thomas_turk

<p>According to a pro/scientist who invented the color chip for digital, Velvia is 185MP resolution. Dynamic range is only approached with HDR. Colors not yet, maybe by Foveon in Sigma.</p>

<p>For every upgrade of an experimental dull, drab, electronic image taking machine, imagine how many hundreds of rolls of Velvia you can get, while trying to emulate Velvia. Sigma's quattro has come near but thats another how many hundred rolls again. When velvia's 185MP is equalled plus dynamic range, and it needs no computors, PP, etc etc . I may switch.</p>

<p>When velvia 50 is equiv. of 180MP and when you can buy much Velvia and a good scanner for for a good digi cam ie Nikon D810, then??</p>

<p>I found advice re velvia of Ken Rockwell very reliable.</p>

<p>Should have set saturation to +3 and selected VIVID, then the digits would have had some glorious color. Or waited for the light to go red, purple etc. See Ken Rockwell on how to get real colors out of digits. The composition is pleasing, but without some glamour-color, it becomes boring.</p>

<p>What's with that distracting glob of blue light? Isn't the cuppa and writing enough for a tight comp.</p>

<p>I use my unconverted 70-200N to play it's magic on my trusty 175MP sensor that has perfect micro-contarst, sharpness, color saturation, iso etc. The Full Frame 175 MP sensor is made by Fuji, under the brand name Velvia 50.<br>

Shooting the Zeiss on a decent 175MP sensor, not on Xperimental digits, you will note the magic that only Zeiis, Leica, Schneider, Voightlander can make.<br>

Why take this fantastic resolving-power lens, pay 400$ to Canonise, and then use it on 20 something MP digits?</p>

<p>Great infor here in 2013. I will retrieve my old Hassy with its 80 and get a 40, 60 and 120/150,</p>

<p>I was about to switch to digits from 35, and MF film but the more I study, especially Rockwell et al, the more I wish to go back to MF, velvia and 81A filters, and rest the 35mm.</p>

<p>Thanks for the comments. Trolling? A good few years back I did comment on photos in photonet. My comments seem to have upset some sensitivities. 99% of the photos that were submitted for 'judging' looked dull, dead, dreary very early digital, especially so to a Velvia shooter. Yes I know,photonet is a 'digital' site. Shooters asked for comments, and I commented. Nobody chucked me out from photonet for 'trolling'.<br>

(I have been chucked out of the Guardian, Idependent etc for comments on alternative health, where I am the expert, having exposed dieticians, docs and big pharma for telling lies. With due respect to any of these, who may shoot beautiful saturatedd photos, and read photonet)!<br>

Regarding Ken Rockwell. What you think about him is none of my business. What you think about me reading his site, is also non of my business. It's a free world. I do know that Ken conceived the world’s first dedicated digital colorspace converter chip, the TMC2272, back in 1990 when he worked at TRW LSI Products. He’s been working with the matrix math, hardware and software that does this for decades. He also coined the word “gigacolors,” for use with 36-bit and 48-bit color data. He is also a pro photogarpher, just evaluating cameras and optics he has bought, or intends to buy. I love his velvia 50 4x5s. If you don't like his photos, that's also none of my business.</p>

<p>I've posted this Q on Canon Rumours and had a very mixed response, so I'll try it here, where hopefully some Canon shooter may have explored this in more detail.</p>

<p>A pro, who has been involved in design of color for digital photogarphy, and reviews just the cameras and lenses he buys, (dozens of them), or wishes to buy... writes.. The Canon 6D<em> image quality is extraordinary (and the same as the 5D Mark III)</em>. <br /> <br />But at the same time he advises to correct the 6D's faulty shots with <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/athentech/perfectly-clear.htm" target="_blank">Perfectly Clear</a> (or maybe DxO). I really don't wish to pay 2K for a body when the tech is not yet quite sorted out, and have to use various software to correct a faulty image that the camera couldn't tidy up. <br /> <br />So the questions from an amateur, who would like to start with digital as Velvia is now difficult to buy, and to get processed in Southern Thailand are... <br /> <br />1. Is the 6D, (and 5d3 etc) nearly always(?) capable of putting out satisfactory, (extraordinary), photos, with careful adjustments of the available settings?<br /> <br /><strong>or,</strong> <br /> <br />2. Does one need to purchase correction software and have to fiddle with photos after they leave the camera, to bring them to an acceptable 'corrected' level that the camera did not allow the user to carry out, lacking in ..whatever?<br /> <br /><strong>or</strong><br /> <br />3. Do I wait for Canon to incorporate such correction software into the cameras computor/processor?<br /> <br /><strong> or </strong><br /> <br />4. Do I wait for for Canon to upgrade light metering/white balance ..or whatever may be causng these irregularities that need correction in the first place? </p>

<p>I sit and look at my contax, nikey and hassy and am really not in the mood to continue with the film hassle, BUT, also I don't feel like starting on digits, and then getting duds that need correcting because of a,b c etc. has not been fuly developped. I have also read that light metering for digital is based on almost 100year analogue concepts and is unsuitable. </p>

