fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              5       6       end
  

Archive 2012 · Digital back for 35mm cameras

  
 
Jewced
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #1 · Digital back for 35mm cameras


Bifurcator wrote:
But film sucks ass. And it costs a buttload. And waiting for development sucks. And scanning negs (or transparencies) is a PITA. Almost nothing about film interests me.

If we were talking about MF or LF then yeah, I could see the point. But 135? ... I have a 110 camera too but I'm not going to waste my time with that either.


If you're going to make ignorant blanket statements like that you don't deserve be using old bodies. You're either 12 or blatantly crude, immature, and uneducated. The bodies which you seem to love using were designed to be used by people who put a lot of care into every image. They were built tough because they were tools and not toys (that's an oversimplification but still true). They weren't "disposable" like modern cameras. Today, once new technology comes out people throw away their old gear to get the new stuff like they're deleting a bad shot from their CF card. Before the digital age cameras were as "permanent" as what came out of them. Nobody dumped their Leica as soon as they pre-ordered a newer model. You couldn't hit the "delete" button on your roll of film. The reasons old bodies were built solid were the same reasons that you think "film sucks ass".



Feb 25, 2012 at 04:54 PM
panos.v
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #2 · Digital back for 35mm cameras


Yeah well I want an E-Type Jag build as modern car with airbags and discs and an iPod connector and that it won't break down every 50 miles and I want it for less than $10k but I can't have that either.



Feb 25, 2012 at 05:04 PM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #3 · Digital back for 35mm cameras


Jewced wrote:
If you're going to make ignorant blanket statements like that you don't deserve be using old bodies. You're either 12 or blatantly crude, immature, and uneducated. The bodies which you seem to love using were designed to be used by people who put a lot of care into every image. They were built tough because they were tools and not toys (that's an oversimplification but still true). They weren't "disposable" like modern cameras. Today, once new technology comes out people throw away their old gear to get the new stuff like they're deleting a bad shot from their CF card.
...Show more

Talk about blanket statements! I don't think I have ever heard of anyone throwing away a camera more expensive than a low-end P&S. eBay is there for that, and les petits annonces before that, and of course people upgraded when new stuff came out, if they wanted to. The cycle was just slower.



Feb 25, 2012 at 05:36 PM
Jewced
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #4 · Digital back for 35mm cameras


carstenw wrote:
Talk about blanket statements! I don't think I have ever heard of anyone throwing away a camera more expensive than a low-end P&S. eBay is there for that, and les petits annonces before that, and of course people upgraded when new stuff came out, if they wanted to. The cycle was just slower.

"Throw away" was obviously not literal. And for sure people upgraded when new gear came out, but there's a reason why a lot of people like using old cameras. Nikonrumors.com didn't exist in 1960. Products today have a much shorter life-span due to a bunch of reasons. Partly because of advances in technology and partly because of different build quality (although the "lower" build quality today can also be attributed to advances in technology that render gear obsolete before it has a chance to break).



Feb 25, 2012 at 06:24 PM
Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #5 · Digital back for 35mm cameras


You can actually get really nice results out of an old film body, even with a cheap scanner and cheap film. But you'll of course need a good lens.


Digital by Martin Hertsius, on Flickr



Film by Martin Hertsius, on Flickr


The difference in IQ at small to "normal" viewing sizes is way less than the difference in camera size and portability. The old FM2 that was used has a much larger viewfinder than the D700 and is only half the weight.

Film isn't dead yet.

Edit: Oh, and the poor Kodak Gold was developed in my kitchen.



Feb 25, 2012 at 07:15 PM
Gary Clennan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #6 · Digital back for 35mm cameras


Nice pics Martin. Do you still have that folder Voigtlander?


Feb 25, 2012 at 07:30 PM
Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #7 · Digital back for 35mm cameras


Gary Clennan wrote:
Nice pics Martin. Do you still have that folder Voigtlander?


Thanks, and yes I do. But it's a bit too cold over here still. I don't want the bellows to crack!



Feb 25, 2012 at 08:06 PM
Gary Clennan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #8 · Digital back for 35mm cameras





Feb 25, 2012 at 08:50 PM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #9 · Digital back for 35mm cameras


Jewced wrote:
"Throw away" was obviously not literal. And for sure people upgraded when new gear came out, but there's a reason why a lot of people like using old cameras. Nikonrumors.com didn't exist in 1960. Products today have a much shorter life-span due to a bunch of reasons. Partly because of advances in technology and partly because of different build quality (although the "lower" build quality today can also be attributed to advances in technology that render gear obsolete before it has a chance to break).


