Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Lots of luck to you.o_O

we both know that you cherrypicked that comment. And we both know what I meant. If my only goal for taking photos was to get the sharpest images without any hassle, I would buy a new digital crank the ISO and be done with it.

 

I dont care if my pictures are not technically perfect, I care that it was fun to take them and they convey a feeling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There are, at least, stabilized zooms that have a 50mm setting and stabilization might get you more sharpness than buying a better lens, unless you put the camera on a good stable tripod and leave it there. That fixes your light problem too because you can shoot at shutter speeds you can't hand hold.

 

And come on, saying your goal was not to get good photos was going to generate a jibe. What you probably meant is that you're willing to sacrifice some quality in order to shoot film. Even then, yes Digital has some great benefits for photography, but people were using film for a LONG time and getting GREAT photos. They just had to work under film's limitations (or their particular film's limitations). And even film today has a lot of benefits they didn't have at first (like higher speed).

 

So when you shoot film today, you SHOULD be going for GREAT pictures, and learning how film limits you and how to get around those limits. Sure it would be easier with a modern digital with high ISO abilities, stabilization, great latitude, in-camera shooting modes, and so on. But if you want to embrace film and its limits, more power to you, but you shouldn't decide that great results aren't possible just because you have a few more problems to solve, right? Luckily, you're a creative, thinking human being that can overcome those limits.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Digital is easy yes, which is why I don't do it.

 

- Why? It makes absolutely no sense to make things more difficult than they need be.

 

Not to mention impacting the environment by using polluting chemicals and depleting natural resources unnecessarily.

 

There are no merit stars awarded by a viewer for how difficult you technically made getting the image.

 

I've posted this before quite a lot, but here's a same area crop from an old D700 (left), and a Nikon F2 using Delta 3200 (right). Lens used was the same, and the same aperture and shutter speed was used. Although I could have put a bottle-bottom on the F2 for all the detail it captured on Delta3200.

d700vdelta3200.jpg.05d9f6619612a5ad617754adb10e2de2.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're looking to get a brighter viewfinder image with a wider aperture lens, then you may be sorely disappointed.

 

I know for sure that the optical system of Nikon's viewfinders gives no apparent increase in brightness beyond an f/2 - f/1.8 lens. Fit an f/1.2 and there's not a jot of difference visible between it wide open and with the preview lever stopped down to f/1.8. Nothing, not even a change in apparent depth-of-field.

 

A lot of other SLR camera viewfinders behave the same. Why? I don't really know the answer to that, but it's a fact. Your viewfinder definitely won't be twice as bright fitting an f/1.4 lens instead of f/2.

 

It's the focusing screen, not the viewfinder. Most "normal" focusing screens are optimized for f/1.8-f/2, but will still work OK with f/1.4. So a focusing screen that's been optimized for the slower apertures won't respond to the faster apertures simply because of its design.

 

I have a Canon AE-1 Program with a plain matte screen that is a real struggle when trying to focus using my Canon 55mm f/1.2 SSC. Objects are no brighter and it's very difficult to tell when an item is precisely in focus. My Canon F-1's plain matte screen was obviously designed to handle f/1.2 speeds, since I can focus without issues with it when using one of my fast Canon lenses.

 

I realize that doesn't specifically address the brightness issue, but I thought I'd just point out that the focusing screen used can have an effect on photography, depending on the screen being used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- Why? It makes absolutely no sense to make things more difficult than they need be.

 

Not to mention impacting the environment by using polluting chemicals and depleting natural resources unnecessarily.

 

There are no merit stars awarded by a viewer for how difficult you technically made getting the image.

 

I've posted this before quite a lot, but here's a same area crop from an old D700 (left), and a Nikon F2 using Delta 3200 (right). Lens used was the same, and the same aperture and shutter speed was used. Although I could have put a bottle-bottom on the F2 for all the detail it captured on Delta3200.

[ATTACH=full]1271468[/ATTACH]

 

hmmm...This is the first time I can remember being given a little jab in the last 5 years for my film shooting hurting the environment. I mean I get it. That is the reason film might die eventually, not because people don't want to shoot it but because the chemicals used become illegal to produce.

 

But please also consider the environmental cost of assembling a new digital camera. Extracting all the raw materials to make the components with underpaid labor and then flying these components a few times around the world before assembling it in a few centralized locations and then being flown around the world again to be sold. Seems like that would be high as well. There is the added benefit of creating employment along the way, yes. But the point is, if you are going to blame film for the chemicals we should also have an idea of the impact of manufacturing a new digital. This is an important conversation though, yes, and it could go either way. If film ever gets shut down because of this I hope it is only done after this comparison concludes that using film on an old camera at a rate that most people shoot film is most definitely worse, without a doubt, than buying a new digital at the rate most people do that.

 

And for that image comparison, I am not at all surprised. I would never shoot delta 3200 in the day unless I wanted to specifically shoot simple geometric lines, shapes, patterns, shadows etc and explode the grain. This is something I want to try more of in fact. But in doing so I would fully expect the quality you have presented here. I also recently read a book by Andrew Sanderson on the paper negative, which I found fascinating.

 

The only star that my images get that matters to me is the one I assign myself when I decide I like this one enough to put it in the 'to print one day' folder. If other people like these as well, this is a bonus. If I don't love it, I actually delete the scan and throw out the negative strip after I make a mental note of what I did wrong; rather not know it ever existed. Seriously haha. I am odd I know, but there is no fixing that now. o_O

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the focusing screen, not the viewfinder. Most "normal" focusing screens are optimized for f/1.8-f/2, but will still work OK with f/1.4. So a focusing screen that's been optimized for the slower apertures won't respond to the faster apertures simply because of its design.

 

I have a Canon AE-1 Program with a plain matte screen that is a real struggle when trying to focus using my Canon 55mm f/1.2 SSC. Objects are no brighter and it's very difficult to tell when an item is precisely in focus. My Canon F-1's plain matte screen was obviously designed to handle f/1.2 speeds, since I can focus without issues with it when using one of my fast Canon lenses.

 

I realize that doesn't specifically address the brightness issue, but I thought I'd just point out that the focusing screen used can have an effect on photography, depending on the screen being used.

Thank you. I have looked through the viewfinder of many cameras and am occasionally disappointed in how dark it looks vs what I am used to on my el-cheapo pentax. I will keep this in mind going forward

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a Canon AE-1 Program with a plain matte screen that is a real struggle when trying to focus using my Canon 55mm f/1.2 SSC. Objects are no brighter and it's very difficult to tell when an item is precisely in focus. My Canon F-1's plain matte screen was obviously designed to handle f/1.2 speeds, since I can focus without issues with it when using one of my fast Canon lenses.

 

IN GENERAL, the brighter the screen looks, the finer the "grind" it has and consequently the less it will show focus(and brightness) differences at larger apertures.

 

Canon made a big deal in the late 70s about their "Laser Matte" screens for the F-1(original), and if the marketing material is to be believed they basically kept the same grind but "smoothed" the jagged edges off it with a laser. I have piles of F-1 screens(and currently only one body) and rarely even use it anymore, but I do have both standard and "L" versions of both the "C"(matte) and "E"(split/microprism) screen and the laser version does seem to achieve the impossible of being both brighter while having as much "pop" as the old screens. I'll use a C screen on a T90 or F-1(new or original) with an f/1.4 lens, but don't trust an f/1.2 lens-I want a focus aide.

 

BTW, I also don't see a brightness difference using an f/1.2 lens vs. an f/1.4 on the screen on any of these cameras. The only camera I've used where it DID make a difference was on the Pellix, but that's also because only 1/3 of the light coming in goes to the viewfinder(and my mirror is in bad shape). I've found that it's quite common for a Pellix to be paired with an FL 55mm f/1.2 or 58mm f/1.2-I suspect because of the light loss both in the viewfinder and at the film.

 

I've found the otherwise miserable "D" screen for the Nikon F/F2 to be surprisingly useful for focusing my f/1.2 Nikkor-S. Otherwise, though, that's a lens that I trust to a split prism on a K screen at a minimum, and often the electronic rangefinder on digitals.

 

Also, using a 3200 speed film, or even 1600(the last I was familiar with was the Fujifilm Superia 1600) I suspect I'd be hard-pressed to see the deficiencies even in Nikon's worse f/1.4 lens-the original 5.8cm. Of course, I'll mention that the last roll of 3200 speed film I shot-Kodak TMZ when it was re-released earlier this year(I have four more rolls that haven't had any attention) I was using an F2 indoors with a 45mm f/2.8 GN-Nikkor at around f/8. Even THAT crummy lens looks great at that aperture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But please also consider the environmental cost of assembling a new digital camera.

 

- Nothing compared to the ongoing wastage that film use would promote.

 

Some statistics:

3.2 billion pictures are uploaded to the internet daily.

If shot on 35mm film, that would require 125 million linear metres of film, or 6.125 million square metres of plastic and emulsion every day.

The silver used would be approximately 5.8 metric tonnes (over 8% of daily world production), and we haven't even touched on the chemicals and hardware needed for processing, nor the hardware necessary to throughput that number of scans.

 

That's just to satisfy the number of images uploaded to the net, not the total number taken, and the world's thirst for images is not going to go backwards.

Edited by rodeo_joe|1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you're assuming people would use as much film as they currently use digital media, which is an obvious false premise. On film, I take far less replicates of any picture.

 

a proper life-cycle analysis of cameras and their media would be interesting. Chemical (and water) use are certainly issues, but what about batteries in modern cameras? A lot of my recent film photography has been in cameras like my Zenit 3, that don't use a battery. They're also largely metal-bodied, so they'll make scrap in the end, not refuse.

 

I bet fuel I use going to places to photograph is a significant component of my impact, too. Time for a series of landscapes in the cupboard under the stairs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you're assuming people would use as much film as they currently use digital media, which is an obvious false premise. On film, I take far less replicates of any picture.

 

- I'm not assuming anything. Just throwing out some figures for consideration.

 

Like, why would anyone even consider drinking inferior-tasting encapsulated coffee in the full knowledge that the packaging was difficult to recycle and becoming an increasing environmental problem?

 

Is it really a case of 'My one little cup of NesLorocrap won't do any harm'?

 

And I think new, hipster users of film just because it's cool, should be made fully aware of the downside of its use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm...This is the first time I can remember being given a little jab in the last 5 years for my film shooting hurting the environment. I mean I get it. That is the reason film might die eventually, not because people don't want to shoot it but because the chemicals used become illegal to produce.

 

Richard, you probably don't need to worry; you're not hurting anything if you use mainstream materials and discharge to a proper sewage treatment plant, such as the POTWs found in the US.

 

Anytime someone suggests that you are "hurting the environment" just ask for evidence - any sort of study or technical evaluation. Don't hold your breath waiting, cuz they won't find any. (Instructions from school photo labs, such as "don't pour your fixer down the drain because it's toxic" aren't evidence.)

 

The main issues with (common) photoprocessing waste are "oxygen demand" and silver. The first means that oxygen is taken out of the water as the chemicals decompose; this is also what the "sanitary waste" from your house does, and this is something easily handled by sewage treatment plants. The photographic silver (silver thiosulfate, mostly) is not shown to be especially harmfull to micro-organisms or aquatic life - studies show it to be somewhere around 10,000 to 30,000 times less toxic than ionic silver, such as you'd get if you dissolved silver nitrate. At any rate, the sewage treatment will remove essentially all silver.

 

I'm not saying that it's ok to dump silver down your drain - you should follow the local laws. And if you have any significant amount, I think you ought to try to recover as much as you reasonably can. I could go on and on, but this really doesn't belong in a thread about lenses. If there's enough interest, someone could start a new thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anytime someone suggests that you are "hurting the environment" just ask for evidence - any sort of study or technical evaluation. Don't hold your breath waiting, cuz they won't find any.

 

- Don't be silly Bill. Any needless use of natural resources, when there's a less polluting (and cheaper) way to do things, is ecologically irresponsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Joe is once again frustrated that people still want to shoot film, so now he jumps on a soapbox about the environmental angle of it!

 

Making ultra-pure silicon wafers that will yield defect free 24x36mm sensors is not exactly the most environmentally friendly process either...and it's usually done in countries where industrial pollution isn't controlled like it is in the three major countries that produce film(USA, England, and Japan).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- I'm not assuming anything. Just throwing out some figures for consideration.

 

Like, why would anyone even consider drinking inferior-tasting encapsulated coffee in the full knowledge that the packaging was difficult to recycle and becoming an increasing environmental problem?

 

Is it really a case of 'My one little cup of NesLorocrap won't do any harm'?

 

And I think new, hipster users of film just because it's cool, should be made fully aware of the downside of its use.

 

hmm, I still don't exactly know what a hipster is to be honest.

 

From what I cant tell though, it's essentially a person under the age of 35 that you don't understand.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"... when I decide I like this one enough to put it in the 'to print one day' folder. ... If I don't love it, I actually delete the scan and throw out the negative strip after I make a mental note of what I did wrong; rather not know it ever existed..." & "Digital is easy yes, which is why I don't do it. I just end up spending all my time looking at a screen either on my camera or on my computer at home....I have this hobby to get away from my computer screen."

OMG! I am impressed now. - You shoot hybrid to get away from your computer screen?!?

I used to shoot film to project or darkroom print it, or to have no hassle with the results, when I let a lab handle color. - Scanning felt like a major PITA to me. Digital seemed comparably faster than darkroom work and was also the preferred pre-press medium. - Shooting film I'd only scan what I absolutely have to scan.

I refuse to see the film vs. digital environmental issues. - Yes, my film cameras existed longer, but most of my digitals are 2nd hand too...

 

Manufacturers claiming weather protection leave me cold, as long as they don't declare their stuff made for snorkeling. - Who'll pay if the protection efforts weren't enough? - Us! - I doubt you'll get a soaked EOS 1 refurbished for less money than an inexpensive replacement beater-Rebel.

 

I would not worry too much about an ultrafast lens' optical quality. For low ISO by daylight you could still use your or a better 50/2 and enjoy it's merits. You'll need a 2nd camera to be not forced to finish your roll before dusk anyhow.

My own choices?

The only extremely fast glass I own are Sigma 24/1.8 & Pentax 50/1.4, both disappointing, but good enough for desperate low light, high ISO work with pixel binning & busy IBIS.

I noticed that higher ISO gets me nowhere on it's own. - The old Monochrom kind of works at ISO 5K, but combined with f2 glass I still face a lot of too dark situations, where sharpness suffers from not really handholdable shutter speeds. I might end trying Canon's 85/1.4 & 35/2 IS lenses for even higher ISO, more lens speed and IS at once. - Just replacing either a lens, for just one f-stop (or maybe 1.5 stops) or getting maybe 2 stops out of a more recent (digital) camera is usually not enough; at least it doesn't really justify huge investments, by being a real game changer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG! I am impressed now. - You shoot hybrid to get away from your computer screen?!?

I used to shoot film to project or darkroom print it, or to have no hassle with the results, when I let a lab handle color. - Scanning felt like a major PITA to me. Digital seemed comparably faster than darkroom work and was also the preferred pre-press medium. - Shooting film I'd only scan what I absolutely have to scan.

I refuse to see the film vs. digital environmental issues. - Yes, my film cameras existed longer, but most of my digitals are 2nd hand too...

 

Manufacturers claiming weather protection leave me cold, as long as they don't declare their stuff made for snorkeling. - Who'll pay if the protection efforts weren't enough? - Us! - I doubt you'll get a soaked EOS 1 refurbished for less money than an inexpensive replacement beater-Rebel.

 

I would not worry too much about an ultrafast lens' optical quality. For low ISO by daylight you could still use your or a better 50/2 and enjoy it's merits. You'll need a 2nd camera to be not forced to finish your roll before dusk anyhow.

My own choices?

The only extremely fast glass I own are Sigma 24/1.8 & Pentax 50/1.4, both disappointing, but good enough for desperate low light, high ISO work with pixel binning & busy IBIS.

I noticed that higher ISO gets me nowhere on it's own. - The old Monochrom kind of works at ISO 5K, but combined with f2 glass I still face a lot of too dark situations, where sharpness suffers from not really handholdable shutter speeds. I might end trying Canon's 85/1.4 & 35/2 IS lenses for even higher ISO, more lens speed and IS at once. - Just replacing either a lens, for just one f-stop (or maybe 1.5 stops) or getting maybe 2 stops out of a more recent (digital) camera is usually not enough; at least it doesn't really justify huge investments, by being a real game changer.

 

Thank you for your comments. In regards to scanning...I hate scanning negatives. I want to start scanning just the final darkroom prints I make on a flatbed (black and white obviously), but I'm not good enough in the darkroom yet. Right now I just develop and eyeball the negatives that I think look good and scan 5-7 per 36 frames roll, save a few. But in general, scanning negatives is ++annoying and I don't want to to be part of my film workup, at least for black and white.

 

Most of my shares are on insta anyway, so even a photo of a 4x6 with my old dslr is fine for color photos haha. For this reason, I am selling my coolscan.

 

If I ever need anything better, will just send away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pricey, used and new, but the AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G seems to get universally good reviews for both its resolution and rendering.

 

It should be full compatible on any Nikon film camera made since the mid to late 1990s-especially the F5, F6, F100, and N80.

 

Other new popular choices are the Sigma ART 50mm f/1.4 and the Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.4. The latter is manual focus. Both of these lenses are available in both Nikon(F) and Canon(EF) mount.

 

I have had a lot of experience with the Zeiss Milvus 50mm F1.4 lens. It is chipped and also has an aperture ring so it functions with both new and old bodies. It is manual focus that does not bother me. The image quality from wide open and up is outstanding.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My own choices?

The only extremely fast glass I own are Sigma 24/1.8 & Pentax 50/1.4, both disappointing, but good enough for desperate low light, high ISO work with pixel binning & busy IBIS.

I noticed that higher ISO gets me nowhere on it's own. - The old Monochrom kind of works at ISO 5K, but combined with f2 glass I still face a lot of too dark situations, where sharpness suffers from not really handholdable shutter speeds. I might end trying Canon's 85/1.4 & 35/2 IS lenses for even higher ISO, more lens speed and IS at once. - Just replacing either a lens, for just one f-stop (or maybe 1.5 stops) or getting maybe 2 stops out of a more recent (digital) camera is usually not enough; at least it doesn't really justify huge investments, by being a real game changer.

 

Some of the sharpest lenses I own are Voigländers and now that I'm shooting film again, trying not to forget the heroic times, the sharpest I have are a Nikkor AI-S 50/1.4 which I use on a Nikon FM2n from 1992 and a Voigländer Nokton 50/1,5 that goes on a Leica M2. I'm no longer printing wet, although I'm set up for B&W and color in any format up to 4x5". For starters, I could never get the purity of color scanning and photoshop give me and my film scanner resolves Tri-X grain perfectly. OTOH, I've been putting my M2 with Summicron 50/2 and Tri-X vs my Fuji X-Pro2 with a Leica Summicron 35/2 (equivalent to the former) shooting JPG in Acros film emulation and fixed ISO 400 and there's simply no contest. Film is exciting, romantic, retro, sharpens your dulled skills, but "D" takes the edge, not only in quality but in convenience. After developing the roll, drying it in sanitized closet in my darkroom, sleeving, proof-scanning, and then spotting, I end investing more time per frame in the computer than I did in the darkroom. Emotionally rewarding but not as a regular hobby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leica ASPH series, rare 58/1.2 Noct, Milvus series, Otus 55. They are all very expensive. Sigma ART are optically good but no one knows how it will perform in the dark on a retro AF body. With manual lens/mode in the dark with lighting objects and moving cars you will have hard times really. :oops:

Save your money, you ‘ain’t gonna see no difference.

Concur.

Just don't bother finding ideal. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I choose not to spend vast amounts of money on the absolute best I can afford, because I don’t feel that I will benefit from any significant difference in quality, at least that would be noticeable for the kind of photography I do. I did a ‘shoot out’ once, with the M42 50’s that I own, Yashica DS-M f1.7, Yashica DS 50mm f1.9, Super Tak. 55 f1.8 and 55mm SMC f2.0, Super Tak. 50mm f1.8, and a beat up f2.8 zeiss tessar. I couldn’t see any significant difference in any of them, on wet prints or scans, that would bother me. That’s not to say of course, that I wouldn’t notice a difference comparing these to the best of modern designs when pixel peeping, but would I notice on a standard 8 x 10 print, which is my usual output? Maybe, I expect it would be subtle at best, and would it be worth the difference in cost from £30 to £1500? Not for me.

 

Sure, there is a big difference between your average hobbyist’s requirements to the pro requiring exceptional quality output for larger images, and for those guys, no doubt the financial cost is worth it. For the rest of us, I suspect we mostly spend our money on these expensive toys because it makes us feel good, and why not? Just like beer really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I choose not to spend vast amounts of money on the absolute best I can afford, because I don’t feel that I will benefit from any significant difference in quality, at least that would be noticeable for the kind of photography I do. I did a ‘shoot out’ once, with the M42 50’s that I own, Yashica DS-M f1.7, Yashica DS 50mm f1.9, Super Tak. 55 f1.8 and 55mm SMC f2.0, Super Tak. 50mm f1.8, and a beat up f2.8 zeiss tessar. I couldn’t see any significant difference in any of them, on wet prints or scans, that would bother me. That’s not to say of course, that I wouldn’t notice a difference comparing these to the best of modern designs when pixel peeping, but would I notice on a standard 8 x 10 print, which is my usual output? Maybe, I expect it would be subtle at best, and would it be worth the difference in cost from £30 to £1500? Not for me.

 

Sure, there is a big difference between your average hobbyist’s requirements to the pro requiring exceptional quality output for larger images, and for those guys, no doubt the financial cost is worth it. For the rest of us, I suspect we mostly spend our money on these expensive toys because it makes us feel good, and why not? Just like beer really.

I like the experience of using a different camera that is in fact, very different. Even if the results are the same. The initial gratification in film photography is the process of taking the picture, that has to be great. The photos come a few weeks later.

 

I would love it if there was this delay in digital photography. And yes I know, I can turn off the screen or just not look. I knew this before, prefaced my entire post with it even haha. Not having a screen would be very different than just not looking. A camera without as screen would need to be a completely different design philosophy

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the suggestions of a stabilized lens are just weird. Virtually all I do in 35mm is shoot available darkeness, and the problem has never been my ability to hold the camera still--it's that the subjects insist on not being stabilized, themselves. A stabilizing lens won't do a thing to cure that and with a slower stabilized lens you'll be locked into those shutter speeds that don't freeze subject movement that you are trying to get away from.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...