dg1

Good discussion, but sometimes I wonder if the translations between 35mm and various digital formats is that useful. For me anyway, having sold any film gear I had, now I find I'm less interested in what would be what if it were that etc.

 

Having said that I'll contradict myself and ask, to sum things up for my own frame of reference:

 

If I have a 50mm lens at f/1.8 on a 35mm camera or "full frame", what focal length and aperture will give me the identical angle of view and DOF on my Canon 10D with 1.6 "crop" factor?

How can anyone ever know the "why" of what another does? And in the case of art, doesn't this presume a separate narrative on the part of the artist in order to "explain" why? If you regard photography as a visual language, which I do, then how could knowing why the photographer took a given picture add anything but some redundant echo. I personally dislike photos with captions, and the photographer his/her-self may even miss what they've done in their effort to translate into words.

 

But writers write, and so you get things like "On Photography" which is what it is, writings on photography. I found value in Sontag's book as a singular perspective coming from a reaction to photography, certainly not the only one, and certainly not a substitute for the pictures themselves. I also like Sarkowski's work. That said, I agree with guitarist Derek Bailey who likened writing about music (or art) to a different art form that while existing parallel to it, really has nothing to do with it. I try to take all "criticism" in that spirit, as a creative activity of its own riffing off of something else. It may or may not reflect some influence back. Another musician, John Cage, once said that rather than criticizing someone's work just create your own work and let that be your criticism. I think the better writers like Sontag do that. Something just serves as a jumping off point for their own creative activity, and in her case she had some interesting ideas. It's irrelevant whether the photographers intended those ideas. IMO.

 

And as for calling someone's work BS.. well they've right to their opinion, but calling it BS is abusive. If that individual is a photographer maybe they should just stick to photography until they develop more useful verbal skills.

Isn't the so called background compression really a function of how near or far one stands from the subject? It's not the lens' focal length but the distance the lens is from the subject that matters.

 

For instance, the distortions of a wide-angle lens are not created by the lens, but rather by the fact that such lens might require you to have the camera close to the subject. If a 50mm on my 10D requires me to stand in the same spot relative to my subject as does an 80mm lens on my full frame 35mm film camera (if I had one...) then the foreground background "compression" will be the same for the same framing. I believe the effective DOF will be the same for the same reasons, but I'm not sure about that.

I've got a zoom for my 10D, but I don't use it anymore, I've gone back to my 28mm f/2.8 and the 50mm f/1.8 II for the DSLR. Keeps it lighter, more compact. The zoom is a Sigma 18mm-50mm f/3.5-5.6 that I bought mainly for the wide angle, and it's really an ok lens, but now I use a KM-A2 for its longer reach as well as an equivalent wide angle and it is lighter and more compact than the 10D regardless of lens.

 

I'm by no means a pro, but I've had a couple "mentors".. friends who are long time professionals and I was encouraged to get a couple primes when I got the 10D. They encouraged me to eliminate as many equipment decisions as possible so as to concentrate on looking and shooting. Thus my film cameras were a TLR (which even eliminates the decision about vertical vs horizontal framing), a Canonet fixed lens RF, an olympus Stylus Epic. My digicams have zooms but generally stay at one focal length. There's a certain feeling of freedom in just going out with one camera and a prime.

 

And of course, I can't quite afford an L lens anyway, so I may as well wax poetic about the virtues of the primes ;)

The lens in the digilux 1 is reportedly the same as the Canon G2, and Epson PhotoPC 3100Z, and Sony S85. While they were variously branded Leica, Zeiss, Epson, Canon, the general consensus was that it is a Canon lens. Some theorize that the coatings differ. Maybe the DSC-V3 is different. Anyway there are so many factors involved in the internal image processing of the camera, it seems to me that to separate the lens's effect upon color rendition from the processor and sensor, is rather impossible.

Now there's the real "dog nose" effect!

I just want to add some kudos for the Epson PC3100. A truly fantastic 3.3 meg camera that shared the lens used in the Canon G2, Leica Digilux 1 (at least that was theorized) and some others. 35mm f/2.0 at the wide end. The image processing was first rate also. I took this camera on a trip through Italy and still get blown away by the quality of the images. A PIM (print image matching) camera, it paired up well with Epson's PIM direct printers too. Noise levels also were quite low, and the HIpict 5meg interpolation mode, really worked pretty darn well, although hardly necessary given the quality of the 3.3 native files.

You might want to go to Rollei's website and check out their version of the Ricoh Caplio GX. It's the Rollei dr5100. I mention it instead of the Ricoh because you can buy it directly from them for $329.00 plus shipping in the USA if that's where you are. Ricoh Caplios are not sold in North America. I have the GX and it's features are very nice, with hotshoe, manual control etc and the lens is very sharp. Images require postprocessing to get the best out of them, it doesn't shoot raw, and the optical viewfinder is just the typical barely adequate little window. But I think it's the best attempt so far at compact digicam with some "pro" useability, especially the low shutter lag.. it's very fast. 28-85mm f/2.5-4.3 (35mm equiv) 5 megs. Rollei calls the lens a "vario apogon" or something like that and says they use their HFT coating.. I don't know what that amounts to but my Ricoh lens seems quite good.

 

If you don't mind an EVF, the Canon Pro1 claims an "L" lens, or you can find the KM-A2 at microcenter right now for just over $650.00 new. I like the A2 a lot, and it has everything you mention, including a manual zoom lens. But the EVF might not suit you. It's a great EVF though.

my old 2.3 meg Ricoh RDC 5000 had a great lens, and, unusual for a p&s, a 2:3 aspect ratio. The rdc5300 had a few more improvements, but I dont' recall what they were- otherwise almost the same camera. Both are slow though, about 7 sec between shots if I remember correctly. I liked the rdc5000 a lot though, had the size of a range finder, and some real nice imaging, plus a metal body, also unusual for the time.

break time..<div></div>

When I got my 10D a couple years ago, I immediately replaced the garish CANON ------ DIGITAL --- neck strap with a generic quantaray stretchy neoprene strap. I just thought the Canon strap was too corny, the foam strap is much more comfortable with the heavy 10D also.

 

I was going to tape over the "digital" on the camera too, but never did. I don't see what's distracting about it though, I just get tired of all the logo culture. Everything is self advertising, clothes, shoes, cameras, it just seems kind of stupid.

A "make-shift" digital back? What? Are these things just laying around? Maybe you could just ding one up for yourself out of that drugstore cmos sensor Ray what's-his-name is always raving about.

 

The "digital back" for film cameras that have no digital backs is called a scanner. Preferably a film scanner. Why not start there? Maybe you can shrink one to fit.

 

Here's another good idea: get a very compact digital, like an exilim or pentax optio, you know, credit card sized, or fits in an altoid can... take the back off the lomo then position the lens of the tiny digital behind the lomo lens. Duct tape it in place. Make some kind of extension to attach to the digicam shutter button so it comes out the top of the lomo (you might have to drill a hole). Then if the lomo has a bulb setting just hold the lomo shutter open and fire the little digital! If the lomo's lens interfere's with focus maybe that's good, if not, just rip it out of there. If the Lomo Kompakt Automat doesn't have a bulb setting you might want to do that anyway.

I could care less what DCRP says about anything. Also it's easy to talk about specifications, a little more difficult, as well as more relevant, to talk about photography and the utility of a particular tool.

 

A lot depends on what Roger wants to do with the camera, and that he has not stated. However this is the crux of the matter, and criticisms of whether, for instance the exilim S3 has a tripod mount, or has a "slow" lens, may not matter. In short I think it is folly to make ones judgements based on specmanship and the testing of internet geeks, many of whom seem to have at best, a tangential relationship with photography and a more intimate relationship with their computer screen.

 

As for the exilim series, S2 and S3, I've seen some marvelous images from these cameras in the hands of a good photographer. Obviously the "image qualilty" is not an absolute and must be judged on how it meets the aesthetic needs of the individual. It's nonsense to make sweeping statements about a single camera being the only choice.

 

Ricoh has come forward with some innovative small cameras recently, like the R1, and GX cameras. The GX and GX8 have features clearly designed from a photographer's viewpoint, and I see no reason to doubt that they will follow through on the GR1.. best they take their time as the expectations of it will be insane.

"Only the Canon Canon PowerShot SD20/SD10 will fit your criterion in reality. "

 

Casio's exilim S2 and S3 models are very good and very fast.

 

Ricoh is due to release it's digital GR1 soon. No word on whether it is zoom, but given the existence of the already zooming GX and GX8, it's presumed that a digital GR1 will be a fixed focal length lens like the GR1 film camera. Might be worth waiting a bit.

They're both "prosumer" cameras aren't they? Whatever that means. Curious why you don't check out the Canon Pro1, Sony f828, Oly 8080 or KM A2. The KM A2 has unquestionably the best EVF available, higher resolution, mechanical zoom lens, and good ergonomics. In many ways I think the A2 would offer the best features of both the D2 and G6.

The 10D has no B&W mode, but if it did, you'd still be viewing the world in color through the optical viewfinder. B&W film photographers don't have B&W optical viewfinders either.

