I'm done with film.

[JDMvW]

"rapidly changing software/hardware compatibility, computer graphic manipulation, a power supply to take and view pictures, and massive file management"

 

But, as suggested, there are plenty of homologues in film work, e.g.,

• I already had a "massive file management" system in film
   
  
• Imagine shooting in one of several dozens of film formats from 16mm to 8x10" and having a library of projectors, enlargers, etc.
   
  
• I had to carry masses of film, unexposed and unique exposed film on long trips and hope they would make it home in good shape
   
  
• by the end, most of my film cameras were electronic too, so it was necessary to carry batteries, etc as well,
   
  
• and so on and on
  

[kmac]

LS 8000 motherboards with faulty firewire chips can be repaired for a working man's price here: Nikon Coolscan LS-8000 ED / LS-9000 ED service and repair notes

The chips hate it when firewire cables are pulled out and replaced when the scanner is powered up. The scanner must be OFF.

 

I learned the lesson and after emailing and sending the main board to the US for Gleb to fit new firewire chips, the 8000 is running once more, and very nicely at that. Gleb is a scientist: Gleb Shtengel | Janelia Research Campus - he has all the right tools and knowledge to do these tricky jobs.

 

I can understand why photographers change to digital, it's quick and easy, I have four compacts up to 14MP, it's great shooting them, until the batteries go flat and the focus played up when zooming in one of the cameras, the most expensive one. Another with two AA batteries flashed the "Change Batteries" after 5-10 shots. As well as those problems, all of them blow out the highlights. The two that are still working ok I use for trial composing for my 6x9 6x7 film cameras, and emergencies because a small "pocketable" digital camera is convenient. I'm prejudiced against jpg(s) though, I hate them with a vengeance

 

My film set up has reached stability, meaning I have everything sorted out, I have the cameras I need for what I want to do, and a good scanner that was purchased within my budget. The computer is an Intel Mac running Snow Leopard 10.6.8 and the latest Vuescan, quite adequate for me. It paid to stop at a certain point and not keep updating, it was becoming too much of a hassle and costly. I'm happy with what I've got

[kmac]

Have a question for you guys the place I'm going to have scanned take my -2 and have it scanned the guy told me it's going to be like a 35 40 megabyte file.

 

How do I figure out what that translates into megapixels is it going to be like 3500x5000 what I'm trying to find out is what am I going to end up with a 20 megapixel file 15 what's the formula to figure that out?

 

 

If you get Exif data with your scans, there should be pixel count, 4000x3000 as an example

 

Multiplying 4000 by 3000 - equals 12MP

[ben_hutcherson]

JPEGs from a scanner are different from those of a digital camera, though. Each scanned pixel has the color data for all three channels, as opposed to a digital camera where each pixel only has the data for one color channel and you do a Bayer interpolation to get the other two.

 

JPEG is a compressed format, but digital files, in my experience, can generally be compressed more than scans with the same number of pixels.

 

Also, for reference, a 35mm scan from a Nikon Coolscan is roughly 4000 pixels by 6000 pixels, or 24mp(in actual use it might be less-it depends on the camera and also the slide mount if you are scanning a mounted slide). I can tell you that the JPEGs are generally larger than JPEGs from my 24mp D600. Medium format scans get a lot larger-remember it's also somewhat camera dependent but a 6x6 scan from a 4000 dpi scanner will be 8,000-10,000 pixels in each dimension(realistically somewhere between those two, and probably on the order of 8500-9000). An 8000x8000 pixel scan is 64mp.

[Ed_Ingold]

While digital imaging is intolerant of overexposure, it is much more forgiving of underexposure than either negative or reversal film. Most MF backs have 16 bit color depth, and a huge dynamic range. Small format cameras, like the Sony A7Riii and Nikon D850, are just now on a par with MF c. 2007.

 

Each scanned pixel has the color data for all three channels, as opposed to a digital camera where each pixel only has the data for one color channel and you do a Bayer interpolation to get the other two

I have hundreds of 35 mm and MF scans with an LS-8000, and am finally tooled up to scan negatives with a camera. When viewed on a pixel level, "scans" with a 24 MP digital camera are cleaner, with far fewer color artifacts than from the scanner. The color arrays of the scanner are not co-linear, so registration depends on accuracy of the film transport and interpolating software. Whether one method has better resolution than the other for 35 mm is moot, since 4000 ppi is at least 2 times sharper than the image on color film.

