kristian reinau

Well Ilford and Agfa are cutting down on business! So is that the doom for film, and especially b/w photography? I guess not, because it?s all a question of supply and demand!

 

As long as there is a demand for a good, film etc. then there will be a supply! Surely it?s not given that the supply will be XP2 Super or APX 100, but some sort of film will be made! I do b/w my self, and it?s quite obviously that I?m not the only one! So some kind of demand obviously exists, therefore film won?t die tomorrow.

 

Then the question, if film isn?t dying, why is Agfa and Ilford biting the dust? Well if demand goes down, prices must go up to compensate, if the final inflow of money shall stay the same (in a neoclassic economic world, so I?m talking about ideals here). Result, to maintain their market positions, the two companies has to turn op their prices. For an example if half of the demand goes away, then prices have to be doubled! That has not happened! Result is that the firms have to restructure to adjust to the new supply/demand curves! Therefore it?s a natural thing that the big firms are restructuring and some are closing down. It?s just a sign of a market adjusting to the new demand situation.

 

My point is, that the stories about Agfa and Ilford is not the a sign abut the death of film, its just a sign of a marked adjusting to a new demand situation, and some demand still exists, so don?t cry about the death of film yet!

Tank you for all your comments. I would just like to specify, that I haven�t got anything against people interested sharpness, I am also interested in sharpness, and that�s why I have a MF camera set, and plan to borrow a LF system in the spring! I�m also a member of a photo club, where I discus equipment and pictures, and often I find myself in the �clan� discussing equipment. I�m just trying to say that there is more to a good picture than sharpness, and that you don�t always need to have the last L-lenses (or whatever) to make a good picture!

Well I would like to hear what you think about this, because I think

that I personally have realised something regarding photography and

technique!

 

When I got my first SLR in the summer of 2002, I got a Sigma 28-300,

and I was really happy about it.

 

Then I got into the �ordinary� excitement about sharpness. After

reading about how terrible the Sigma lens was, I got into the path

of hunting sharpness. The result was that I started using a Canon

50mm F:1,8 Mark II, at f8, with tripod, remote control, Velvia slide

film and hood, and even got a medium format system.

 

And yes, I got really sharp pictures, but looking back at almost a

year with that combination, I think I have realised that sharpness

don�t make a good picture alone! The pictures I took with the Sigma

lens was actually also good, ok they were not nearly as sharp as the

50mm lens pictures or the MF pictures, but using the Sigma lens, I

just zoomed to the best focal length, and that also gave a lot of

good pictures!

 

Of course more that 1000 pictures taken with the 50mm lens has

thought me a lot about composing pictures, but I think that I got

blinded by �the goal of ultimate sharpness�. Because a picture like

the one of a tiger that I uploaded today (You can see it in my

portfolio -> Animals -> Tiger), witch is shot in the local zoo, at

300mm handheld is not really sharp, but who cares, as I see it, I

actually think it is ok for viewing in this size! When I got it

developed this summer, I just took a short look at it under a

microscope (Yes not loop, but good quality 20x stereo microscope!),

and said, �well unsharp�, and then it went into a box, and away it

was. This evening I was looking at some of the pictures I took this

summer, and I stumbled over the picture again, and thought �well it

is actually pretty good, even if it isn�t sharp!�.

 

My point here is not that sharpness doesn�t matter, because I still

use my 50mm lens with Velvia, f8 etc., because I like sharp pictures

with a lot of details. My point is that it is unfair to hide away a

lens like the Sigma 28-300 and call it bad.

It is not as sharp as a 300mm prime, of course not, and the price is

not the same either. I�m a student and I can�t afford another lens.

Because I was �Blinded by sharpness� I almost stopped using the

Sigma lens, even thou I like the perspective of tele shots,

because �well they are not sharp, so there�s no point in taking the

picture!�.

 

And this is exactly the thing I think is stupid. We all want to have

the best Canon L lenses (I�m a �Canon man�, and I guess Nikon users

and other users feel the same way), but we can�t all afford these

lenses. The bad thing is, that instead of telling us self, �Well I

have this Sigma lens, and I can make some god pictures with this�, a

lot of photographers tells them self �Well this lens is no good,

I�ll stop taking tele shots until I have saved for a good lens in 4

or 5 years time��.

 

Why can�t photographers just bee happy with the equipment they have,

and use it to make good pictures?. Don�t get me wrong, I also spent

hours every day reading about photo equipment and dreaming abut what

equipment I�m going to have, when I have finished my university

education, but until then I�ll use my (for me expensive) Sigma lens

and Canon prime lens, and be happy with the results!

And therefore it bothers me a bit when almost everyone in here talks

very bad about ex. the Sigma 28-300 lens, because some people can

only afford this kind of lenses, and a �unsharp� picture can

actually also be a good picture! I have now managed to �see through�

the talk about sharpness, and enjoy the equipment I can afford, but

I�m afraid that some beginners get �scared� away from photography,

when they are told over and over, that the equipment they can afford

is so bad, that it isn�t worth the trouble. Maybe a lot of them

think, �well then I�ll find another hobby�.�, and that is a shame!

 

Kristian Reinau

 

 

 

I�m glad to hear that there is some happy Kiev users out there just like me!

 

Well Robert Davis, your right, its not �perfect�, but what the hell, I can live with 11 pictures on a film, and a 1,5 mm thick dark edge on the right side of some negs � what matters is that I�ve got a working medium format camera, that delivers very sharp pictures! :->

My first medium format camera!

 

Hello Everyone � I have just brought my first medium camera, and I

would like to tell you all my experience.

 

I�m very interested in getting sharp pictures and make big

enlargements, so therefore I have been interested in going to medium

format for a while. Normally I use my Canon Eos 300, with a 50mm

f:1,8 Mark II lens at f:8, with tripod, remote control and Fuji

Velvia slide film. I live in Denmark, and I�m a student so I don�t

have a lot of money, and therefore buying new equipment was out of

the picture.

 

Two weeks ago I went to Czechia for a week with my university. One

day in Prague I saw a photo shop dealing with used equipment. I went

in and they had a lot of old equipment. I saw a Kiev 88, with a 80mm

f:2,8 Bolha MC lens, a film bag and a TTL finder. The price was

around 175$, and I could just afford it. I spent two hours looking

at the camera and talking to the clerk. I didn�t really know

anything about Kiev cameras, but I knew it was a soviet copy of

Hasselblad. The camera looked very used, but the lens was really

fine, and the shutter sounded ok. The TTL function in the finder

didn�t work, but I thought � well I�ll just use my Canon camera for

light metering.

 

Finally I decided to buy the camera, because it was a �one time

chance� for me to get a medium format camera. And I thought that if

it didn�t work, then it would NOT look that used�.

 

Then I got home to Denmark, and 10 minutes after arriving in

Aalborg, I went into a local shop and bought a Fuji Sensia 100 roll

film. The next thing I did was going on the internet to photo.net to

see what other said about the Kiev 88 camera.

 

Then I saw all the bad writings about the camera, I read about all

the problems, and as I read I got more and more nervous. Finely I

saw light � �cameras after 1991 is sometimes ok� it said. Quickly I

read some more, and saw that the age of the camera could be

determined by the serial number, so I quickly looked at the serial

number on my camera�. Ohhhhh nooooo�.. 1982��

 

Well the next day I went out and shot the film. I was told in the

camera shop, that I shouldn�t use shutter times faster than 1/125

seconds, but I tried times from 1/250 to 1/30, and different

focusing distances.

 

Last Monday I delivered the film for development, and then all I

could do was to wait for the results�

 

Finely I got the film back 2 days ago. I entered the shop very

nervous, and asked for my film, and the clerk said � �oh is you with

the hasselblad copy�, �it�s a very sharp lens you got there!�. Then

I got the pictures, they were all perfect, light was perfest, so the

shutter was ok, even at 1/250, and they were very, very sharp. The

only problem was that the camera winded the film to fast, so there

are only 11 pictures on a film, but what the hell � better that than

overlapping frames!! The second problem was a 1,5 millimetre dark

edge on the right side of the negs (reaching 1,5 mm into the

picture), but that means nothing! I am so happy, I have a medium

format camera and it works perfectly.