If "throw away" was not literal, then I guess "disposable" wasn't either, since they mean the same thing. Nikonrumours.com didn't exist because the web didn't exist. Photo rags filled that role. Obsoletion is all in your head. In the end there isn't much substance left in your post...

I also like old cameras, but they were just different times, there is nothing superior about them when compared to good new cameras. There are crap cameras now, there were crap cameras then. Those were simpler days with a slower pace of life, and the cameras reflected that. Personally I prefer medium format for film.



Feb 26, 2012 at 07:05 AM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #10 · Digital back for 35mm cameras


Makten wrote:
You can actually get really nice results out of an old film body, even with a cheap scanner and cheap film. But you'll of course need a good lens.

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6105/6234434491_433c76b713_b.jpg

The]http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6238/6234433987_4d7106ba12_b.jpg

_http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6105/6234434491_433c76b713_b.jpg

The[/url] difference in IQ at small to "normal" viewing sizes is way less than the difference in camera size and portability. The old FM2 that was used has a much larger viewfinder than the D700 and is only half the weight.

Film isn't dead yet.

Edit: Oh, and the poor Kodak Gold was developed in my kitchen.



Nice images!

It's not really true tho - which I know you know already. Sure, if conditions are nearly perfect and the light is just wonderful then really great web-sized images can be achieved. I'll agree with that. And that of course can be improved somewhat by selecting better films ($) and a better scanner ($). One can probably go all the way up to 8x10 prints and 50% crops (considering an 8 to 10mp equivalency) for web transmission.

Even so, one still needs to consider cost and hassle! The hassle alone is too much for me. The 1 hour I spend now sorting and processing 300 images (which cost about $1 in wear&tear + power) would require 10 or 15 hours of my time if I did my own developing, and 4 to 6 hours (plus the one day turnaround) if I had a shop do it. And that's just to get them in to the computer. After scanning if one wants the most out of the media you'll have to relocate that shot in the roll and rescan or multi-scan it for the best results. And the price for film is not $1 for 300 it's $100 for 300 shots - or pretty close.

Naw, 135 film and all that goes with it just sucks. If your hobby is dark-room work then that's a different thing. I even consider that an entirely different hobby. In that case sure, film can be fun and in that sense, doesn't suck. But if it's clicking and appreciating cameras and looking at pretty images then I have to stand by my remarks. I have tried it ya know. Both recently for fun and in the past for fun and as a profession.

Also, I'm not saying film is dead... I'm just saying it sucks - and sucks on several levels. And of course like all things YMMV. Some people just love putting together jig-saw puzzles. To me they suck - unless I'm bedridden or something!

http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_ThemesEvents/Chickens_On_Film/



Hey, and it only took me about 2 hours to scan, choose, rescan, and process this shot from a roll of 24.








Feb 26, 2012 at 07:59 AM
Jewced
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #11 · Digital back for 35mm cameras


carstenw wrote:
If "throw away" was not literal, then I guess "disposable" wasn't either, since they mean the same thing. Nikonrumours.com didn't exist because the web didn't exist. Photo rags filled that role. Obsoletion is all in your head. In the end there isn't much substance left in your post...

I also like old cameras, but they were just different times, there is nothing superior about them when compared to good new cameras. There are crap cameras now, there were crap cameras then. Those were simpler days with a slower pace of life, and the cameras reflected that. Personally I prefer medium format
...Show more

Here we go:

1) "Throw away" is a verb. "Disposable" is an adjective. The words cannot be synonyms because they are different parts of speech. "Synonyms" are words that "mean the same thing", in case you're wondering.

2) Obsoleteness is not "in your head". It refers to something that is out of date or "no longer produced or used". Try to take on a team of Navy SEALS with a militia from the American Revolution. You'll find out what "obsolete" means pretty quick. In terms of photography, obsolete has the same meaning. Although we're talking about an art, and an artist will use whatever tool is right for the job, regardless of age, we can still consider things, by definition, obsolete when they are no longer in production.

3) You cannot compare anything from decades ago to the modern internet. Nothing has ever had the speed, accessibility, and world-wide coverage that the internet does. People can readily publish their original content on the web and have it seen by thousands, sometimes millions, of people. People from across the world can collaborate and engage in discussions that would not be possible without the internet. Communication is essentially instantaneous with the internet, which brings me to my next point...

4) As you said, the pace of things in the past was much slower than it is today. I'm not sure if you like older cameras because they force you to work at a slower pace (film), because they feel nice in your hand, or because they have some sort of sentimental value. I'm not trying to say that your personal preference is "wrong", because that's a matter of opinion. Bottom line is that you made a completely ignorant statement about film "sucking ass". Without film the bodies which you like using wouldn't exist. You don't have to like it, but you should understand the impact it has. The slower pace of life in those simpler days was because of film. With digital it's all about speed. Transfer speed, burst speed, write speed. There was emphasis on speed in the past as well (just look at cameras like the Nikon F5) but not in the same way. If you want slow and simple, you go to film. I don't understand why you like old bodies because they're slower and simple but seem so eager to shoehorn speedy digital technology into them.



Feb 26, 2012 at 02:13 PM
Lotusm50
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #12 · Digital back for 35mm cameras


^ Ummmm. "throw-away" can be used as a "adjective", as in "a throw-away camera". That is common usage and is indeed synonymous with "disposable". Strictly speaking, however, to conform with accepted elements of style, to use it as an adjective, it should be hyphenated. At worst, his error is in the omission of a hyphen.




Feb 26, 2012 at 02:44 PM
Lotusm50
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #13 · Digital back for 35mm cameras


Jewced wrote
2) Obsoleteness is not "in your head". It refers to something that is out of date or "no longer produced or used". Try to take on a team of Navy SEALS with a militia from the American Revolution. You'll find out what "obsolete" means pretty quick. In terms of photography, obsolete has the same meaning. Although we're talking about an art, and an artist will use whatever tool is right for the job, regardless of age, we can still consider things, by definition, obsolete when they are no longer in production.



I disagree with your statement here as well. "Obsoleteness" (if that is actually a real word) depends on the intended outcome. If your intended or desired outcome is the production of a film image, them a film camera is not obsolete. Further, the omission of features doesn't make it obsolete. A Pentax Spotmatic S is not obsolete relative to a Nikon F6 for the production of a film image if you really don't use the other features. A digital camera has a tough time creating a film image.

Finally, by your own definition, film cameras are not obsolete. They are still in production. Cosina and others make 35mm cameras, Cosina, Fuji, Alpa, Silvestri, Linhof, Arca-Swiss, and others still make roll film cameras, and there are many producers making 4x5, 8x10 and larger sheet film cameras.




Feb 26, 2012 at 03:12 PM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #14 · Digital back for 35mm cameras


Jewced wrote:
Here we go:

1) "Throw away" is a verb. "Disposable" is an adjective. The words cannot be synonyms because they are different parts of speech. "Synonyms" are words that "mean the same thing", in case you're wondering.

2) Obsoleteness is not "in your head". It refers to something that is out of date or "no longer produced or used". Try to take on a team of Navy SEALS with a militia from the American Revolution. You'll find out what "obsolete" means pretty quick. In terms of photography, obsolete has the same meaning. Although we're talking about an art, and an artist
...Show more

Oh, ferchrissake, this is just getting ridiculous. You seem to excel in being obstinate and wrong at the same time. Others can pick up this fight if they like, I am just going to use the "Hide Me" button. *click*.

FWIW, here are the short forms of my answers:

1) Lotus answered this one already, but allow me to continue: I didn't say that "throw away" and "disposable" were synonyms, I said they meant the same thing. See if you can figure out how your answer is completely irrelevant to what I said.

2) Obsolete as used earlier by you meant no more useful. Of course a camera which has been superseded is not no longer useful. You can continue using it as long as it works. I am doing this with my D3.

3) I can compare anything I want. You can get all huffy and puffy about it if you like though, feel free, just ignore me laughing at you in the background. You conveniently forgot to bring up the part where you were being ridiculous about nikonrumours.com not existing in '60. Thanks for the useless, out of place, and out of date explanation of what the internet is, although I was talking about the WWW.

4) I like old cameras because they are simple and feel good in the hands. I like not looking at the LCD after every shot. I make better photos with my D3, however, so I would never trade, and will continue using both.

Bonus point: it wasn't me who said that film sucks ass, I think that was Bif. I quite like film, actually. Try to get your attributions right, will you?

Look, I would be exceptionally pleased if you could even make a single point stick, so it wouldn't feel so one-sided, but you seem incapable of making a good point and backing it up properly. Over and out.



Feb 26, 2012 at 03:15 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #15 · Digital back for 35mm cameras


Hehehe, Yup:

1) Like Lotusm50 says "throw-away" can be used as a "adjective".

2) Obsoleteness as with ALL such concepts is "in your head".

3) We can compare anything we like!

4) It's called retrofitting!

BP) Yup it was me who said that. And it's only relative to me. No one needs to take exception with my own personal opinions. They don't affect anyone but me. I was told to just shoot film and that was my response based on my personal opinion.

Edited on Feb 26, 2012 at 03:20 PM · View previous versions



Feb 26, 2012 at 03:15 PM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #16 · Digital back for 35mm cameras


Lotusm50 wrote:
"Obsoleteness" (if that is actually a real word)


I am pretty sure it isn't I brought that word into the discussion, IIRC, and in spite of the wiggly red line under it, decided to leave it, since everyone would know what it meant.



Feb 26, 2012 at 03:16 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #17 · Digital back for 35mm cameras


My dictionary has it listed:

DERIVATIVES
obsoletely adverb
obsoleteness noun
obsoletism |-ˈlēˌtizəm| noun

Obsolete being the root word of course. And when used to mean "out of date" or "replaced by something newer", becomes a concept contingent on many factors most of which are cerebral and/or emotional. (ei. All in one's head).






Feb 26, 2012 at 03:21 PM
Jewced
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #18 · Digital back for 35mm cameras


Since he quoted me we're talking about my usage of "throw away" and "disposable". If you read my post you'd see that I used "throw away" as a verb and "disposable" as an adjective. In context the words are not synonyms and do not "mean the same thing". I'm sorry that you can't pick up on the nuance of language. Bifurcator, we can go into a deep philosophical debate here about perception and how it can be said that everything is "in your head" but that ultimately depends on your spiritual beliefs. PM me if you want to go into that. Yes, obsoleteness is a real word. No, by obsolete I did not mean "no longer useful". It's probably difficult for you to avoid twisting the meaning of words because you obviously looking for an excuse to boost your ego. Yes, film cameras are still in production but the cameras I'm referring to are ones that are old and out of production. Nice. Yes, you can compare anything you want. Feel free. The fact that you can compare anything you want doesn't mean that the comparison isn't ridiculous and meaningless. You keep trying to argue with me but you're just making it more difficult on yourself. You're creating issues that didn't exist previously and you're trying to support your opinion in an illegitimate way. And yep, it's called retrofitting, and in some instances it works. In this one it's impractical. When you state your personal opinions in a concrete way it makes you sound like you consider it fact.

Yes, my bad there, I did get you (carstenw) confused with a different poster. Ignore my 4th point above because of that.



Feb 26, 2012 at 03:59 PM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #19 · Digital back for 35mm cameras


Okay, so I decided to peek in and see what you had to say. Kudos for owning up to the attribution mixup.

Look, this really isn't a sensible discussion at all. "Throw away" and "disposable" do mean the same thing in the context that was implied by your post. I don't even see the sense of your point if you didn't. And comparisons are like so many things: personal. Your meaningless is my meaningful and vice verse. I don't see why you try to make it sound absolute.

Let's just drop this, it has gotten way beyond the point of being a useful discussion. Ultimately, I enjoy (medium format) film, but probably make better photos with digital, Bif finds 135 format film a waste of time, and you have whatever opinion you like.

Back to the topic on hand: a 35mm digital sensor which can be retrofitted to 35mm film cameras.



Feb 26, 2012 at 04:07 PM
Jewced
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #20 · Digital back for 35mm cameras


I guess I was unclear in the "throw away" vs "disposable" thing but trust me, they're not intended to mean the same thing the way I was using them. If I go into the reasons why I speak like things are absolute I'd have to go into my whole theory about "averages" that nobody here would understand. I won't go into it because we're way off-topic like you said.


Soooooo yea. 35mm digital sensor. I haven't seen anyone here go into how it would store data. It would probably use cards, but where would they fit? I'm not sure how it would be possible without major modification or attachments.



Feb 26, 2012 at 04:22 PM
1       2       3              5       6       end




FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              5       6       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account