 

The quality of color conversion of negatives is arguably better in a scanner than the ad hoc methods used with camera "scans." However I find that Silverfast HDR, which came with my version of Silverfast (8) for the LS-8000, does an outstanding job on conversion from DNG images, and can be batched. Furthermore, if you don't like the results, you still have the original negative image. Unlike scanning, you don't have to re-scan to try something different. As a related issue, "scan-once-process-many" workflow makes it much easier to catalog the results and correlate scans with the original film and frame.

[michael_radika]

Yeah I talked to some local photographers at my local camera shops talk to a guy that shoots film scans actually saw some of his work don't like it don't like the look I'm not going to even waste my money taking and having my negatives professionally scanned I already saw some results from a very good photographer it's not what I'm looking for.

 

If you're going to shoot film in my opinion you you print it in a dark room trying to mix digital with film is like oil and water to me. Unfortunately it was a costly lesson I'm definitely going to lose money in all of this but I gained a lot of experience.

 

Sony a7r II or Fuji xt2 here I come.

 

No more back and forth that's it I'm done anybody you you film guys my stuff will be on eBay this weekend I'll post a link.

 

I love this forum thank you guys for all of your help and encouragement and everything I really appreciate it.

Edited June 22, 2018 by michael_radika

[orsetto]

Despite the huge prices drops in MF film gear, it can still be a painfully expensive learning experience if you decide it just isn't working for you. Bad enough you'll nearly always lose some money re-selling anything but Leica or Rolleiflex, but then eBay/PayPal rip an additional 13% out in their fees. Its rough.

 

The Bronica system itself generally sits collecting dust on eBay unless you're willing to risk a low starting price to generate bidding action. Even more popular brands like Hasselblad sit and rot on eBay if you ask realistic prices for it: now more than ever, people are bargain hunting and will blow right past any listing with a starting price anywhere close to actual market value. It will eventually sell if your starting price is normal asking range, but be prepared to wait six weeks to two months before the vultures "watching" your stuff in hopes you'll drop the price give up and finally buy it.

 

Be sure to list your Maxwell and Beattie focusing screens as individual separate items: these are probably the most sought-after, unusual items you have. I don't remember if Maxwell sold you a separate screen or he modified your original screen: if its your original, you're kind of screwed because it limits your selling options. You could separate all the pieces and sell your GS1 body without a screen, but probably not get a good price for it. If you keep the screen in the body, you could easily sell the package of body/back/finder/100mm lens, but you won't get as good a price for the screen if its bundled.

 

Weigh your options VERY carefully before investing in your new digital system: the cameras depreciate faster than a 1978 Cadillac and you'll suffer a dead loss if you make another mistake. Take your time, play with them at several different stores, or perhaps rent a body and a couple lenses for a week. Of the two systems you're looking at, the Sony is most versatile but with the drawback that nobody actually likes using the damned things. If you don't have any interest or plans to use non-Sony lenses, the advantage of the A7RII over a Nikon D850 evaporates (the D850 files are much easier to work with). The Fuji is an extraordinary smaller-format system with incredible lenses, but some people don't get on well with their focus-by-wire manual override and their X-Trans sensor produces weird raw files that can be difficult to process with generic software. Both Sony and Fuji are polarizing systems with no middle ground: users love them or hate them. Make sure you love it before you buy it.

Edited June 22, 2018 by orsetto

[ben_hutcherson]

X-Trans sensor produces weird raw files that can be difficult to process with generic software.

 

I still use Fuji DSLRs(or these days the S5 specifically) for some purposes.

 

Although they use a totally different sensor, the so-called "Super CCD" has some really odd quirks. Lightroom can do okay with the RAW files, but you really need the Fuji software to get the most out of them.

 

For that reason, I treat them as JPEG only cameras. They still produce amazing images even by 2018 metrics, particularly in terms of color rendition, dynamic range, and highlight recovery(although the latter is considerably diminished with JPEGs). The high ISO performance is excellent by 2005 standards but terrible by even 2012 standards(that's my benchmark since my main DSLRs these days are a D800 and D600). In the studio though or good outdoor light, though, they give me images unlike anything I can get from anything else.

 

Of course, the Fuji DSLRs are a bit of a different beast since they let you work within the Nikon system(back to the AI days in the case of the S5) rather than having their own system.

 

No one does color like Fuji, though.

[glen_h]

There are places that do less expensive prints on light sensitive paper.

 

I have done my Christmas cards from Shutterfly for some years now, partly because they print on real paper.

 

They say "Fuji Crystal Archive" right on the back.

 

(And they have sales often enough, to also get a good price.)

 

The 16x20's that I have (every month or two they offer one for just the shipping cost) don't say anything on the back.

[Ed_Ingold]

the advantage of the A7RII over a Nikon D850 evaporates (the D850 files are much easier to work with

That's news to me. Maybe I've been sleeping while processing 40K Sony image over the last three years.

[ben_hutcherson]

There are places that do less expensive prints on light sensitive paper.

 

I have done my Christmas cards from Shutterfly for some years now, partly because they print on real paper.

 

They say "Fuji Crystal Archive" right on the back.

 

I haven't printed at Wal-Mart recently, but they use to do it-"real" RA-4 from a Fuji Frontier.

 

Without actually seeing the numbers, it wouldn't surprise me if RA-4 in a Frontier or equivalent is less expensive than inkjet or dye sub at least in the "common" sizes(4x6, 5x7, 8x10).

 

Not too long ago, my local shop had a bunch of "damaged box" 11" Canon Pixma printers for $200 with a $200 rebate. Now that those are gone, they have a big pile of the same model for $300 with a $200 rebate. I debated buying one, but I've owned 11" printers in the past. RA-4 prints up to 8x10 are a whole lot less expensive, better quality, and less hassle from the local camera store or even Wal-Greens. For the rare occasion I want/need something larger, it's still ultimately less expensive to send them off rather than maintain an inkjet(they don't handle occasional use well).

 

Of course, darkroom prints turn the table. 16x20s on Ilford Galleria(I tend to use warm tone matte) seem to get a lot of "wows" when I take the time and spend the money to do them.

Edited June 22, 2018 by ben_hutcherson

[glen_h]

Nearby Walgreens switched away from RA-4 to something else, I believe dye-sublimation, a few years ago.

 

I don't know about others, but it might be that all are going that direction.

[orsetto]

I still use Fuji DSLRs(or these days the S5 specifically) for some purposes.

 

Of course, the Fuji DSLRs are a bit of a different beast since they let you work within the Nikon system(back to the AI days in the case of the S5) rather than having their own system.

 

No one does color like Fuji, though.

 

Before I ever bought my first DSLR, I was stuck deciding between the Fuji S5 and its symbiotic twin Nikon D200. Took so long to make up my mind, Fuji bailed and orphaned the system, so that was that. I don't think I've ever seen colors and tones from any other sensor that could equal the Fuji Super CCD, but it seemed to require a photographer with a certain eye and technical rigor to fully exploit (not to mention availability of suitable subjects). At the time I knew I wasn't "that photographer", which put me off the Fuji Super CCD. Now that you've gone and reminded me, I just may go hunting for an S5 body: I've got more time and inclination nowadays to accommodate an bespoke sensor.

[orsetto]

That's news to me. Maybe I've been sleeping while processing 40K Sony image over the last three years.

 

Operative phrase, you've processed 40K images. With just this one camera. Not to mention the thousands and thousands of images you've processed from your Hasselblad back (presumably with Phocus). The OP is just now dipping their toe in these waters: newbies who know absolutely squat about processing raw DSLR files will struggle more with the Sonys than the D850. Very specifically in this case, an A7RII: output from the first and second Sony iterations is trickier to deal with than the very latest A7III/A7RIII. The Nikon D850 files start off on an easier footing than those from an A7RII for those who haven't yet attained raw processing savvy.

 

Not that Nikon raws have been much better than Sony in the past: its been downhill since the D2X until finally getting their act together again with the D850. Another example: trolls who bash Canon often forget, despite their "inferior" sensors a lot of pros who don't do work requiring wide DR still prefer Canon raws because they're (usually) quicker to post-process. Speed to reach plausible skin tones for publication is more important to them than being able to shoot the noon sun over the mouth of a cave while lifting the shadows in the cave five stops. It pays to consider what you primarily photograph, and how that factors with the sensor and raw rep of a particular system, while transitioning from film to digital.

 

Any motivated photographer can learn to successfully exploit any sensor/raw personality, given enough time and experience. OP michael-radka gives the impression he's being dragged kicking and screaming away from film toward digital, primarily because he expects a certain look and correlation between camera origination and final prints. That specific impetus would make me leery of recommending any camera/sensor with a tougher-than-average post-processing learning curve. I'm in the Nikon camp simply because I migrated over after 20 years using film Nikons: if starting from scratch, I wouldn't necessarily go Nikon today unless I could afford the D850. For Sony, I'd jump over the I and II and go directly for the new III models. Nikon and Sony are in a shotgun marriage: their progeny changes personality year to year and camera to camera, for good and bad. If you want predictable sensors, Canon is an alternative. Fuji has always been great with color and lenses, the X-Trans was problematic for some users but recent software updates from the majors are getting more compatible. And if you opt to go somewhat below top of the line, Fuji does offer a couple decent bodies with conventional Bayer sensors instead of X-Trans.

Edited June 23, 2018 by orsetto

[ben_hutcherson]

Now that you've gone and reminded me, I just may go hunting for an S5 body: I've got more time and inclination nowadays to accommodate an bespoke sensor.

 

The S5 remains a great camera, and honestly if you shoot it side-by-side with the D200 there's no comparison in IQ between the two.

 

One of the big problems with them these days is the batteries. The battery IS a Nikon EN-EL3e. It charges on a Nikon MH-18 charger and works perfectly in any Nikon that takes an EN-EL3e(D200, D300/D300s, D70, D80, D90, and I'm sure a bunch of others I'm forgetting). The problem is that Fuji put a firmware block on the camera and ONLY batteries that identify as Fuji batteries will operate the camera. An EN-EL3e will power up the camera but the camera will refuse to operate due to an "invalid battery." Fortunately, I was able to find 3rd party batteries that function fine. Also, you can run the camera from AAs in an MB-D200, although you won't get very man shots from one.

 

Here's a studio shot(with strobes) from my S5. Although this doesn't LOOK that technically challenging, it is actually surprisingly so due to the amount of contrast in it-note that you can distinguish the ink window in the barrel, something I couldn't do with a D200. Aside from cropping and resizing for the web, this is a SOOC JPEG.

 

 

BTW, since I'm an insufferable collector, I have the entire range of Finepix Pro DSLRs. The S1 is miserable to use, and the S2 only slightly less so. Both require two separate sets of batteries(CR123s to run the camera, AAs for the sensor and digital "guts"). The S1 is built on the cheap N60 body, and I don't think it will focus AF-S lenses. The S2 at least moves up to the ubiquitous N80 body, whose only major downside(in my eyes) is the lack of ability to meter with non-CPU lenses. S2s also have a common issue where the camera will fail to write the image to the card. The S3 at least manages to get down to a set of AAs(it included four NiMH batteries and a charger) on the N80 body but is slow and clunky. The D200 based S5 really is the most refined both in terms of handling and image quality.

 

I'd have to go back and look, but I actually bought my S5 from KEH and I think it was maybe $130 or so without a battery or charger. The charger, of course, isn't a problem if you have Nikons of that age. A pair of aftermarket batteries was $25 or so.

[Bill C]

Both [including S2] require two separate sets of batteries(CR123s to run the camera, AAs for the sensor and digital "guts").

 

My memory is a bit fuzzy, but as I recall you can use the S2 with only AA batteries IF the CR123s are removed. (Dead CR123s still in the camera will prevent operation; as best I recall.)

 

We had several hundred of them in our chain operation when they were new. Number one problem was sensor dirt. The blur filter package was pretty thin, so anything significant landing on top of it tended to show up as a spot if the lens was stopped down to any significant degree. If you shoot a lot, the cameras will produce a lot of their own sensor dirt; at least the ones we had did so. We ended up using different cameras for this reason.

 

S2s also have a common issue where the camera will fail to write the image to the card.

 

I had never heard of such a problem back in the day, EXCEPT that a couple of times some of our event shooters got the camera into a shooting mode where they had to "accept" an image before it would save (memory cards were so small, this could potentially be a useful option). In our case, the shooters just went on shooting without a care, until they eventually realized they had no saved images from the day. What a nutty feature to build into a camera!

Edited June 23, 2018 by Bill C

[Ed_Ingold]

Orsetto,

 

You made a broad point on the difficulty handling Sony images without any basis for that statement.

 

In 40K images i never encountered any problem which could not be attributed to settings or the environment Some people judge their camera on the JPEGs it produces. I could care less. I shoot directly to RAW, and produce JPEGs for delivery to customer after adjustments in Lightroom or Photoshop. I have used Phocus, but find its workflow and capability far less useful than either Lightroom or Photoshop.

 

There is no one, perfect camera. Each camera has a set of attributes which some find more useful than others, including cost. In the end, it is just a tool to accomplish a task you set forth.

[ben_hutcherson]

My memory is a bit fuzzy, but as I recall you can use the S2 with only AA batteries IF the CR123s are removed. (Dead CR123s still in the camera will prevent operation; as best I recall.)

 

We had several hundred of them in our chain operation when they were new. Number one problem was sensor dirt. The blur filter package was pretty thin, so anything significant landing on top of it tended to show up as a spot if the lens was stopped down to any significant degree. If you shoot a lot, the cameras will produce a lot of their own sensor dirt; at least the ones we had did so. We ended up using different cameras for this reason.

 

 

 

I had never heard of such a problem back in the day, EXCEPT that a couple of times some of our event shooters got the camera into a shooting mode where they had to "accept" an image before it would save (memory cards were so small, this could potentially be a useful option). In our case, the shooters just went on shooting without a care, until they eventually realized they had no saved images from the day. What a nutty feature to build into a camera!

 

Okay, so I just tested and confirmed that you're correct about working without CR123as present, but the camera seemed to complain a lot and disable some features(like image playback).

 

As for the not writing to the card-I see a LOT(probably 75% of the ones advertised for sale) as reporting this defect. My local store has two in the case with this problem reported, although I've not actually played with them. They've been sitting long enough that if I can talk them into $25 for both(I think they're priced at $25 each) or a bit more I might buy them and just give things a shot.

[Ed_Ingold]

CR123 batteries are common and relatively inexpensive. I buy the by the dozen for flashlights and other gear. Why substitute AA batteries? CR123 batteries are on the large side. Do you mean CR1/3? They're more common in cameras (e.g., Hasselblad), but also easy to find.

[ben_hutcherson]

CR123 batteries are common and relatively inexpensive. I buy the by the dozen for flashlights and other gear. Why substitute AA batteries? CR123 batteries are on the large side. Do you mean CR1/3? They're more common in cameras (e.g., Hasselblad), but also easy to find.

 

Ed,

 

The specific cameras that I'm talking about are DSLRs that are quite literally grafted onto Nikon SLR bodies-in the tradition followed by Kodak but in a bit more of a compact and elegant package.

 

The Fuji Finepix S1 is a Nikon N60 and the S2 is an N80. Both of these cameras were designed to operate(i.e. meter, shutter, film transport) on a pair of CR123As. When Fuji added a sensor to them, they opted to use 4 AAs to power the digital "guts." What I hadn't realized was that the S2 could be powered only off AA batteries.

 

In any case, with the large for its time LCD and the big APS-C sensor, the AA batteries don't last that long. The CR123s don't do as much, and consequently tend to last a long time. The S3 Pro included NiMH AAs-something that's nice for a photographer these days since you don't have to track down obscure batteries. They were probably good for 200-300 shots. The photographer at my sister's wedding in 2005 used an S3 Pro, and it seemed like he was changing batteries every time I looked at him.

[michael_radika]

I'm not being forced over to digital it's just in my experience I don't like the look of scan negatives I don't like the end result. Maybe some people are happy with it I'm not happy happy. Again like I said maybe it's just my lack of experience in the in the not in the film camera world.

 

I'm not going to go through all the trouble processing my film having to have it scanned and go through all that in the end I'm not getting the look I want it's way too much work to not be happy in the end.

 

If I had a a way to use a dark room or I can set up a dark room at home I would be a happy camper tons of experience in the dark room.

 

It's just in my humble opinion scanning negatives is defeating the purpose of shooting film it took me some time to learn that. Time to go full digital.

 

I examine prints from somebody at my local camera shot its scans are negatives and print them digitally I didn't like the look of any of his work some of the actual shots were good but the process to look in the end was not good.

[Ed_Ingold]

It is my experience that scanning reversal film with a scanner or camera gives results that look like film. Scanning and converting negatives was never easy with respect to a consistent color balance throughout a variety of shooting conditions. It is also my experience that mini-labs, even the corner Walgreen's, make excellent prints when provided with a well-adjusted image from a calibrated monitor. I have never had good results when a mini-lab develops the film, scans and prints the results. Their process defaults to a rather stylized, overblown and inaccurate version of what color should be.

 

Color printing in the darkroom is rather involved. It takes a lot of experimentation with color balancing filters, exposure and temperature control to get the job done. The best results I've found come from drum processors which use an ounce or two of chemicals, once and out, rather than trays. It's easy to distinguish optical prints from digital at a showing. Only the digital prints are really sharp with accurate color.

[ben_hutcherson]

I had never heard of such a problem back in the day, EXCEPT that a couple of times some of our event shooters got the camera into a shooting mode where they had to "accept" an image before it would save (memory cards were so small, this could potentially be a useful option). In our case, the shooters just went on shooting without a care, until they eventually realized they had no saved images from the day. What a nutty feature to build into a camera!

 

Okay, I picked up an "as is" one for all of $10 this afternoon.

 

In this case, it will operate and upload a file to the card, but it's black. There's no information at all-just to make sure it wasn't an exposure issue I did a 4 second exposure with no lens-the shutter is opening, but the image is nothing but blank images. Google turns up a LOT of discussions on here, DPReview, and elsewhere of a "dead sensor" from the ~2004-2006 time frame, including some folks reporting it quitting in the middle of a photoshoot. Fuji fixed some under warranty(and even out of warranty) but some folks reported multiple failures. It makes me afraid to use my working one in case it's a ticking time bomb, but if it's not going to fail after ~14 years I'm guessing it's okay.

 

BTW, I'm guessing that the one I bought today was from a commercial portrait studio. It not only has 4:5 lines inked onto the screen, but also has a "rule of thirds" oval inked on presumably for head positioning.

[Bill C]

BTW, I'm guessing that the one I bought today was from a commercial portrait studio. It not only has 4:5 lines inked onto the screen, but also has a "rule of thirds" oval inked on presumably for head positioning.

 

Hi, probably from a school-picture outfit, I'd imagine. They'd have requirements for head size and position. Could have been for passport use, too, but the S2 was really too expensive (and finicky) for a dedicated passport camera.

 

Sorry to hear that your bargain camera has a dead sensor, or whatever.

[ondebanks]

The S5 remains a great camera, and honestly if you shoot it side-by-side with the D200 there's no comparison in IQ between the two.

 

I'm another fan of the Fuji S5 Pro. I picked one up 5 years ago. As well as its already mentioned advantages (colour, DR, spot-on SOOC jpgs), there are others that matter to me:

• For a CCD sensor, the S5 has really well behaved dark noise in long exposures - far less noise than MFD backs with CCDs.
   
  
• It also lacks the sneaky RAW filtering that Nikon incorporated in their DSLR firmwares up to a few years ago, giving them a "star eater" reputation - a mantle which has now unfortunately passed to Sony, who make the same mistakes in their full-frame A series.
   
  
• Finally, the stock S5 has extended red spectral sensitivity over other brands of DSLRs and CSCs - about the same as the special astrophotography variants from Canon (20Da and 60Da) or Nikon (D810A) - although none of these is quite as good on nebulae as an aftermarket spectrum-modded body. Here's my S5 take on Orion:
  

 

 

One of the big problems with them these days is the batteries. The battery IS a Nikon EN-EL3e. It charges on a Nikon MH-18 charger and works perfectly in any Nikon that takes an EN-EL3e(D200, D300/D300s, D70, D80, D90, and I'm sure a bunch of others I'm forgetting). The problem is that Fuji put a firmware block on the camera and ONLY batteries that identify as Fuji batteries will operate the camera. An EN-EL3e will power up the camera but the camera will refuse to operate due to an "invalid battery." Fortunately, I was able to find 3rd party batteries that function fine. Also, you can run the camera from AAs in an MB-D200, although you won't get very man shots from one.

 

I'd have to go back and look, but I actually bought my S5 from KEH and I think it was maybe $130 or so without a battery or charger. The charger, of course, isn't a problem if you have Nikons of that age. A pair of aftermarket batteries was $25 or so.

 

That's interesting info on the Fuji batteries. 3rd party batteries and chargers (single or dual batteries) are plentiful and cheap on ebay. I got a dual charger, and a second-hand Nikon MB-D200 battery grip, and I use it with alternating pairs of batteries (1 original Fuji + 3 new 3rd party batteries).

 

Well, we've swung massively off-topic, but such is conversation...