 

Then I went home to se the negs under a microscope, and again I was

amazed by the level of details. I have just bout another roll film

and I looking forward to shooting that.

So I would just like to say, my Kiev 88 from 1982 is a wonderful

camera, I just love it!!!!

Yes � as I said before, I love it. It's just an excellent lens if you does a cost-benefit analysis between sharpness and price!

 

Melissa, I think you are totally right about the price issue � a lot of people disregard the Canon 50mm F:1,8 Mark II lens because of its price.

Well what can one say � they have obvious NOT read Canons own MTF tests, and done analysis of them!

It�s like people disregarding one - saying, �Are you stupid, using such a cheep lens, just take a look at this zoom lens I bought at four times that price!�� But obviously they don�t know the capabilities of this lens!

 

Kristian Reinau

My Canon 50mm F:1,8 Mark II saved my day!!!

 

I had a nice experience today, and I�m so happy, that I would like

to share it with you all!

 

Some time ago I was asked to shoot two rolls of film at a 50 years

birthday today, and I said yes to the assignment.

 

I have a Canon Eos 300 with the BP-200 Battery Pack grip, a Metz

40AF-4C flash, a Sigma 28-300mm F:3,5-6,3 lens with hood and a Canon

50mm F:1,8 Mark II lens with dedicated hood.

 

I used 400 ISO Fuji Superia print film. And I thought I would use

the zoom lens, because of the easiness of zooming.

 

When I came to the birthday I got a surprise � it was a living room

filled with people, almost only candlelight�s, dark wood ceiling �

so it was really dark for the zoom lens. In fact I couldn�t see a

thing in the finder, literally � and the AF was often searching in

vain, even with help from the AF assistant on the flash. After

shooting some pictures I was quite desperate � you know the feeling

when you know after you have taken the picture, that it wasn�t the

picture you wanted � you know it was not perfect�

 

Then I decided to skip the easiness of zoom, and stick with the 50mm

lens, that I normally use! Suddenly I could se the motives in the

finder, the AF was dead on, and the motives just came crawling!

 

Suddenly I had the right feeling � you know the feeling of �yes,

that was exactly the picture I wanted!�

 

So my words of wisdom from this experience must bee � if you own a

Canon Eos camera then get the 50mm F:1,8 Mark II prime! It saved my

day! I love this little lens!

 

Kristian Reinau

Mystery - Where did the light go in my EOS system????

 

Today I went out to shoot some test photos � and I encountered a

strange thing I don�t understand.

I�m a student, so I don�t own fancy equipment � but anyway I like to

test what I�ve have�

 

First of all � let me explain the test.

 

I have a Canon Eos 300 camera, a Canon 50mm F:1,8 Mark II lens, and

a Sigma Hyperzoom 28-300mm. The aim of my test was two things:

1) Are my cheap Uv-filter on the Canon lens destroying the

picture?

2) How big is the difference on the two lenses at 50mm?

 

I used my �ordinary� test area for the picture � a local lake, where

I always take the pictures at the same spot � the view is good with

a lot of trees etc. which gives me a lot of points to compare, when

I look at the slides under microscope.

 

I shot 3 pictures, using Fuji Velvia.

 

Picture 1: Canon lens, with Uv-filter, F8, 1/180 sec, no hood (I

don�t own one�), tripod, remote control

 

Picture 2: Canon lens, without Uv-filter, F8, 1/180 sec, no hood,

tripod, remote control

 

Picture 3: Sigma lens at 50mm, with Uv-filter, F8, 1/180 sec, hood,

tripod, remote control

 

(Eos 300 can�t do mirror look-up)

 

Now comes my question:

For the metering I used the aperture priority function at F8 and the

canon lens. I have read on the net that both lenses are best at F8.

In this mote the camera uses an integral measurement. The result was

1/180 sec. After having done this measurement before taking any

pictures, I swished to manual mode, setting F8 and 1/180 so that the

camera wouldn�t suddenly change something without me knowing it. In

manual mode the camera uses a Center-weighted average metering, and

now the camera indicated that the exposure was 0.5 stops over a

correct exposure. This is of course due to the different ways of

metering.

 

So picture 1 and 2 was 0,5 stops overexposed according to the

exposure line in the viewfinder. Then I swished lens to the Sigma,

and zoomed to 50 mm without moving the camera, so the 3 pictures was

identically. The camera was still on manual F:8 and 1/180 sec, so

all the pictures would be equally exposed. Now the exposure line in

the viewfinder told me that the picture was correct exposed on this

setting � F8 and 1/180 sec. I didn�t think more about this, and just

took the picture and went home!

 

After this I have begun to think about what happened to that 0,5

stop the picture was overexposed while I used the Canon lens? The

light was constant (blue sky, bright sun, pictures taken within 3

minutes). As I see it, there are following explanations to this:

 

A) The pattern of the Center-weighted average metering changes,

when I change lens! I doubt this one, and I think this explanation

can be ruled out?

B) I did not use a hood on picture 1 and 2, and therefore the

false light entering the lens give 0,5 stop extra?

C) There are fewer elements in the Canon lens and therefore

less light is lost, when the light passes through the Canon lens,

than through the Sigma lens � but actually 0,5 stop?

D) Another explanation?

 

Can You help me solving the mystery?

 

By the way � I did not test the Sigma without Uv-filter, because the

front element is near the front, therefore I don�t dare use it

without the protection of the Uv-filter!

Sorry � should have been: �Made from Eos 300 + Canon 50mm 1,8 Mark II + Velvia�

Hello Everyone!

 

I�m quite new in this discussion, but I have surfed the web a lot for an answer to this question. My own equipment is not professional. I�m a student, and my budget is quite small� The sharpest pictures I can produces is pictures made Wrom: YCGPKYLEJGDGVCJVTLBXFGGMEPYOQKEDOTWFAOBUZXUWLSZ

 

Before I continue I will like to make it clear that I�m not on a crusade vs. film or vs. digital. I�m just interested in getting good nature photos, with a lot of details!

 

The way I see this discussion is, that a lot of people say things like: �I think my print of film sucks vs. that print of digital�� or the other way round and so on. I think that is a subjective opinion, and I would suggest taking a look at an objective test � how much information a picture contains!

 

If you compare for example canon 1V vs. canon 1D then the lenses used will be the same, they will have the same resolution! The only difference will be the sensor vs. film, and the amount of data the film/sensor is capable of recording.

 

I will do the math from film to digital: Lets say � the testfilm may be a Velvia. The Velvia is capable of recording 80 lines/mm. In the digital world it takes, as far as I know, 2 pixels to make a line!

The Velvia positive is 36*24 mm, equivalent to 36mm * 80 l/mm = 2880 lines in one direction and 24 mm * 80 l/mm = 1920 lines the other way! Now as I said before, 1 l = 2 pixels in the digital world. This means that the film is capable of recording a pictures containing information equivalent to a digital picture with a resolution on: 2880 * 2 * 1920 * 2 = 22118400 pixels = 22 Mp!

 

Having this example in the mind, I don�t understand how anyone is able to say that cameras as the EOS 10D produces better pictures than a 35mm SLR with a good film?

 

Even more, I�ve read in some forums that the new Eos 1Ds is better than medium format cameras! If you calculate how much information a 6*7 cm Velvia positive can store, the result is that the amount is equivalent to 107520000 pixels = 107 Mp�

 

Of course there is a lot of other aspects in this discussion colour, time saved, money saved etc. This example was just one aspect of the discussion!

If you look at film resolution, then Velvia, as far as I know, is the "winner" among slides, with a resolution on up to 80 l/mm in "real world contrast" pictures. Provia on the other hand is only able to record 60 l/mm. Surprisingly the print film Reala 100 iso, is capable of recording 63 l/mm! So looking only at resolution, Reala could be a good alternative to Provia. I use both Provia and Reala, and I think that the Reala produces some wonderful colour � but that�s my subjective opinion!