Constantin V

Lives in Russian Federation Novosibirsk, Russian Federation
Joined on Nov 6, 2016

Comments

Total: 373, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

LJ - Eljot: There is also ADOX CMS 20 wich can be used at 5 ISO:

https://www.adox.de/Photo/films/cms20ii-en/

Wich is very sharp. (they claim to be the sharpest; up to 800 l /mm)

@Rob Tupper utter bullsh1t. You clearly don't understand what you are talking about. Have you tried it yourself at least once?

@Old Cameras excuse me, are you suggesting less then 600x400 samples to estimate an 800 lpi image? There are blown shadows at the image with cars. The only thing I manage to see. Nothing about exponometry.

> ISO 8

you'll just block highlights. that's all.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2021 at 04:44 UTC
In reply to:

LJ - Eljot: There is also ADOX CMS 20 wich can be used at 5 ISO:

https://www.adox.de/Photo/films/cms20ii-en/

Wich is very sharp. (they claim to be the sharpest; up to 800 l /mm)

Yep. With dynamic range of 1.5 stops... Sharpness matter, yeh. Even if no scanner can use it.

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2021 at 07:44 UTC

Usele$$

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2021 at 07:42 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Note that 120 film tends to have flatness issues worse than 135 film. The result is that resolution typically isn't much better, but tonality is smoother (lower noise, greater dynamic range) because more film area is recording each unit of resolution. Cut sheet film tends to be fairly flat and the lenses are relatively slow, so depth-of-focus still gives lots of detail on the film... but the large volume between the lens and film often causes a drop in contrast due to light bouncing around.

It's also worth noting that "shutter shock" on modern digital cameras is nothing compared to the wallop packed by a 4x5 focal-plane shutter -- as found in the Speed Graphic. Thus, you might be better off with 4x5 press/view camera that uses the leaf shutter in the lens, for which there are many good choices: Crown Graphic, Burke & James, Busch Pressman, etc.

Also be warned that some medium-format sheet film cameras are less desirable and hard to distinguish from 4x5 in online ads.

@ProfHankD don't use the COMP mode. The idea is not to estimate general view, but pixel vs pixel (as we are talking pixels). And in 1:1 comparison bigger pixel noticeably better at 12800 ISO. Maybe you are right about video mode, but initially there were a lot of reviews praising night pushability of the sensor.

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2021 at 12:39 UTC
In reply to:

Constantin V: Common misconceptions I found in such topics are:

* Medium format gives less grain. - The grain is not a drawback these days. It's a feature. If you don't want grain, then go digital.

* "Large format gives incredible resolution" - Technically maybe. But you don't have media to use it. Nor scanner, nor print. It has merits but the resolution is not among them.

* "I went digital because ..." - Film is unique in that regards you don't mess with raw too much. You made a shot and that's it. Limited post-processing is what makes it more challenging, more true.

@TheGrammarFairy well, maybe, that's the only way. Didn't try that. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161030/128ff4612fc3f671d3aadc9b272f3997.jpg

A corner case for me.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2021 at 03:40 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Note that 120 film tends to have flatness issues worse than 135 film. The result is that resolution typically isn't much better, but tonality is smoother (lower noise, greater dynamic range) because more film area is recording each unit of resolution. Cut sheet film tends to be fairly flat and the lenses are relatively slow, so depth-of-focus still gives lots of detail on the film... but the large volume between the lens and film often causes a drop in contrast due to light bouncing around.

It's also worth noting that "shutter shock" on modern digital cameras is nothing compared to the wallop packed by a 4x5 focal-plane shutter -- as found in the Speed Graphic. Thus, you might be better off with 4x5 press/view camera that uses the leaf shutter in the lens, for which there are many good choices: Crown Graphic, Burke & James, Busch Pressman, etc.

Also be warned that some medium-format sheet film cameras are less desirable and hard to distinguish from 4x5 in online ads.

@ProHankD you don't compare apples with apples at all. That's why totally wrong conclusion. The GFX100S and your A7RII are different generation of electronics from 2019 and 2015 respectively. Please compare your A7RII 42mpx small pixel with A7S 12mpx large pixel (or A7S II). That will clearly give you an idea how it works in reality. You say smart things, but I'm not convinced.

p.s.

You don't have to tell me about different types of crystals. I understand that, but I wouldn't apply your SNR method to print as far as I don't like how you apply it to film itself.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2021 at 03:27 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Note that 120 film tends to have flatness issues worse than 135 film. The result is that resolution typically isn't much better, but tonality is smoother (lower noise, greater dynamic range) because more film area is recording each unit of resolution. Cut sheet film tends to be fairly flat and the lenses are relatively slow, so depth-of-focus still gives lots of detail on the film... but the large volume between the lens and film often causes a drop in contrast due to light bouncing around.

It's also worth noting that "shutter shock" on modern digital cameras is nothing compared to the wallop packed by a 4x5 focal-plane shutter -- as found in the Speed Graphic. Thus, you might be better off with 4x5 press/view camera that uses the leaf shutter in the lens, for which there are many good choices: Crown Graphic, Burke & James, Busch Pressman, etc.

Also be warned that some medium-format sheet film cameras are less desirable and hard to distinguish from 4x5 in online ads.

@ProfHankD, that's too fast for me.) It's a digital signal in modern cameras, alright. The more photons you collect, the less you have to amplify (amplification is a must) the signal and consequently less noise as a result of amplification as well. The medium format supposedly have a bigger photodiode. That's why you speak about SNR formula. And that's why all this BSI/stacked sensor hassle. Because characteristics of individual photodiode matters.

But on film... and we are talking film (and not print here) halide crystals reaction on light is pretty much the same. I mean they differ in size but uniformly and it's atoms react identically. And probability given the homogeneous light flow is the same for any area. That's why for area X size and area 2X size you will get the same average values. Yes, photons hit and miss roughly the same on every 1 mm both 35mm and 6x6 frame. SNR stays constant.

As for tonality I agree there approximation on bigger surface gives better results.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2021 at 15:03 UTC
In reply to:

Constantin V: Common misconceptions I found in such topics are:

* Medium format gives less grain. - The grain is not a drawback these days. It's a feature. If you don't want grain, then go digital.

* "Large format gives incredible resolution" - Technically maybe. But you don't have media to use it. Nor scanner, nor print. It has merits but the resolution is not among them.

* "I went digital because ..." - Film is unique in that regards you don't mess with raw too much. You made a shot and that's it. Limited post-processing is what makes it more challenging, more true.

If you didn't disagree, there would be no point to post. That's why I call it _common_ misconceptions. It's based however on more knowledge and experience of the subject then I think were put in the article.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2021 at 12:51 UTC
In reply to:

justmeMN: Fujifilm should make an 8" x 10" Instax camera. :-)

True. But fuji doesn't have guts for film anymore.:( Simulation is what they are after.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2021 at 05:09 UTC

Common misconceptions I found in such topics are:

* Medium format gives less grain. - The grain is not a drawback these days. It's a feature. If you don't want grain, then go digital.

* "Large format gives incredible resolution" - Technically maybe. But you don't have media to use it. Nor scanner, nor print. It has merits but the resolution is not among them.

* "I went digital because ..." - Film is unique in that regards you don't mess with raw too much. You made a shot and that's it. Limited post-processing is what makes it more challenging, more true.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2021 at 05:04 UTC as 21st comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Note that 120 film tends to have flatness issues worse than 135 film. The result is that resolution typically isn't much better, but tonality is smoother (lower noise, greater dynamic range) because more film area is recording each unit of resolution. Cut sheet film tends to be fairly flat and the lenses are relatively slow, so depth-of-focus still gives lots of detail on the film... but the large volume between the lens and film often causes a drop in contrast due to light bouncing around.

It's also worth noting that "shutter shock" on modern digital cameras is nothing compared to the wallop packed by a 4x5 focal-plane shutter -- as found in the Speed Graphic. Thus, you might be better off with 4x5 press/view camera that uses the leaf shutter in the lens, for which there are many good choices: Crown Graphic, Burke & James, Busch Pressman, etc.

Also be warned that some medium-format sheet film cameras are less desirable and hard to distinguish from 4x5 in online ads.

...lower noise, greater dynamic range... - with film DD doesn't depend on format.

also your "MP effective" measurements are not clear to me. imho film is about 12-15 mp. but it's no worth the argue.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2021 at 04:57 UTC
In reply to:

Ilia Snopchenko: 24MP is still a solid step up from the previous speed-oriented body, so I'm not sure why all the angst seen in some forums over the fact (?) that this camera will have 24MP rather than 30MP. How come 24MP is the end of the world but 30MP is the satisfactory deal?

@Gannon Burgett very true about newspaper world and that's the reason I'm (interested mostly in Leica) sad to see Leica made step to 40 mpx. That clearly shows their priorities.:(

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2021 at 15:58 UTC
In reply to:

Swerky: Voigtländer classic designs would pair very well with Fuji cameras. I hope they design more lenses for the system. I'm thinking of an ultra wide angle prime. A 12mm f2.8. Those sun stars sure are gorgeous on the 35mm.

