the shuttered eye

Hardly. This will be much much more than a niche format unlike the initial 4/3'rds format. It offers a significant reduction in size making a truly compact camera with DSLR quality. The initial 4/3rds system offered users little not available in other DSLR's while having a minor sensor-size related disadvantage. Lot's of people have been screaming for a quality compact. This answers that call. It's a shame that Canon does not see this, or too stubborn to accept it. (no, the G9 is grossly inadequate).

Might Kendall Gelner's opinion here be a little biased? He does after all work for Sigma. Many promotional images for the DP1 and SD14 on Sigma's websites were produced by Mr. Gelner. He should have disclosed this relationship when offering his comments so we could gauge just how much salt it is indeed worth in this discussion.

 

While I agree that dpreview.com reviews recently have been variable, their review of the Sigma DP1 is consistent with what I have heard elsewhere. It is slow and full of limitations for anything but daylight landscape photography. This gathering consensus of all but the most ardent Sigma/Foveon loyalists, is leading to slowing sales (they are down to virtually nothing in Japan) and used DP1's are already turning up for sale all over the internet. The market doesn't lie.

 

It is a shame really, as there are many, like myself, who have been waiting for a camera like this -- a DSLR-quality sensor in a compact P&S body. One hopes that the experience of the DP1 doesn't put off other manufacturers from producing a product for this space. This type of product still has great potential. It just requires a manufacturer with better project management and execution skills, the ability to tap into extensive digital P&S design and production experience, and, perhaps, a manufacturer not wed to the Foveon sensor.

<i>Quote, "hmmm... why an experienced&leading manufacturer like Cosina needs to use a german name to sell their Leica copy cameras and Leica-designed mount lenses? (Just for bugging... )"</i>

<p>

It's not Cosina using a German name. It is Zeiss' camera not Cosina's. It was designed by Zeiss and it built to Zeiss' specifications and QC by OEM supplier Cosina. I wouldn't call it a Leica' copy, particulary as the original poster points out, it works and performs better than the Leica. The only thing borrowed from the Leica is the lens mount. Just because it is a rangefinder doesn't mean that it is a Leica copy. Zeiss has been building rangefinder cameras for roughly as long as Leica.

XP2 is nice. In addition to what's been said about it already, you should underexpose by a half to a full stop to produce really lovely tonality and fine grain (and you can shoot it at 200 and 400 ISO on the same roll -- just have the lab process it normally).

Contax S2 (or S2b). All manual, exceptional build quality, outstanding finder brightness and accuracy.

 

b.t.w., the Contax Aria is really nice, but has a motor for auto-film advance, and just isn't built to the standard of the S2.

Dave wrote, "what is wrong with the Nikon 35mm f2?? "

 

Nothing really, it's more about what's right with the ZF 35mm f2.0. Try it, compare it, and you'll be sold. Lovely color, lovely bokeh, outstanding build quality and the highest resolution of 35mm focal length SLR lens around.

If you manually focus, you don't need to lock the focus, and anything you do with the AEL lock won't have an effect on your manual focus point.

I guess that depends on how much it costs. It seems to me that at low ISO's the IQ of the Kodak is every bit as good as the D3, and since I wouldn't need it for high ISO work (or sports) it could serve my needs very well. So if the shutter fails, can it be replaced and if so at what cost?

Given that it is based on the N80, if the shutter on the Kodak SLR/n fails, can it be repaired by a source other than Kodak?

Does anyone know what the estimated shutter life is for the Kodak SLR/n camera body?

 

I assume that if it dies the camera is toast as Kodak is not supporting them any

more.

 

I appreciate the help. Thanks.

Does anyone know what the estimated shutter life is for the Kodak SLR/c camera body?

 

I assume that if it dies the camera is toast as Kodak is not supporting them any

more.

 

I appreciate the help. Thanks.

Many thanks. These are just what I need.

I recently got a Mamiya RB 6x8 Power Drive film back, but don't really have a

clue about how it is supposed to work. I can load it with film and batteries,

but thats about it. What do the switches do, and what do the labels mean? How

do you manually wind the film (if that's what you have to do)? How do you

advance the film, how do you finish winding the film onto the take-up spool when

the roll is finished?

 

Does anyone know where I can download a manual on-line, or find one reproduced

on line, or order one? Mamiya USA doesn't have it one their website.

 

Maybe someone can take a few seconds and explain the controls here.

 

Thanks for the help.

Bob Atkins writes, <i>"I recently looked at a Zeiss 35/1.4 lens (for the Sony DSLRs). It was AF and it cost $1350. It was OK, but I can't say I was blown away by anything other than the price."</i>

<p>

First of all, WRONG! The 35/1.4 lens for the Sony DSLR's is NOT a Zeiss lens!! It is a Sony (nee Minolta) G lens.

<p>

Second, Canon's 35/1.4L lens is almost as much at about $1150. A mere $200 difference in the price compared to the Canon lens and your "blown away"?? Huh? It seems to me that the Sony/Minolta lens and Canon L lens are comparable in both performance and price, and depending on whether you choose a Sony or Canon system you will have a decent 35/1.4 lens available to you.

<p>

As for manual focusing, there are a lot of people that actually prefer it. It's clearly not necessarily ideal for some situations (sports, action, similar), but it can be ideal for critical focus applications, portraiture, product work, macro work, and static subjects. It is far from a gimmick. It is an issue of control and precision (although if you're using a Canon you really have to swap out the inadequate stock focusing screen for something better), and a matter of personal preference -- how one likes to work.

<p>

Further, in designing a MF lens you don't have the same restrictions that you have with designing an AF lens. With an AF lens you are limited by needed to have a small group of elements that can be moved by a motor (usually an IF group). In a MF design, you can do this, or design a lens that allows you to more and/or larger elements than would be feasible in an AF lens. As a result, this greater flexibility in lens design provides the potential for better designs and performance (ceteris paribus). This is one of the reasons early AF lens sucked. Over time, makers have since learned how to design better AF lenses and some are now quite good. But there is a reason why MF lenses from Leica and Zeiss are, generally speaking, the best out there, and why people still seek out, adapt and use 20-year old Leica, Zeiss, Zuiko and even MF Pentax lenses on their Canon DSLR's. Overall (and across a broad range of performance criteria), they just perform better, and as I mentioned before because they prefer MF. To suggest that people do it just because they can be had cheap is just wildly inaccurate. Tell that the people that have invested $3000 or more in a Zeiss (contax) 21mm/2.8 Distagon, or $2000+ in a Leica Summilux. The reasons why are clearly in the images created for those that care to look.

<p>

Finally, if Canon allowed Zeiss to use its AF protocols in it's lenses, Zeiss might have made AF lenses for Canon. But it would have been a different lens designs (and probably not as good overall). As for the new Zeiss ZF 28/2.0, it's predecessor the Zeiss Contax 28/2.0 ("Hollywood") lens is justly famous. As the new ZF lens is reported to better the older lens in almost every way, it should prove to be quite a special lens. I might just get in the queue to buy one right now. I'm sure there will be many people right there with me (including many Canon users who are dissatisfied with Canon's wide angle lenses).

Quote, <i>"I have a D2x and have often also scanned Provia F (from a Leica M6) using an ED5000. Without a doubt the D2X is more comaprable to my old RZ67 in terms od resolution, even with sizes of A2 and slightly larger. The Provia scans are superb (well I did use Leica glass), but for me the D2X wins hands down."</i>

<p>

That is interesting. I have a 5D, which is certainly at least comparable to the D2X, it is no match at all for a Nikon 8000 scan of a 6x7 100 ISO slide out of my Mamyia 7. The 5D beats a properly scanned and processed 100 ISO 35mm slide from a Nikon 5000 or (even KM Scan Elite 5400 II, which is better) so I would assume ther DX2 would as well. In my experience, it would be a toss up with the 10mp D200 (the D200 would be better at higher ISO's, and have other advantages with respect to workflow, etc.). A 16x24 print is beyond the limits of the D200. You will be able to tell the difference between a D200/DX2 and a scanned, good slide. Both won't be great. The 35mm will show more resolution but also some grain (which many or may not bother you). The D200 will just be soft/fuzzy and lacking in fine detail (which may not bother you if you don't get too close to the print).

<p>

A good 6x7 slide (from a Mamiya 7 or a RB67, for example), however, is hands down better than any 35mm format DSLR -- including the D2X and the 1DsMkII.

Any idea of the cost involved?

Does anyone have an idea of what Canon Service would charge for a CLA on one of

their IS telephoto lenses?

