Gary Naka Posted May 12, 2019 Share Posted May 12, 2019 What on earth did people do when pictures came in silly little 36 exposure canisters, and they were opening the camera back every few minutes? Oh, and carrying ten, a dozen or maybe 20 of those little canisters - the hardship, oh the humanity! Or 12 exposure rolls. I tell my students, that we really thought about and planned the shot when each press of the shutter was $1. It is weird, I find myself switching to a different mindset when I pickup a film camera. Even though I have a 4x5 camera, it is hard for me to understand the effort it took to shoot the LARGE view cameras, not to mention printing them. Or a glass plate camera with wet emulsion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Doo Posted May 12, 2019 Share Posted May 12, 2019 Film or otherwise, I don't see the need to shoot everything in sight. IMO, if the chance of a good image is not great, why bother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted May 12, 2019 Author Share Posted May 12, 2019 IMO, if the chance of a good image is not great, why bother? But if it is...why artificially constrain yourself with an ancient industrial limitation.? It's a case of the right tool for the job.... and jobs vary;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Peri Posted May 12, 2019 Share Posted May 12, 2019 But if it is...why artificially constrain yourself with an ancient industrial limitation.?... Hmm... the wheel is ancient too, but it's still in use... http://bayouline.com/o2.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Naka Posted May 13, 2019 Share Posted May 13, 2019 But if it is...why artificially constrain yourself with an ancient industrial limitation.? It's a case of the right tool for the job.... and jobs vary;) Depends on which camera I decide to use. If it is a film camera, like it or not, I am stuck with it's limitations. It I take a film camera, my only digital camera is likely to be my phone camera, or at best a P&S. A film camera may be an "ancient industrial" device, but it has a very different "feel" to using it. It is no different that writing with a fountain pen, vs. a computer. I LIKE writing with a fountain pen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted May 13, 2019 Share Posted May 13, 2019 Roller-ball gel pens are nicer. After being taught 'joined up' writing with a dip-pen and inkwell, which was wrist-achingly tedious, I find nibs a repulsive anachronism when far more frictionless methods of putting ink on paper are available. Besides, the local geese are running out of quills and carrying pen-knives is now frowned upon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted May 13, 2019 Author Share Posted May 13, 2019 Has anyone actually looked at the size of the image circle produced with Z-Mount lenses? Looking back at camera development in the past (where else!?) I've always assumed the driving force was initially portability. As cameras got smaller, film had to get 'better' per unit area. Negatives now needed an enlarger to make prints of a size people wanted, contact-prints were no-longer enough, Things got a bit daft with ever smaller formats where tiny size became 'fashionable' as cameras became truly pocket sized. IQ wasn't great, but hey it looked good! Digital cameras repeated the same flawed evolution... Things got interesting when cameras got so small there was no room for anything but the shutter button and a 4 way pad, and everything was somewhere in a menu structure designed by a software engineer not a camera user. Pro cameras need buttons, lots of them, and they need real estate to make them usable. The current Nikon line-up for mirrored cameras pretty much follows this theme. More buttons means more money....and a bigger body. Now mirrorless has arrived it's technically got to the stage where the camera size is limited by ergonomics and not the need for a mirrorbox or a pentaprism/mirror. DX only came into existence because of the cost of FX sensors. That is no longer such an issue, if indeed it's an issue at-all. The actual real cost of manufacture of such things seems a closely kept secret. As any Nikon mirrorless DX camera would need an FTZ even to use a current DX lens, any benefit in a thinner camera disappears. To make a DX Z Mount lens system is hardly practical. Why would you put a DX sensor in an FX sized body? It's not cheaper or any smaller. The body size is now limited by ergonomics and some say the current Z6 and 7 are too small. Put a bigger sensor in the current size body, maybe, but not the other way around. IF Nikon wanted to increase sensor size, but keep a similar body size, the introduction of the Z-Mount was THE time to do it. Now they haven't yet, but if the current Z-Mount lenses, cover say a 45 x 45mm format, they might yet. If anyone has taken apart a current Nikon FX DSLR recently, they'll find there's plenty of space for a bigger sensor once you 'take out' the mirrorbox and the need for such a deep flange-mount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Naka Posted May 13, 2019 Share Posted May 13, 2019 Some of the "extra space" around the sensor is probably for the IBIS, as the sensor needs space to move. And the image circle likewise needs to be bigger to accommodate the IBIS. I would love a 4.5x4.5 sensor. :) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted May 13, 2019 Author Share Posted May 13, 2019 as the sensor needs space to move ..what about 2 thou.. at most?* But yup, the mechanics for it need a bit of volume to wriggle too! * who's good at maths? How far do they actually move? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted May 13, 2019 Author Share Posted May 13, 2019 I would love a 4.5x4.5 sensor. :) What, you mean it's time to dump the 3:2 ratio for film or sensor size? Way to go.....:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Naka Posted May 14, 2019 Share Posted May 14, 2019 What, you mean it's time to dump the 3:2 ratio for film or sensor size? Way to go.....:D Hasselblad Junior. If you have never used a square format camera, you can't really make a fair judgement on it. After I used a 6x6, I started seeing square compositions more often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted May 14, 2019 Author Share Posted May 14, 2019 I had a Bronica SQ-A for a bit but the economics (of film) moved me onto a Mamiya 645 Pro with top VF and power winder. I quite liked square as it had no compositional constraints as it were, just size within the frame. So, square it is then!:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted May 14, 2019 Share Posted May 14, 2019 Oh, this thread is back. I've argued it before: rotating the camera, despite sometimes having a bit of a vibration effect on my grip, is a low price to pay compared with the amount a larger sensor and larger glass (for a larger image circle) costs. Assuming that you're cropping your image to suit the subject, square sensors (and film) only really make sense when you can't rotate the camera - as (mostly) with a TLR. Given how much content (video or stills) is consumed on TVs or (rotated) phones, square-ish aspect ratios in sensors are extremely wasteful - and I say this even having written an article in the past about how 16:9 is a stupid aspect ratio. So: the "making the most of the image circle" argument is a fallacy unless you're actually capturing a circle (and even then it implies you've decided not to have some baffles in the lens), and if in doubt, buy a grip. Now, if you want to argue for the ability to rotate the mount relative to the grip, that's another discussion. If I were to go for a DX second system, Fuji would probably have me at the moment. I've been tempted by the X100 series, but they're very big for what they are, and the behaviour of my right eye is outside the range supported by the diopter adjustment. The X-Pro bodies allow a screw-in diopter, but they're even bigger and more expensive, and there comes a point where it would be much cheaper and not significantly larger just to get a D3500 and use some of my existing lenses. I do have an old micro 4/3 body, but an RX100 is much smaller and about as effective. So other than an old Canon, the only APS-C digital sensor I have is in a Coolpix A - and I got that cheap mostly so I can post from a compact on Nikon Wednesdays. I assumed sensors could move quite a bit - based partly on Pentax's star tracking thing, and partly on the amount of image wobble they have to compensate for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted May 14, 2019 Share Posted May 14, 2019 (edited) "If I were to go for a DX second system... " Funny, Fuji is having me at this moment; I hesitated to buy the X-Pro series for its big size, so I went for the X100. Now, I find it to be quite small; if it were smaller, I`d have a problem to hold it! Again, same as you, I'm on the limit of the diopter range. First I thought the range was small, but is my eyesight that is getting really short. I wish the X100 were made by Nikon... what I really miss is the user interface! (controls and menu). Edited May 14, 2019 by jose_angel 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted May 14, 2019 Author Share Posted May 14, 2019 Without my glasses or contact lenses, I've just run out of right eye diopter correction on my D850.....:-( Mind you, without them, I can't see small birds in the bushes either....:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted May 14, 2019 Share Posted May 14, 2019 Ah, I have a left eye effectively long-sighted, and right eye effectively short-sighted (although it's not quite that simple). In theory that means I can do the two eyes open thing, although I usually struggle a bit. I'm now at the stage where a typical monitor is in the gap between the two comfortable ranges, which makes me a bit dizzy. Sadly my out-of-focus zones tend to be made up if in-focus overlaid images, which really gets in the way of a rangefinder. I'm on the limit with the D850 too (I think the D810 may have been slightly better, and if anything I'm even more borderline on the D90). Still, at least there are screw-in options for the big dSLRs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2Oceans Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 Nikon makes screw in minus and plus correction dk 17c diopters for the pro style round eye pieces that go on the d500, d8xx and D2,3,4,5. They are easy to change in and out. $17.95 at B&H. They also make slide on rectangular dk 20c diopter with various corrections for the d750, d3200 and d7200 cameras and their ilk. Don't give up on seeing better. Good hunting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 Yup - Fuji make them for the X-Pro series (and I presume others) too, although not the X100 series. I haven't yet gone hunting for my D90, which I imagine is similar to the other rectangular viewfinder cameras. It's a bit of a pain if you want to be able to hand the camera to someone else occasionally, but not the end of the world (at least now there's live view). I could just get my eyes fixed, but arguably one eye of each is more useful than both eyes being short- or long-sighted, and apparently I'm old enough that perfect flexible vision isn't an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeBu Lamar Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 I have the DK-17 on my Df but it makes difficult to see the entire screen. Right now I don't have it on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now