners over this insane misuse of our legal system. I'd like to think he'll win enough to retire to some tropical paradise. He's earned it.

I originally wrote my response to lighten things up. But I suppose it won't stop people from bickering to each other. I rather like how animals seems to have everything figured out. They only take what they need, attack only when they need foods. Next time, thank a cat when he/she/it decides to sit on your keyboard, because you might have typed some hurting words that you would later regret. Cats do help people to maintain their sanity, and their wisdom makes you think whether humanity has made a wrong turn.

- The author of this post is not responsible for messy liter box accident nor damages to furniture your cat causes.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2017 at 19:51 UTC
In reply to:

Doug Frost: Animals don't have property rights. It's highly doubtful that a monkey, or, for that matter, any animal other than Homo Sapiens, has any concept of what property rights are. And it goes without saying that PETA has no standing to file a lawsuit on that monkey's behalf. I hope Slater takes PETA to the cleaners over this insane misuse of our legal system. I'd like to think he'll win enough to retire to some tropical paradise. He's earned it.

Tell that to cats.... Cats certainly know property rights! Cats own a lot of things, keyboards, cardboard boxes, even humans!

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2017 at 04:12 UTC

Very well thought out concepts. Love the fact they're architects who love photography. If it were the other way around..., (especially those who care bout gears than the subjects they [couldn't] see), we might witness some really boring photos.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 00:37 UTC as 47th comment
On article TIME releases 100 most influential images of all time (165 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bruce Crossan: No Moonrise, Hernandez?

@funkag If that's the case, why no pictures of Adams's Japanese-American Internment Camp photos?

This is just a list of the Times's limited view, an opinion piece. Keep in mind Times is not exactly the authority for arts. Popular culture maybe, but not arts.

For example, the Cindy Sherman photo they picked is a popular one, but not necessarily I believe to be her most influential one.... Demi Moore photo... controversial maybe....

Keep in mind they picked these photos as influential to the society, not necessarily major contribution to the art world. Some of Adams's photos are very influential in term of how later landscape photographers shoot their photos. Adams's Yosemite shots are however, influential that they later demonstrated how important National Park System is (he was a major advocate, along with John Muir, for the NPS).

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2016 at 07:11 UTC
On photo ir1 in the Infrared challenge (2 comments in total)

Very cool image. One of my favs of this competition. The color pops. The fact it's a long exposure says a lot about your technique. The left side of the frame where the branches popped out should be cropped or photoshopped out. Just a little attention to detail issue, but it's very well-done technically. Should deserve a higher place.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2016 at 00:22 UTC as 1st comment
On photo Long Pier in the Infrared challenge (2 comments in total)

This color is fun! And I agree with you, the people added interests to your shot.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2016 at 00:17 UTC as 1st comment
Total: 177, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »