ross_wilson1

Here's how I came to that conclusion; Fuji has re-named only their 400 speed film, the two new 160's are new emulsions, add to that the new 400 slide film that's coming out and the recent Velvia 100. That's not bad considering film is 'dead', regardless of when it was in R&D.

 

If film manufacturers stop making film, leaving only a couple left, then that doesn't mean those few business stays the same, the get bigger, not proportionately so, but bigger all the same.

 

Also, Fuji are a few years away from their new technology for DSLR's it pays them to keep developing new films until their new technology is out.

Indeed although some pro labs have closed, it may be that they were surplus to requirements prior to digital. The digital revolution has simply trimmed the fat. The four pro-labs I have used are all still going strong. There have been some shake ups, a few services have been dropped, but that's inevitable. I mean, I even have a pro lab around the corner from me in Southampton, and there's nothing good usually in Southampton! In fact the guy there was telling me how all his ergular clients are going back to medium format after trying digital. If you ask me, film has photoshop built in.

I don't judge anyone on their list of awards or achievements given them by a comity who I don't know and who's opinions are no more valid than those of an illiterate Mongolian. Sorry they count for nothing in my world.

 

Gibson probably likes Photoshop given his terrible ability to dodge and burn, something in itself I don't really consider part of genuine photography. As for his technically good 'images', I don't really find them particularly inspiring.

 

As for Erwitt, he's one of few people who understands what photography really is, or at least oriniginally was, and doesn't confuse it with digital imaging.

If they're putting money into film R&D still, then it maybe that better chemicals could arrive that in themselves could provide a better result. Chemicals are being developed (no pun intended) all the time not just for film but that my have benifits to film processing services. Advancements in technology also help in the R&D labs and making things cheaper (not just for gadgets and digi photography). Who knows, if there's someone out there who can make colour tempreture indipendant dev chems, then they're going to sell a lot of it! That's a market worth having.

Andy,

 

Max wrote:

 

The arguments for using a rangefinder over an SLR system is about the same for digital.

 

You replied:

 

No, Max, it is not at all the same argument.

 

It's sometimes hard to believe that some participants in this forum actually read anything before they begin typing. Isn't just Andy.

"No, Max, it is not at all the same argument. The DM will not have the silent M shutter, it will be the same clickety-clack shutter as is in every other camera body."

 

I would say it is exactly the same argument, and do you know about the shutter for certain?

 

"It will weigh about the same as a mid-range DSLR (the M body already does), its exterior dimensions will be essentially the same,"

 

This is another reason some people have favoured rangefinder size over slr size for years until now, it is part of the RF vs SLR argument.

 

"Other than the loss of AF, of course, the sole difference between a DM and a DSLR will be in the viewfinder functionality and in the fact that it will be capable of using M-lenses and producing a file larger than the Epson's 6MP"

 

Sole difference!? You've just mentioned all the things one weighs up when choosing an RF or DSLR, most importantly viewfinder and manual focusing. If they mean nothing to you then there's no choice, get the D200. But for many;

 

Size difference, Lens design, Viewfinder, Basic operation, Manual focus

 

..are the main points of difference between the two camera types and are all the points argued about. If you're looking for a reason to buy the D200 rather than the digital M, then it'll be all the same reasons faced by some choosing the F100 over the M6.

 

Size difference, lens design, viewfinder, general manual operation, manual focus. The recording format is the only thing the same, same goes for DM or DSLR and F100 vs M6. These are very significant differences to most photographers. I'd buy the D200, then handle the DM when it's available, then sell the D200 if you want the DM, but they will be very different to use.

I haven't been able to find another place that sells them, let alone that's cheaper. That said any UK Rollei dealers should have them. Don't forget that's ﾣ70 plus VAT, too. On econsolation is they do keep them in stock so you won't have to wait long for it.

Technically speaking the battery you got does hold a charge, just not for long. I bought a 6008 from ffordes and likewise its battery was as about as useful as yours. If it is the same battery as the 6008 then you can get a new one from www.robertwhite.co.uk the new ones do seem to last forever.

 

Ross

Seriously I don't know what you're all talking about. Chuck obviously seems to be the only one here who realises that a Leica camera is hand crafted by magical German elves. There's no way you could use one without coming into contact with the magical residue the elves leave on the camera! Lets look at this from another angle, anyone who has a Leica and takes bad pictures, even one, is obviously in legion with the devil and the hoards of the underworld. Leica's are magical, they do make you a better photographer, and damn it no Chunk don't hire him if he doesn't have a Leica!! Same way as you wouldn't hire a writer who uses BIC pens, it's got to be Parker, if you have a Parker yourself it makes sense that you and your mate write the story rather than the real author. Magic is not cheap!

Wide angle MF lenses are hugely expensive, except for a couple of systems, Contax not being one of them. Many complain of a lot of distortion in the MF WA lens line up, these lenses are also, huge in size as well as expense. Prices are high even in the used market. If that's not an issue jump in, but be prepared to carry the weight, which is just plain awkward whatever system you go for. My own personal reccomendadtion would be, the Hasselblad SWC or sticking to 35mm, go Nikon or better still try a rangefinder with a wide angle lens that is not retro focus in design. Mamiya 7 is also a good route, if not flimsy.

"How do I get the best from my D200?"

 

Sell it and buy a film camera. MWHAHAHAHAHA!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

(*for all those with bugs residing in their rectums, it's a joke)

With the now much more reasonably priced M6, a new MP could be seen as a staus symbol, the M7 too given the cheaper but still excellent alternatives. The ultimate status Leica, an a la carte, or special edition. Perhaps it's not so much the name in general, but the model.

 

As with most status related names, there's always a more reasonably priced alternative, even for Ferarri. If it is a status, it's more so seen that way by other photogs, to those that use them, there's just no other real alternative.

I have a Jobo ATL 1000 which I currently use only for B&W. I need to

pump warm wash water in during the wash cycles to do colour, I know

Jobo do a water heater thing, which I can't get hold of and the

portable pump is no longer available either. Is there anyone out

there who can give me some ideas to a solution, that perhaps doesn't

requrie a plumber?

 

Thanks

I've always found Zeiss optics to have plenty of contrast, very sharp and saturated, a kind of larger than life look. I noticed this with the Contax camera's I've used. Leica is a very different look again, Schneider again so. These lenses very much have their own look. I found the Mamiya lenses to be pretty much like you said, very true to the scene, a very 'straight' look. I think when you throw wild colours into the equation with these lenses then you'll see them do their thing.

I was in Thailand on a 'once in a life time' trip a large company had taken me and lots of other customers on. The proffessional photographer documenting the trip was eyeing up my camera at dinner and when one of the people on my table asked what's that, he announnced to the other ten people on my table that it was 'a Leica, the Rolls Royce of cameras!'.

 

Generally many people smile when I have it, I think just because they think it's old and cool, somehow comforting. I never got any such response when I toted my F80 around, and the amount of non photographers that have refered to film cameras as proper cameras is really surprising, even those who had an entree dslr thought film was 'proper'.

Most magazines don't care what a picture is taken on as long as it's high enough res and it comes on a disc. That can be film or digital. If a magazine chooses one format over the other, it will be down to what can sustain the dpi they require at the size they want. I don't think any mag chooses one look over the other, when people say "my clients love digital" mostly they mean they love getting stuff on a disc relatively quickly.

Okay Steve, digital is fine, but nothing touches the attributes of a Leica and nothing ever will. There, that's what you wanted to hear isn't it.

 

If you like the digital look but want the rangefinderness of Leica, and you can't stretch to an RD1, then you're going to have to make serious comprises. If you don't want to make a comprise in the workings of the camera then you're going to have to make a compromises by using the generally slower process of using film.

 

If you want my advice, by an M6. You have a DSLR, and a Leica is a Leica, film is film, at the very least you'll be experiencing something new.

Well obviously there's more than one camera then and one format, the Nascar Imax movie was shot on the camera I described as per a lengthly American Cinemaphotographer article I read. Excuse me.

Like I said, a movie with the lights they use in a studio can be shot on stock around 50 asa then transfered with no optical step to super fine grain slow film. The grain by this point is very very small, even when it the picture is very big. Ad that to the fact a lot of your Hollywood blockbusters are going through a DI 'digital intermediate' and can be clean up there if needed.

 

Want more odd facts? The state of the art HD cinema camera Sony's Cine Alta is about the equivilent of a 2 mega pixel camera. The difference is the quality of the CCD's and the other worldly lenses not to mention processing software etc etc. It's all very very expensive, but motion picture tolerances make still photography tolerances look as loose as a dutch hooker. Things like the circle of confusion tolerances and lens tolerances all help in creating the finest pictures.

 

By the way, IMAX is simply 4 x 35mm motion mags, it's not some special film. It's effectively a special built camera that's basically like four cameras in a line that take standard panavision 1000ft 35mm mags. So you're looking at 35mm picture film when you look at any one quater of the image.

 

At the end of the day it's simply far, far more affordable and easier to go bigger with the film size than to refine tolerances to the nth degree of 35mm still photography. Just take a look at the size of a standard panavision PL mount lens, it makes the biggest medium format lenses look small, and it's resolving on an area that's a fair bit smaller than your still photography 35mm frame.

 

Even 70mm has been almost abandoned because of what modern design and tech has done with 35mm.

 

35mm film at the movies is the best the format can be, it's just so out of this world expensive to do that getting an MF camera makes a lot more sense.

If you want to read an opinion from someone with experience of using many types of film scanner and who's opinion is that the 4990 maybe a bit closer to 10 than 5 then you can find it here:

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/epson/4990.htm

 

And perhaps the Ap review will have something to say on that too.

You might look at it as someone who buys a Leica with a 50 cron has just saved and spent all their money. Or an M6ttl is cheaper than a D200 or good D70 kit etc.

 

Yes I was refering to the V700, I was not aware of the V750 but the fact the V700 was mentioned in AP is more of a clue to its iminent arrival in the UK rather than AP's legendary (not) reviews.

 

Can't say I've ever used a dedicated film scanner, but obviously they're supposed to be better, that said it would appear Epson is re-writing what a flatbed can do. Especially considering it scans film from above and below. Not the same as a dedicated film scanner but, still not so bad, and Epson aren't exactley known for making crap products.

 

As usually it depends on your budget, and what you want out the other end. All I can say is the 4490 being not too disimilar of the 4990 gave me prolab print colours and some great 16x12's.

Also if you pause a frame of your TV and it's an interlaced tv not progressive scan, what you'll be seeing is one of two 'fields' of video that are used to create the one frame. You need to put these two fields together (in photoshop etc) etc to see the real frame.

It has to do with viewing distance, but also the actual film shot is transfered onto a special film for release, it's a very, very slow film, about 5 ASA, so has much finer grain.

Whilst the supposed professional photographer has every right to be angry, it would be like me legally threatening people for using illustrator to make posters for their own associations or businesses (I'm a graphic designer by trade).

 

This is the nature of the digital world, the same world that has probably saved that guy loads of money, and lost him some in other areas. If his photo's were really something original, he'd have nothing to be worried about.

 

I'm with Aaron here, the guys a greedy ass, and I'd embarrass him buy writing a letter about it and handing it out to all the parents (of course not using any potentially libellous language). He needs to be named and shamed, people like that are out to wreck free society in the name of profit.

Hi,

 

I have the model down from that which has a slightly lower dmax and only does the film scan (above and below) over a smaller section of the full platen, otherwise it's the same.

 

I got some Fuji NPC processed at Peak Imagine with their pro package, when I scanned the negs after receiving the prints back they were exactly the same in terms of colour as the pro processed prints. I highly recommend this scanner for the price. In theory the 4990 should let you see even further into the shadows, not to mention let you scan more at a time and let you apply ICE to a print bigger than 6x4. There is however a new model coming out soon, Amateur Photographer has a review next week, so it's not that far away.

 

Rgds

 

Ross