"Voigtländer classic designs would pair very well with Fuji cameras." - Yeh, considering X-Pro3 doesn't have means to focus manually in OVF. Really a good pair.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2021 at 03:24 UTC
In reply to:

Constantin V: That's all fine and good. I like Cosina and it's manual lenses, but fuji cameras have no good way to manual focus. Fuji develop autofocus systems and they aren't even close to good OVF-focusing methods of last century. Therefor Fuji sux.:(

p.s.

Tested cameras on their presentation, including X-Pro3. Peaking, "banding"... all methods are very weak.

@sir_c "In that case you pick the MF option in the Fuji that allows quick adjustments." - Please note, there is no any means to focus with Fuji X-Pro3 OVF and manual lens. You came from SLR analog, but you hardly tried the same experience with Fuji OVF. EVF on the other hand has it's on set of drawbacks.

p.s.

"you would need to switch to live view just as well." - it's against how I do things. And I don't have a LV.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2021 at 03:04 UTC
In reply to:

theBitterFig: Seems like 7Artisans size with (maybe?) better than Samyang/Rokinon image quality, and some electronic perks tossed in. Nice combination. Not worth $700 to me personally, but to each their own. Probably would be a really nice lens to pair with an XPro3, get that "Leica feel" without the same red-dot markup.

"get that "Leica feel" without the same red-dot markup." - considering you can't focus manually with OVF on Fuji (no focus method), considering you get crop instead FF (!) in larger(!) body... well... yes, sure!

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2021 at 10:52 UTC
In reply to:

Constantin V: That's all fine and good. I like Cosina and it's manual lenses, but fuji cameras have no good way to manual focus. Fuji develop autofocus systems and they aren't even close to good OVF-focusing methods of last century. Therefor Fuji sux.:(

p.s.

Tested cameras on their presentation, including X-Pro3. Peaking, "banding"... all methods are very weak.

Tom_A and only with EVF, cause Fuji don't have focus help for OVF on X-Pro3.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2021 at 10:49 UTC
In reply to:

Constantin V: That's all fine and good. I like Cosina and it's manual lenses, but fuji cameras have no good way to manual focus. Fuji develop autofocus systems and they aren't even close to good OVF-focusing methods of last century. Therefor Fuji sux.:(

p.s.

Tested cameras on their presentation, including X-Pro3. Peaking, "banding"... all methods are very weak.

Tom_A, yes, i got it. When the kid sits still.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2021 at 10:22 UTC
In reply to:

Constantin V: That's all fine and good. I like Cosina and it's manual lenses, but fuji cameras have no good way to manual focus. Fuji develop autofocus systems and they aren't even close to good OVF-focusing methods of last century. Therefor Fuji sux.:(

p.s.

Tested cameras on their presentation, including X-Pro3. Peaking, "banding"... all methods are very weak.

@pseudobreccia the lens in topic is _MF_. Think about it.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2021 at 05:20 UTC
In reply to:

Constantin V: That's all fine and good. I like Cosina and it's manual lenses, but fuji cameras have no good way to manual focus. Fuji develop autofocus systems and they aren't even close to good OVF-focusing methods of last century. Therefor Fuji sux.:(

p.s.

Tested cameras on their presentation, including X-Pro3. Peaking, "banding"... all methods are very weak.

I believe AF is out of topic here. IMHO If you withdraw to AF when it became hard... Then no point to use MF at all. The point of this type of lenses is it requires skills. And Fuji bells and whistles are in the way.

> However a 50 at 1.1

Are we talking fuji crop here? Then it's about f2 FF. Anyway, I really don't see much sense you are using such apertures to blur the background. For me that's no primary method to make moody photograph. Mood is formed by many other non tech things. If you kids are lovely and active then show it like Alain Laboile did. Don't use that static and shot straight in the face approach. Think about colours, their meaning etc etc Many things form real photograph, not wide open-aperture and exact sharp focus.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2021 at 05:15 UTC
In reply to:

Constantin V: That's all fine and good. I like Cosina and it's manual lenses, but fuji cameras have no good way to manual focus. Fuji develop autofocus systems and they aren't even close to good OVF-focusing methods of last century. Therefor Fuji sux.:(

p.s.

Tested cameras on their presentation, including X-Pro3. Peaking, "banding"... all methods are very weak.

@Tom_A "you are the first person..." - more reasons to shoot them as they are;) A good photo can translate this feeling.

The rest is not exactly true. I came to this topic as I primarily use this type of lenses. And I do manage to focus them on the move with f2 (I have experience with Leica too). That's a lot of fun and satisfaction.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2021 at 13:51 UTC
Total: 373, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »