Lives in United States Vicksburg, United States
Works as a Retired and free
Has a website at worldofdecay.blogspot.com
Joined on May 5, 2007


Total: 311, 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:

trungtran: Some things are just best left alone. Film cameras are cool to handle, but frankensteining it has too many compromises.

Maybe the focus should be directed at the film.
Surely we can make a cheaper film that performs just as well and has more than 36 exposures to the roll.

In the early 1980s, Ilford did sell a 72 exposure thin film. You needed a different back for the Leica R4. The thin film did not sell well, as I recall. I do not know if Nikon, Canon, or other companies sold the special back's for their cameras.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 03:07 UTC
On article Here's why your beloved film SLR is never going digital (281 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wye Photography: There would be nothing more I would like more than my Leica R8 going digital. Oh! Wait! It can!

Do any of the Module R units still work? I recall they had battery issues. They were a cool idea.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 18:04 UTC
On article Here's why your beloved film SLR is never going digital (281 comments in total)
In reply to:

CameraTolerantGuy: Leica Digital Modul R actually worked well...

It was superb optical quality, especially with the Leica R lenses. But the entire package was really expensive. In effect, they created a repaceable back camera, like the Hasselblad V system. The missing component with the Leica R system was lack of auto focus lenses. It is ironic that the R lenses are prized now, but often used on digital bodies.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 15:30 UTC
On article Here's why your beloved film SLR is never going digital (281 comments in total)
In reply to:

Chris2210: What would be more practical is the development of a modular digital camera in which certain components - the sensor, the image processor, the tracking module and so on - might be replaceable. That will never happen with a major camera manufacturer for much the same reason as their willingness to develop a solution which would allow you to prolong the lifespan of any old kit.

That sounds like a Hasselblad V system.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 15:24 UTC
In reply to:

thx1138: Is there a Darwein award for setting back the cause of technology.

It could also be called K-12 education in the United States.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 01:24 UTC
In reply to:

JackM: This might be the single stupidest idea I've ever seen wash over the transom of this website in the 14 years I've been reading it.

If they had actually invented a digital film cartridge that would fit in any 35mm camera, I'd buy one instantly for my old Pentax MX.

The "digital film cartridge" has been a dream for 20 years. I would like one, too. But it may never work for normal 135-film cameras for two major reasons: 1. The need for electrical power; and 2. The narrow spacing between the film gate and the film pressure plate. Leica tried something like this with their Digital Back R in 2005, but it was incredibly expensive and did not sell well (but optical quality was excellent). The best choice now is probably one of the digital backs for a Hasselblad V system. There, you take off the entire film back and replace it with the digital unit.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2017 at 16:12 UTC
In reply to:

mgatov: Is PSE still only 16 bit?

Do you mean 8-bit? On the version I use, you can import and convert a raw file into a 16-bit TIFF file. During the import, you can do some minor adjustments like rotate (straighten a horizon), modify contrast and exposure, and a few other things, and retain the 16-bit file. But most of the Elements function convert the file to 8-bit. For that reason, I seldom use Elements.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2017 at 16:25 UTC
In reply to:

tangbunna: anyone has sold a car to buy this incomplete hustle-blade ?

Gee, that was so clever of you. Don't worry, no one is making you buy one of these backs.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2017 at 21:20 UTC
In reply to:

LaurenceSvirchev: "...the 28mm F2.8 IS USM made me slow down and focus on my compositions more."

Sorry, equipment does not result in 'slowing down' unless the photographer is unfamiliar with the gear. Focusing on the composition is the essence of photography, the result of mental discipline and 'pre-visioning'. Seasoned photographers each have their own work methods depending on the situation they are photographing.

You know what the author meant. With one fixed focal length lens, he had to think about exactly what he wanted to place in each frame and how he was going to handle the juxtaposition of near and far elements. It is a different way of seeing than using a zoom lens. So yes, using one lens probably did get him to "slow down and focus on my compositions more."

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2017 at 21:18 UTC
In reply to:

MrBrightSide: Time for a big story about scanners vs film holder and a macro lens, but in the meantime whatever happened to those Nikon scanners everyone used to have under their desks? They were about the size of a Mac Pro if I recall.