 

I like to shoot in B&W mode with the A2, it has the best in-camera B&W mode I've had so far and the EVF and monitor preview in B&W. I enjoy being able to do that, but if I want the most flexibility for working with the image B&W or color, I shoot in RAW. A nice feature of the A2 though is that it will shoot RAW in B&W mode so that the monitor shows B&W but the file is RAW with color. Then I can do my own conversion later on. It's helpful in visualizing the B&W result, but not that big a benefit.

 

I wouldn't trade your 10D off on that basis, you'll end up shooting RAW anyway sooner or later.

If an APS-C sized sensor necessarily entails a lens of physically large dimensions, then how did camera makers develop the P&S film cameras like the Stylus Epic with 35mm f/2.8 lens and a full frame "sensor"?

 

The Epson RD-1, while not a pocket compact P&S uses relatively compact Leica M mount lenses, and the Pentax *ist DS also keeps it's lens mass at least a bit lower than the Canon 350D doesn't it?

 

I agree with Bob A. however, the latter 2 dslrs while not pocket digicams make perfectly fine and reasonably compact P&S if one uses them as such.

 

Still it seems like a large sensor compact P&S digicam should be as possible as a 35mm compact camera like the GR1 or Stylus.

I'm more interested in being able to render very shallow DOF at the 48mm equiv on my 10D than the lens speed. A 2 stop faster lens than my f/2.8 is a great added benefit, but with the high ISO capability of the 10D it's not my main priority.

 

Still, with similar pricing the best Canon has to offer is the 28mm f/1.8, a hair over 1 stop advantage from my f/2.8, and next the 28mm f/1.4 at twice the price of this Sigma. Looking at it this way, it's perhaps not fair to criticize Sigma's pricing (if the lens turns out to be as good as Canon's), and it is less than 1/2 the price of the Canon equivalent. Maybe some criticism of Canon's pricing structure is more in order.

Yeah it's a disappointing price and I don't get how they can charge $500.00 for a 18-50mm DC f/2.8 zoom and turn around and charge nearly as much for a 30mm prime. Of course I don't really know much about lens design. I've got a Canon 28mm f/2.8 that's serving quite well for a sub $200.00 lens. And the cheap Canon 50mm f/1.8 II which is excellent. Something doesn't quite add up, they must figure they've found a niche they can exploit. Depending on how good it works for the reviewers and early adopters however, I'm still interested.

Thanks all, this must be fairly recent, only a couple weeks ago I was doing some searching and came up with nothing concrete.

... only i's 4 u<div></div>

The photographer's have their reasons for their photographs, the curators have their reasons for choosing them. It's ok to disagree, there's a lot of stuff I don't like, but I try to remind myself that it is also easy to sit in the back row and take pot shots without risk. It's another story to put your work out infront of everyone. It takes more work and sacrifice than the observer may realize. Cynical as I am, I find it hard to believe that artists doing unpopular or controversial work see it as a quick route to riches. There's hard work involved that should be recognized and respected. That's not to say we have to like everything we see, but IMO,often times making the effort to understand what we don't like can enhance our understanding of the things we do like.

Isn't pretty much all photography "documentary"? We document events, vacations, maybe feelings.. there's a "documentary style" and I'm not sure what that would entail, or exclude. Walker Evans is considered one of the fathers of the documentary style, yet if I'm not mistaken he was fired from his famous WPA project for being a little too expressive. I'm not sure what all that means, what you are describing certainly sounds like documentary to me. Or is it photojournalism? Is there a difference? Can you have a single documentary photo or must it be in the context of a photo essay? Alec Soth, who's work I really love, has said that he's coming to regard the interaction he has with his subjects, strangers that he meets, or places, as the actual artwork, and that the resulting photograph is merely a document of that interaction. Interesting thought.

I've been anticipating the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 release since they

announced it. My understanding was it would probably be out last

month, but all I see is the same old info. Like "Weight: TBD" .

Anyone know anymore about it?

Alfredo Jaar.. well I looked at his work, I didn't find the website really that bad, but it all has this "art" thing about it, and most of his images seem to be connected with some wordy explaination about why they are "important" and that sort of thing. I saw nothing that moved me photographically. That's from my short perusal of the website however, but, like they say, you get what you pay for. In comparison with Alec Soth who's photos speak very well for themselves, and have a sincerity and honesty in the vision, Jaar comes off, for me as pretentious as well as a fairly mediocre photograher. Maybe as a conceptualist he's ok, but I'm not into that.

 

Haven't checked out Nan Goldin yet.