Picturenaut

Picturenaut

Lives in Frankfurt am Main
Works as a science journalist
Has a website at www.roland-wengenmayr.de
Joined on Jun 1, 2010
About me:

Love to shoot wildlife, birds, animals, macros of insects and spiders, plus street and portrait of people (I like to draw portraits too).

Comments

Total: 177, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

kelstertx: Why are Polaroid pictures always so brown? Perfect example used in article! :)

original color Polaroids weren't brown but had wonderful skin tones. What you see here is Impossible film, its colors are still no match for original Polaroids - but they are improving.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2017 at 14:09 UTC
In reply to:

Woodman411: It's easy to see mirrorless overtaking the casual, consumer segment of the market, which is probably the largest market segment. The question is the enthusiast/pro segment, where fast lenses are still relatively large and heavy regardless of body type. Sony is making a case for mirrorless with the a7/a9 series, but attach a fast zoom to it (like the popular 70-200 f/2.8), and there's not much difference in overall size and iq compared to Canikon.

@ T3: its great that Sony chases Canikon but please keep in mind that pros are able to track faces by themselves (a good photographer is able to do this). I doubt that they want to leave the decision which face should be in focus just to the camera, even it is made by Sony ;-)

Its not only the camera, its the lenses, the system, so I doubt that pros will quickly switch. But Sony is pushing hardly, and that's finally good news for all users. The old camera makers can't rest on their laurels anymore in 5-years-cycles...

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2017 at 13:59 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (805 comments in total)

Recently I realized that my thumb automatically seeks for the winder when I grabbed one of my digital cameras... OMG is this film fever? My current drugs are: new Mamiya 6 MF system (all three lenses are georgous), Canon 7 1960s rangefinder with a set of lenses, 1954 Kodak Retina IIIc (meter still works) - real form follows function stuff, no digital retro fake, such a joy to shoot with, slow food of photography. CLICK!

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 20:18 UTC as 56th comment
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (805 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cyril Reif: I still have my Olympus XA, as well as my first 35mm, a Kodak Retina IIIc. I also still have my Nikon F Photomic FTn and N70.

The great thing about the Canon 7 is that it is the most modern camera you can get for the old M39 Leica screw mount, so this allows to use vintage lenses. Btw some of Canon's RF lenses for the "7" are very good, quite sharp, nice contrast, so they deliver a modern look.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 19:55 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (805 comments in total)
In reply to:

Einride: Nikon FM2 is the best 35mm SLR camera ever made.

At least the FM-2 is a very reliable 35mm SLR. We have three bodys, and my wife took only an FM-2 with her when she was over winter in Siberia. She didn't trust her digital Nikons, and she didn't want to rely on any batteries. Even if the metering of the FM-2 would have been dead she could have worked around that with her experience. But that wasn't necessary, the FM-2 worked flawlessly at -40 °C and below.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 19:50 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (805 comments in total)
In reply to:

goblin: DPR, I feel indeed strongly about you spendin I don't know how many pages out of 10 to the FD mount. This is a mount'a been dead'a for 30 years, and is a sign of what's wrong with this article:

- Photography is mostly lenses

- Lenses do age (yes, they do. Even mechanical ones).

- When recommending a system to have fun with - resale value be damned - the FD system is the worst possible. Aside from not being better than the others, it consists mostly of bodies which had a lot of electronics for their time, which is by now failing (the AE-1, specifically, has that beautiful shutter squeak).

Of course, all these concerns can be voided if you had mentioned the correct monster to use with this system: The Canon T-90

- The best film system is the one still made: Nikon still sells film cameras (B&H has them). There are also numerous brand new Vivitar clones (Phoenix, as well as said FM-10) in Nikon mount.

- Voigtlander is still out there, with amazing products.

To be continued :)

SirSeth, are you happy with your FD 500mm f/4.5 L? I have an EF 500mm f/4.5 L USM that is already a vintage lens now, and it is still a great performer.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 20:02 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (805 comments in total)

The eye-controlled focus does not work if you wear glasses. I have an EOS 3 and I have given up to try to calibrate it after various attempts. But it's no drawback, you don't really need that feature. Otherwise all better SLRs of those last analogue generation(s) of Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Olympus, Pentax... are very reliable tools (if you get a good copy). In particular the metering is very good. We also have two Nikon F90X in working condition. The only drawback of all those better SLRs are its motor film winders that are quite noisy and really can disturb.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 19:59 UTC as 99th comment
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (805 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cyril Reif: I still have my Olympus XA, as well as my first 35mm, a Kodak Retina IIIc. I also still have my Nikon F Photomic FTn and N70.

Nice cameras, Cyril, keep them going :-). The only drawback of the IIIc (small c) is its tiny, dark viewfinder. I have one and use it, but side by side with my vintage Canon 7's (I have two bodies) and my New Mamiya 6 system, those more modern cameras are a huge leap in usability. The viewfinders of the Canon 7 rangefinders come close to a Leica M6's viewfinder (which still is a tad better).

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 19:46 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (805 comments in total)
In reply to:

goblin: DPR, I feel indeed strongly about you spendin I don't know how many pages out of 10 to the FD mount. This is a mount'a been dead'a for 30 years, and is a sign of what's wrong with this article:

- Photography is mostly lenses

- Lenses do age (yes, they do. Even mechanical ones).

- When recommending a system to have fun with - resale value be damned - the FD system is the worst possible. Aside from not being better than the others, it consists mostly of bodies which had a lot of electronics for their time, which is by now failing (the AE-1, specifically, has that beautiful shutter squeak).

Of course, all these concerns can be voided if you had mentioned the correct monster to use with this system: The Canon T-90

- The best film system is the one still made: Nikon still sells film cameras (B&H has them). There are also numerous brand new Vivitar clones (Phoenix, as well as said FM-10) in Nikon mount.

- Voigtlander is still out there, with amazing products.

To be continued :)

You can get very good vintage lenses. I shoot e.g. with a 1954 Kodak Retina IIIc with a georgous Zeiss 2/50 mm lens, or a Canon 7 rangefinder with three lenses that still perform nicely.

Here is one I made with the vintage Kodak:

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6385346624/photos/3520227/frankfurt-street-with-a-1954-rangefinder

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 19:42 UTC
On article Hopes of Kodachrome relaunch put on ice (173 comments in total)
In reply to:

KrisAK: Kodak filed for bankruptcy and reorganized. The folks now running the company have almost nothing to do with Kodak of old.

These recent announcements about reviving Ektachrome, Kodachrome and Super-8 are all coming from the same Marketing department of the "New" Kodak, headed by an executive who three years ago was a Brand Strategist for Nokia. One of their first initiatives was to create a Kodak camera phone...talk about irony...to help folks more readily share digital images. Makes sense because, you know, film's dead.

These recent efforts, it seems to me, are a frankly cynical attempt to shake-out the pockets of whatever brand equity is left in that name.

Yes its really confusing with those two Kodak companies, but indeed KA is now important for film shooters. But KA unfortunately seems not to be a really stable company. Well, the film market is recovering slowly but still small.

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2017 at 21:49 UTC
In reply to:

zakaria: GFX is the Pentax 645 killer if Pentax dosnt take it seriously and create their own MF mirrorless.

@turvyT it really depends on the setting. I use both digital and analogue SLRs and two vintage analoge rangefinders (one is a 1954 Kodak Retina IIIc). In most cases the mirror slap is no issue, but sometimes I appreciate silence. But there is another thing that attracts people, unfortunately also in a negative way, and that's when I use my Canon gear with a white lens, they think I am a reporter (in fact I am one, but a science reporter). They pose either too much or they start to get angry, even aggressive. With my Mamiya, despite it is quit big, I never make that weird experience, people do much less notice that I shoot.

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2017 at 21:36 UTC
In reply to:

Mariano Pacifico: Fujifilm purveyor of retro classic digital cameras. I'm lovin' it! Life is good!

There are no classical digital cameras. For everyone still grown up with real analogue cameras designed by the classical rule "form follows function", the retro look of digital cameras is just fake. They are pretending to be what they are not. They are like VW's New Beetle car or hipster glasses, just fake. Retro look is a sentimental remniscence of a world that doesn't exist anymore.

A digital camera should not pretend to be designed in the 50s IMO. It should follow modern design rules with better knowledge about ergonomics, e.g. offer a better grip for the right hand.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2017 at 08:34 UTC
In reply to:

zakaria: GFX is the Pentax 645 killer if Pentax dosnt take it seriously and create their own MF mirrorless.

@turvyT "There are still people who prefer a mirror, in MF too." That's true, but the slap of those big mirrors is a real issue if you want to do street photography or shoot settings in which you do not want people to be distracted or attracted by the camera. That's why I love to use my Mamiya 6 rangefinder, despite it is not a small camera it is sort of stealthy, people stay completely relaxed. Plus, I can shoot hand-held down to about 1/30 s because its silent leaf shutter produces no vibes. You just hear a very decent "click", that's it. So a rangefinder (or a digital ML) has to offer serious advantages, besides the smaller volume of the camera body.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2017 at 08:22 UTC

'If mirrorless interchangeable lens camera is too big as a rangefinder style, a fixed lens camera could be smaller, like the GF670.’
Just think about Mamiya's fantastic New 6 or 7 cameras with interchangeable lenses - or the old Fujica G690 series is still popular on eBay. Those cameras aren't too big for enthusiasts, and the lenses are quite compact - and the image size is with 60mm x 60/70/90 mm much bigger than the sensor of the new GFX 50. I'd love to see such a digital MF rangefinder, ideally with a modern hybrid viewfinder, with a small interchangeable lens system on the market. This market will be not too big, of course, but it could attract e.g. Leica users.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2017 at 08:08 UTC as 6th comment