The Nikon scanners, when new, were great. Some died from electronic failures, and some were scrapped when their owners decided "film is dead" or just no longer wanted them. The ones for sale on ePrey often do not have film holders, SCSI cards, and various other issues. The sellers claim untested and want major prices for them. Or, they claim "good condition" but clearly have absolutely no idea if the units work or not. If you have an older computer that will accept a SCSI card, there are old SCSI Nikon and Minolta scanners that may be worth buying if the price is low. Maybe they will work; maybe they will not.

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2017 at 15:39 UTC
In reply to:

john Clinch: Why would digital photography review be keeping an eye on this

Why would you waste time writing a comment like this?

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2017 at 16:52 UTC
In reply to:

Aaron801: It seems like there ought to be new film cameras available since there are still folks out there using film and film is certainly still available. Still, I think that if I were to go back to shooting fi;m a lot of the fun would be to buy and use older cameras that I could never have afforded back in the day, but are now really cheap on the used market. I can't imagine wanting to shoot film with a new camera...

But if your rich uncle gave you a Leica M-A, you might enjoy it.....

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2017 at 12:21 UTC
In reply to:

Peiasdf: How come these hipsters aren't more interested in sending handwritten letters and listening to 8 tracks. It is always a vintage record player and a film camera without lens cap and covered in patina.

I am pretty sure I saw one wearing an old Canon with stuck aperture the other day on the subway heading to Midtown (NY).

Gee, you are so clever to use the term "hipsters" when referring to film. And hipsters, in your mind are what? Are Leica users in their 60s hipsters?

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2017 at 21:26 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Sigma SD1 (231 comments in total)
In reply to:

hikerdoc: As you read the comments it seems the detractors and defenders of this camera have one thing in common, most of them have never used it.

Well that minor oversight never affected the "experts" who make profound comments and pronouncements here on Dpreview.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2017 at 01:49 UTC
On article The 7 Commandments of Great Photo Walks (125 comments in total)

No. 6 is chimping. It suggests you were not confident of your technique or vision. Alternative: take a film camera.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2017 at 18:05 UTC as 54th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: So far - the people here do not seem to like this. Just saying.

The readers of Dpreview are probably more educated, more technically attuned, and comfortable financially than the run-of-the-mill FB user, so it makes sense that the readers here is suspicious. But consider, many of these "free" FB and other social media add-ons are targeted at lowest common denominator computer/phone users, or (and I consider this cruelly devious and slimy) at kids who do not yet know any better.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2017 at 19:38 UTC
In reply to:

Bobthearch: So a special app designed primarily for advertising to myself?
Sorry Kodak, I don't get it.

Do you also have an app for repeatedly poking myself in the eye?

Well, you don't get it, and neither do I. But I bet millions will think this is so clever and will actually buy cr@p from that site. After all, they uploaded their photos and personal information to facebook. They seem to like targeted advertisements based on mysterious algorithms, and even worse, believe the "news" that has been targeted to them.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2017 at 18:10 UTC

This bokeh business is the trendy fad of the early 2000s for digital photographers. Back in the 1970s, '80s, and '90s, I remember almost no one mooning about bokeh. Many 135 and medium format lenses then used 5-blade irises. Many of those were slightly curved, so a stopped-down lens had an almost circular opening. Did anyone complain about the "bokeh" from Hasselblad or Rolleiflex pictures? However, it's possible film responds differently, and maybe the sterility of today's perfect digital lenses indicates a need to consider bokeh. Or maybe that is just another techno-statistic that certain photographers fuss about.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 19:36 UTC as 19th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Mariano Pacifico: Leica is a luxury brand. Meaning, it is to be bought to be showed off not to be used for its IQ.

This is the typical doofy statement from a Leica-hater. Plenty of serious photographers use Leicas, both digital and film, and take great photographs. And they don't care if you think the purchases are for showoff or use.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2017 at 15:32 UTC

Does anyone know if the filter companies bond the glass to the polarizing film? Or do they buy the sandwich of glass and film from one of several major optical factories, such as Hoya? Bonding is a complicated technology, and I could believe that only a few companies on earth can do it.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 23:43 UTC as 11th comment
Total: 311, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »