Grokking mirrorless

If it weren't for progress and killing bad ideas, we wouldn't have iPods, iPhones, GUIs, iPads, digital cameras, roll film, bayonet mounts, zoom lenses, IBIS, the Internet, blockchains, dead silent shutters, low cost:quality ratio, 8K cinema cameras smaller than a Hasselblad, etc.

Spare us these straw men arguments, please...not one person has suggested it's a good idea or possible to try and stop progress.

Something else to consider, both if we care about PN losing life and we care about a perceived lack of authenticity in posting, is to counteract it by starting interesting and genuine threads of our own.

Sam, well you are correct, but I think that 20 years on most photo sites will exhaust most of us of good new posting ideas.

3. Wherever possible I shoot 'slides' instead of 'negatives'. Most people do - why would you do otherwise?

When I used color film, I preferred to shoot negatives. It has a much wider dynamic range, and at ISO 400 or above, less grain than slides.

Wherever possible I shoot 'slides' instead of 'negatives'. Most people do - why would you do otherwise?

For the same reason that I don't leave my camera permanently on the P or A settings, or use AWB in all lighting conditions, or own a point'n'shoot camera of any description.

And factually, I think you'll find that negative film outsells reversal film several times over. So 'most people' don't use slide film.

That's without even touching on technical issues, like the limited 'dynamic range' of slide film.

Try taking a scene like this on slide film.

The shadow side of the street would slide into obscure darkness, or the sunlit side would slide into detail-less white. That's probably why it's called 'slide' film.

To misquote Kodak - "You push the button; we'll f**k up the rest."

And factually, I think you'll find that negative film outsells reversal film several times over. So 'most people' don't use slide film.

Most people shoot JPEGs, provided that it is true that most photos are taken on phones. Press and sports shooters shoot JPEGs mostly, AFAIK. I used the analogy of slides & negatives to refer to RAW & JPEG. I should have been more clear.

Could I take that photo on slide film? Probably not, but I would need to see what's possible. The sun seems to be coming from about 10 o'clock. So we're talking about a difference of at least 2 stops (incident)?

Could I produce that with a JPEG? That is, a camera generated JPEG? Yes, I think so, but I would have to see. I think it could even be done hand-held.

As for OVF vs EVF... Why have we never seen LCD options for film cameras? Film crews using film cameras have been using video taps for decades now.

[ATTACH=full]1328768[/ATTACH]

Perfect, just effin’ perfect.

A glass or any stable handy object can make a decent tripod in a pinch.

Random!

For the same reason that I don't leave my camera permanently on the P or A settings, or use AWB in all lighting conditions, or own a point'n'shoot camera of any description.

 

And factually, I think you'll find that negative film outsells reversal film several times over. So 'most people' don't use slide film.

 

That's without even touching on technical issues, like the limited 'dynamic range' of slide film.

 

Try taking a scene like this on slide film.

[ATTACH=full]1328622[/ATTACH]

The shadow side of the street would slide into obscure darkness, or the sunlit side would slide into detail-less white. That's probably why it's called 'slide' film.

 

To misquote Kodak - "You push the button; we'll f**k up the rest."[/quote

 

It would be easy to improve that image in post or wet darkroom. It'd be worthwhile. Just do it .