<p>I am going for the 20mm Voigtlander for Canon. I'm finally going digital after Canon 6D can give me what I want at a non-M9 price! I use Ken Rockwell for advice. Some call him a moron for his reviews, bUT, what they don't know is that he is a pro photographer and a scientist/engineer. He conceived the world’s first dedicated digital colorspace converter chip, the TMC2272, back in 1990 when he worked at TRW LSI Products. He’s been working with the matrix math, hardware and software that does this for decades. He also coined the word “gigacolors,” for use with 36-bit and 48-bit color data. See his velvia 5x4s on his site and realise he knows what he is talking about. He only reviews items he uses/intends to use/etc. (His main shooter is the 40mm Voigt. pancake. I'll add that and a 100mm Tokina Macro for the full setup. The Tokina is so good, as is the 6D, that I wont need longer teles, just crop and blow-up. That's 2 pancakes, a lightweight tele/macro and the lightweight 6D,plus a flash. The heavy lifting can then be done in the gym, not on 'safari').</p>

<p>Had the Leica R4. Electronics failed. Could not be repaired, despite 4 attempts. Many photo shoots failed. Shutter wouldnt trip. Then.. got the lightweight Contax NX. Electric film winder mechanism failed after 20 rolls. Vietnam trip messed up. That had the 70-200 Zeiss on. No spares. Guess thats why I am for the R3M, even if I have spare batteries, and even if it has the AE fine auto-speed selections. I simply dont trust electrix/electronics in cameras as they surely get knocked accidenrtally or exposed to hot/cold/dust etc. Having said, that my trusty old, battered Nikon F80, with its 90mm Tamron macro+81A warming filter, (see Ken Rockwell.filters), and Velvia 50 are weaving magic.</p>

<p>So with the fast Schneider 1.8-2.4 zoom wide to 24mm, on the Samsung EX1, how is this slow, limited to 28mm 2.8-4.6 Canon (usually only so so optics until the verrry expensive ones), going to compete? Maybe another 85mm, (58) 1,4 to change to when portrating or simply get the EX1.<br>

If I wanna do video, i buy a video camera. they are small enough to have an eX1 and a video, except I dont shoot video¨ We all live in our own little universes.¨</p>

<p>Maybe the Voigtlander prime lenses? Near Leica/Zeiss quality, cheaper than Nikon...I use them on the film Nikon, they have Nikon F mount. Soon I will get a D80, use same optics. (as alternative, the Samsung 4/3 EX1 with Schneider optics is still too new).</p>

<p>Question. Camera <strong>N1</strong> lens 50mm 1.4. Tele conv. Mutar, but its for the for <strong>645. (Or did CZ make any teleconverter for the N lenses)?? </strong> Can the 645 Mutar connect the N 50mm to the N1 via any adaptor??</p>

And now that Sony has a 24 megapixel, full frame, fastest, 35mm set-up, will we expect a Leica M8/b???

What if it were an M8, with 21mm and 50mm asphericals? I was wondering if I had the M8, maybe I would use it more than my Zeiss glass on fujuchrome. Maybe that is as close as one gets to film but, has anybody tried it for a non BS comparison?

Kyocera optics for zeiss are superior optics, so dont worry if a leica lens is made by them. I had german leica R set, stolen, all superb. Now kyocera zeiss, 70-200, where at each setting the results are as good as, or BETTER than the fixed lens. Made under strict control by a highly reputable company. Dont forget some lemon leica lenses were made by sigma, not as good then as now, sneaked in under the radar by rotten executives..

If you examine the shots say in the critique forum, you will notice that once shot on digital, no amount of fiddling on photoshop can retrieve the natural vibrant colors, nor fine textures that you would have gotten on film. Having said that, the Olympus digital shots, maybe due to their superior optics, (which were always judged a very close second to leica/zeiss/voightlander/schneider) are very close to good optics film. The latest $3K canon doesnt do it. So IMHO, film is still far better for nature shots, even more so when the optics are superior, ot the format larger.

Upgrade yourt film camera to contax or besas, and optics to zeiss and voiglander respectively. (affordable) You will then shoot photos superior in textures and natural vibrant colors to any of the dull dreary experimental-digital crap served up on the forums. I use my digital for kitchen cupboard renewal progress, and film through zeiss for photography.

I hope I don't get to see your expected dull, drab, synthetic colored and... textureless, experimental-digital nature photos for criticising on the gallery forums. That is unless you paid megabucks for the new Canon 5D, whose 12.8 m pixels results I have not yet had the chance to compare with a decent fuji/kodak/agfa and top leica, zeiss, or other superior optics.

I cant see why you are debating new experimental (digital) equipment that is inferior to film in natural colors (landscapes, nature) and textures (clouds). And also the big debate on 2nd class optics,.Zeiss Leica voughtlander blow away 95% the canons.

Back to film and a manual camera makes sense, and..you'll get some decent color in the shots to boot.

Trevor...Small economical cars still destroy the planet. 2 or three small cars equal one big one. Hydrogen, generated in car, and pollution free, was patented by Garrett (USA) in 1935!!! Dont tell me the scientists cannot split the water molecule when they can recieve their own color TV pix from MARS!!!

Pix a, background too distracting. f2 needed. Pix b, composition neither strict nor clear. Pix c, overexposed, lighting poor. see photos4u.dk for ideas. and...composition in real life should include color, even if it is monochrome...why waste superior color-coated optics on 1930s looking b and w shots