more fun with the DMR

[guy_mancuso]

Totally agree Peter have you some of these boats there selling these days . Whew

[travis1]

Allen, when you say the S3 has good D.R and film depth, this is in comparison to what? can you kindly show some examples from the s3? thx

[fotografz]

It always comes back to money doesn't it? Perhaps because of the wallet altering impact

of digital. Not so long ago we all gulped at the price of a professional level SLR creeping

toward the $1,000.- $1,500 price range, where that barely gets you a pro-sumer digital

these days.

 

Now a Pro level Nikon D2x is $5,000. cropped frame and all, and you get to pay a demure

$2,500 more to get a few centimeters extra sensor with a Canon 1DsMKII ... both of which

are built like tanks to no avail since their "technical" life-span is just a few years ... making

them obsolete well before they're worn out.

 

The reference to MF digital backs is actually a worse financial scenario. A $800. film back

(new) now cost you a minimum of $9,000. in it's digital form ... for a cropped frame

version BTW since there are no full frame versions to be had.

 

The moral of the story is: regardless of what brand name you tilt at windmills with, we are

all being taken to the cleaners in the name of art : -)

[Allen Herbert]

Allen, when you say the S3 has good D.R and film depth, this is in comparison to what? can you kindly show some examples from the s3? thx

 

Lots of questions rolled into one simple sentence, Travis. Fuji looks to advance sensor technology to improve the final results rather than just adding more pixels to the equation. I suppose they are emulating their film products.

 

I will post some photos but not on this thread (W/NW) as I do not want to be caught up in'my camera is better than yours' thing. However, I will say the S3 Pro will match and better the DSM for final print quality at a fraction of the price....at least to my eyes which are quite discerning.

 

Of course that does not mean that the DSM is not a fine camera producing superb results as can be seen from the above photo.

[Allen Herbert]

For Travis.....<div></div>

[Allen Herbert]

For Travis......<div></div>

[Allen Herbert]

There, i changed my mind.

[Allen Herbert]

The Fuji is on it's way but has some more miles to go.

[terence_mahoney1]

<i>This has nothing to do with the 5D and everything to do with the lenses. Canon makes some excellent long glass, but below 35mm their wides aren't that great, especially wide open. This is why you see a lot of 1dsII/5D shooters buying Leica or Contax wides and using them via an adapter.</i></p>With all due respect to your opinion (which is to say, very little)it's 90% bollocks. Canon wides worked a treat with 35mm film, the problem is that a digital sensor is physically different from a flat piece of film and that's been stated authoritatively hundreds of times by people in the know. There are not "a lot" of people using Leica or Contax wides, just a few very vocal ones on the internet and some other who puppy after their internet heroes. In absolutes perhaps those Contax, and perhaps even one or two Leica, wides do in fact perform better in the corners wide open than the Canons, but the problems caused by the FF sensors aren't solved by simply cobbling another maker's lenses onto them. That I have indeed tried.

 

 

<i>A $800. film back (new) now cost you a minimum of $9,000. in it's digital form ..</i></p>I had to read this a second time to make sure it wasn't Guy who said it, Marc. I've come to expect amateur thinking from him but you are a consummate pro. The film back is an empty shell with a spool, the digital back replaces 2, 3 or more years' worth of film and processing, which for most of us, and I suspect you too, amounts to much more than the cost of the back.

[kipling]

<i>Now a Pro level Nikon D2x is $5,000. cropped frame and all, and you get to pay a demure $2,500 more to get a few centimeters extra sensor with a Canon 1DsMKII ... both of which are built like tanks to no avail since their "technical" life-span is just a few years ... making them obsolete well before they're worn out.</i> <p>

i'd love to hear why a 1ds mk 2 will be obsolete anytime in the near future. anyone who can't use that gun and get excellent results (now or in five years) is beyond help. a top of the line 39mp leaf aptus 75 digital back with a mamiya 645 afd II and lenses will cost you maybe 600 Euros a month to lease. if you're a working pro you know that's less than what you were paying for polaroids, film material, lab, drum scanning and yes(!) retouching/post or printing in a month. besides the fact that you're not spending more money you're writing it all off anyway. <p>

the only one who is "hit hard" is the hobby "fashion victim" photographer.

[watts]

<i>if you're a working pro you know that's less than what you were paying for polaroids,

film material, lab, drum scanning and yes(!) retouching/post or printing in a month.

</i><br><br>Yes, but these are costs traditionally added to the invoice - i.e. the client

pays. It's often difficult to get the client to cough up for the digital investment and for the

time involved in post processing.<br><br><br><i>besides the fact that you're not

spending more money you're writing it all off anyway.</i><br><br>Maybe accounting

systems are different outside of the UK (which is where I am based) but writing off the cost

of buying or leasing gear against taxable income doesn't mean you get it for free (unless

you have a tax rate of 100%). Writing off the cost of gear simply reduces your profit. This

does mean you pay less tax but only because you are making less profit.

[feli]

>With all due respect to your opinion (which is to say, very little)it's 90% bollocks. Canon

>wides worked a treat with 35mm film, the problem is that a digital sensor is physically

>different from a flat piece of film and that's been stated authoritatively hundreds of times

>by people in the know.

 

Well Terence Mahoney, I don't know what you do for a living but I have made a living as a

professional in the digital imaging field for the past 15 years, so I think I know a little

more about this subject than most people. I own and shoot Leica M/R and Canon EOS

digital/film, so I have actually used the gear in question.

 

Yes, there are other issues involved that pertain to the actual sensor design, but the

simple fact is that certain wide-angle lenses by Leica and Zeiss perform better on a 5D/

1DsII, than the equivalent Canon lens. That has very little to do with the sensor, but a lot

to do with economics and design choices (remember that lesson from industrial design

class?)

 

Canon walks a very fine line between performance, price, mass production and associated

design criteria and this is reflected in the performance of their glass. I don't expect a

plastic, mass produced auto-focus lens to perform as well as the equivalent $3000 dollar

Leica lens, that is built to much higher tolerances and in vastly smaller quantities. Again, it

mostly has to do with economics, not lack of engineering skill on Canon's part, but you

knew that already, right?

 

 

Feli

[terence_mahoney1]

<i>Maybe accounting systems are different outside of the UK (which is where I am based) but writing off the cost of buying or leasing gear against taxable income doesn't mean you get it for free (unless you have a tax rate of 100%). Writing off the cost of gear simply reduces your profit. This does mean you pay less tax but only because you are making less profit.</i></p>Exactly what I said too Ian, and though the tax situation in the US is less brutal than ours, that basic tenet holds true there as well. Guy's complete lack of comprehension of the issue is startling coming from someone who professes to be a successful pro.</p><i>Yes, there are other issues involved that pertain to the actual sensor design, but the simple fact is that certain wide-angle lenses by Leica and Zeiss perform better on a 5D/ 1DsII, than the equivalent Canon lens. </i></p>Exactly what I said as well. Some wide non-Canon lenses may peform better than Canon's wide lenses, as they would on 35mm film, due to lens design. But the corner performance with <i>any</i> wide lenses is degraded on the FF digital sensor.

[kipling]

<i>Yes, but these are costs traditionally added to the invoice - i.e. the client pays. It's often difficult to get the client to cough up for the digital investment and for the time involved in post processing.</i>

<p>

it's a tough business, no one says it's a breeze to become a highly payed, profitable photographer. but the hurdle getting there isn't the cost of a digital camera. becoming a good businessman and a good salesman along side of being a talented photographer is the hurdle you have to overcome. <p>

if you're a low profit wedding shooter or photo journalist then a d200 or 5d will do the job as well. i think alex majoli did pretty well with a couple of 7 mp olympus consumer cams - at least i didn't hear anyone complaining about the quality of his work.<p>

if you're a fashion or commercial photographer then the cost of digital gear is steep but the equipment available already matches the quaily of 4x5 sheet film and all the mf back companies i know of allow for upgrades. why would this be an issue of the gear becomming obsolete in the next year or two?

<p>

true. if you aren't making money then i guess it's not a good idea to calculate the write off as a way of shifting the cost of your gear. but then again if your not making money you have a big problem regargless of what medium you shoot in. studio space, lighting gear, assistants, lenses, studio equipment, material and on and on are not cheaper for film shooters.

[guy_mancuso]

www.guymancusophoto.com

 

Okay there it is . Now we have a section 179 in our tax code that you can write of the ENTIRE purchase of gear up to i think 130 K , it is a one time deal and no depreication. A tax advisor could explain it better but i have done this several times. Also when you spend 35k than you must look at it as 10-20 percent of your gross income. Do the math. 35 k for gear is nothing to a sucessful pro. Do you think I have to do this every year , not a chance . These lenses last a lifetime if you don't sell them. The bodies are the disposable part. so my 15k in 2 DMR's are the risk and only they are the risk of being outdated over a say 2 year time frame which is 7500 per yer which given the income is really not a issue. Terence give it up trying to make me the idiot here , it is obviously you that has no clue.

[guy_mancuso]

But the corner performance with any wide lenses is degraded on the FF digital sensor

 

Once again Terence you are so wrong as proof through this whole thread. There is NOT a canon lens that can do this shot PERIOD with there wide angles . And this is the Zeiss 21mm that gives this kind of performance on a digital camera, I believe this was the 1dsMKII. The leica 19mm can also do this along with a bunch of other alternate lenses but there is not a canon that can pull off edge performance like this in the wide angle area . i have dealt and tested this for 4 years.<div></div>

[guy_mancuso]

Here is a 100 percent crop<div></div>

[fotografz]

Never paid for a roll of film or the processing on a commercial job in my life Terence. Clients

did.

 

Conversely, I paid $25,000. for a H2D out of my pocket not theirs. I do charge a digital fee

per job, but that's tantamount to providing these Billion Dollar corporations a loan on the if/

come that I'll recoup it over time.

 

Wake up and smell the money burning.

[rj]

Slick site Guy.

[terence_mahoney1]

<i>Terence give it up trying to make me the idiot here</i></p>No need for me to try to make you the idiot as you have that task well in hand.</p><i>Never paid for a roll of film or the processing on a commercial job in my life Terence. Clients did.

 

Conversely, I paid $25,000. for a H2D out of my pocket not theirs. </i></p> I have a base fee for a wedding (church, reception and posed portraits, any one of which may be omitted at the client's request, for a consummate reduction in cost) into which film and processing is a cost built-in, as does every other professional with whom I compete. Thus whilst shooting film means continuous expense, once the cost of the digital body has been equalled in terms of film/processing, my profits increase greatly, at least until it's time to buy a new body.

[fotografz]

Under those circumstances, and specifically for event shooting that may be true Terence.

 

However, there are hidden costs for volume digital production, so the savings are less than

many digital shooters project them to be. I know, I shoot both film and digital weddings.

 

For example, the savings are in the cost of the film rolls and processing just the those

rolls, the film or digital proofs cost the same.

 

So, in reality you only save the $8 per roll expenses. Say you shoot 15 rolls ... that equals

$105. per wedding for film and processing. The hidden cost of digital comes with

managing the same 540 images before they ever go to print ... which can easily exceed

$105. worth of time.

 

In addition, with film, the camera you paid off 10 years ago still produces. The digital

camera takes longer to pay off and is obsolete in 2-3 years ... often before you have

recouped the costs it supposedly is saving you.

 

There are good arguments for digital capture, money isn't one of them... unless you are

able to charge a digital capture fee ... which is next to impossible with weddings.

[guy_mancuso]

Obviously Terence you can't respond to the facts at hand that are shown to you. Just want to insult people is more your game . Screw off I am done with your tactics.

[nels]

Marc,

 

Since the 1DsII has been out over a year now, and it will be obsoleted in your opinion in another year or two, I'll be happy to help you get rid of it - postage paid, and home pick-up.

[travis1]

Thx Allen.

[sprouty]

Douglas - please have the bird pose on a more, dare I say, photogenic twig next time.

 

Peter - I know what print I want of yours now...

 

(add appropriate emoticons to the above gibberish)

 

Stephen