 

I am seeing some internal dust on the lens, and am trying to decide whether it

is worht getting it cleaned.

 

Further, if I do go ahead with a CLA, is there a real risk that Canon will screw

it up and send me back a lens that doesn't perform as well as it did before?

 

Thanks for the input.

I noticed that there were couple initial posts regarding Peter Hogan's Prescysol

developer back in 2004. Has anyone had any experience with it since then? I've

just noticed that it is now available from the Photographer's Formulary -- you

no longer have to order it from across the pond. See: http://tinyurl.com/gndpx,

and even the more recent variation Prescylsol EF, see: http://tinyurl.com/oocz3

(note: I have no connection to either the Photographer's Formulary or Peter Hogan).

 

Does anyone have a good feel for how it might perform relative to other staining

developers like Pyrocat-HD, PMK, and WD2D+? Any particualry characteristics

that might distinguish from these other developers? Is it, in practice easier

to use? Any disappointments, any films or situations that it seems

particularly well suited to? It would be great to get an update on anyone's

experience with it. Thanks.

quote: <i>"If you're going to shoot a document film in this day and age then ImageLink w/ SPUR is a far better choice."</i>

<p>

Have you compared ImageLink w/ SPUR with the new ADOX CMS 20? What leads you to say that? Is it merely because Zeiss has made a claim about the lens using this film, or do you actually have disappointing results using this film?

<p>

As for the legitamacy of Zeiss' claim, I perhaps more incline to believe the results of a team of some of the best optical scientists with many decades of experience working with all the best possible equipment, over some fanatic working out of his basement (not to mention with a consistent anti-Zeiss bias in his writings). I will further note that Mr. Putz did not even include test the ADOX CMS 20 film that Zeiss actually used in their measurement and make no comment about it.

<p>

ImageLink w/ SPUR might be a good film too, but this new CMS 20 film is noticably cheaper (by almost 40%) so a comparision between the 2 would be useful. If you've done a comparision that might support your statement, I hope you will be able to post some supporting comparative images here. Thanks.

Thanks, Jack. I just want ot be clear. I have no problems or issues with J and C. They are a fine outlet for photographic materials -- and I will ask them. But as with most of the questions in this forum, you could always ask you favorite retails for information/advice/ suggestions. Sometimes however, you want to go beyond that and hear what your peers and fellow users think, find out what their real-life experience has been with these products. I believe (and I think most of the users of the forum might agree) that you get more information and different insights here than you might get from your retailers, not matter how good the retailer is), and (sometimes after separating out the wheat from the chaff) this information and insight are quite valuable.

 

I have no problem using slow film in 35mm or 120 formats. (Actually, I be really interested -- if this film is a good as they suggest -- if they made it available in 120 rolls.)

 

Larry, thanks. I will look forward to hearing what you think of it after using it.

most of the above, and... you don't have to buy a new camera, and in some cases (depending on what you have), all new lenses. You have to spend few thousand to get a DSLR with decnet build quality that doesn't feel like some plastic toy. Film is also cheap. Unless you're cranking out thousands of images, film in your existing cameras is cheaper. And if you are using a medium format film camera, it takes a vicious amount of money to match their image quality.

quote: <i>"Why don't you ask J&C?"</i>

<p>

Becuase I was hoping to get an independent assessment and perspective. A user's experience is quite often more valuable that a salesman's pitch (regardless of of reputable/honest/forthright they might be).

quote: <i>"plastic for 35mm, stainless for MF"</i><p>

That about sums it up for me as well. I have several Jobo tanks and plastic reels. The 35mm was always easy and foolproof with the plastic reels. 120, however, was a cursed, frustrating experience. Have since picked up the stainless steel reel that fits the Jobo plastic tanks (made for Jobo by Hewes) and life is good.

That was done by a professional lab?! That should never have happened. I would be asking for my money back and a replacement roll of film for screwing up.

J and C Photo are selling a film from ADOX called CMS 20. They claim it is and

"Ultra High Resolution Film". Does any one know anything about this film? What

is it like? Is it similar to anything else on the market? How does it compare?

Is this a potential APX25 replacement or another Copex/Gigbit type film? There

is a special developer for it, but say it can also be developed in Rodinal and

HC-110. Any information, thoughts and experience you might have with this film

would be appreciated. Thanks.