Beautiful "small" MF folder camera, no doubt. I'd love to try one despite I prefer systems with interchangeable lenses. If you check the crazy prices of severely (ab)used Plaubel Makinas on eBay, you know immediately that the GF670 is reasonably priced. It'l be sold easily... Such a camera is a longterm invest, and given the fact that a better FF digital body that many replace after 3 yrs costs more (w/o a lens), it's a bargain.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2017 at 09:00 UTC as 13th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

MaxFury: This is totally pointless.
But on the other hand in a weird way I'm kinda glad film is not dead.
It's like your grandpa still hanging around and being charming and what not.

Funny thing is that I watch more and more young people using film. It is sort of hip... in fact, if every push of the button costs you some bucks, you start thinking more carefully (like in the old times) before you do it. Another thrill is that you have to wait until you see the result, another thrill...

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2017 at 08:48 UTC
In reply to:

Tim Gander: Of course all this film resurgence could grind to a halt if new, properly decent film cameras don't come back into production. I'd be interested to know if Nikon, Canon, or anyone is seriously considering re-tooling for that. I could buy a Leica M, but err...

@ Josh Leavitt: sorry for the late reply, I am not so much interested in DPR anymore ... you wrote "even at the raw materials price that he charges for a build ($2,000), it's a steal compared to shelling out $15 per roll for mail-in 120 film development. I imagine this thing could retail for as little as $299 if manufactured to economies of scale." In fact, I've seen this filmomat and talked with its inventor, a nice young guy. He builds every copy by hand, does the marketing, visits exhibitions etc. ... so I think this price is reasonable (a FF digital camera costs about that, a short lifetime product!). Of course, a sort of "mass production" by a big company would make it cheaper, but I am pretty sure we do not see such a product by Canon, Fuji & Co. soon. If film would regain a bigger share of the enthusiast's market, maybe.

With some friends we are thinking about sharing a filmomat, which would also make sense in terms of frequent usage.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2017 at 08:42 UTC
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: Ektachrome iconic? Hmmm... What am I missing? :)

As to this all film resurgence business, yes there is a trend, but I do not see it to be terribly long-lasting. At this point digital is better, easier, faster and, what is really important for professionals, cheaper. Anyone who used to burn through 100 rolls of 120 film per month knows what I am talking about.

Film will not die, yet I am not running to buy Kodak stock on the assumption that the company starts raking money by selling Ektachrome :)

the difference between shooting digital and analogue is like the one between fast and slow food.

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2017 at 22:42 UTC
In reply to:

WGVanDyck: While I enjoy the primal satisfaction of film, there are economic aspects to be taken into account. Particularly, when discussing a slide film like Ektachrome. Fuji Provia (no price on Ektachrome yet) in a 5 roll pack (36 exp/roll) costs $49.95, with free shipping. Processing and scanning it at a pro lab, two rolls at a time (to save on shipping) costs $60.68. And, a used Nikon F100 would run $200.00. But, when looking at these costs a question arises: At what point does the cost of using film equal the purchase price of a good full frame DSLR like Nikon’s D750? Interestingly, it’s at 43 rolls of film (1548 photos).

Nikon D750 with pro level 64GB SD card: $1929.90
Nikon F100: $200.00
Film cost per roll: $9.99
Processing, scanning and shipping per roll: $30.34
Total cost per roll: $40.33

(1929.90 - 200.00) / 40.33 = 42.89

It is possible to be a little more economical with processing, but it is not going to be a significant change.

@ WGVanDyck: you can add all those gorgeous analogue mid format cameras available for little money. Even the more fancy ones are affordable. I got a complete New Mamiya 6 set with three lenses for less than 2000 Euros from Japan, used but very good condition. For a new Hasselblad X1D, which is a sort of digital equivalent, you pay here about 9500 Euros for the body only - and it's sensor is much smaller than the Mamiya' s 6 cm x 6 cm format!

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2017 at 22:36 UTC
In reply to:

Tim Gander: Of course all this film resurgence could grind to a halt if new, properly decent film cameras don't come back into production. I'd be interested to know if Nikon, Canon, or anyone is seriously considering re-tooling for that. I could buy a Leica M, but err...

@ Josh Leavitt: "Something also needs to be done to address the convenience factor of digital versus film. Printer manufacturers need to produce an affordable desk-size film processor that can process the film rolls into negatives, and then do high-res scans for large format printing."

Here's step one: a fully atomically working desktop lab, works both for 135 and 120 color film rolls:
http://www.diyphotography.net/the-filmomat-is-a-homemade-automated-film-processing-machine/
The you need only a separate film scanner and a printer...

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2017 at 22:27 UTC
Total: 177, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »