PDA

View Full Version : Fixing things and my daily thoughts



BillH
09-02-2005, 10:07 PM
I have a love for photography much like I do for fixing things with my tools and building stuff.
Last week my uncle found an old Kodak 600 carosel slide projector a lady was going to throw out at the waste dispoal site. Uncle brought it home for me to use. The slide projector was missing its power coord, had no tray, and the focusing knob did not work.
I Took an old extension coord, snipped off the female end and soldered it onto the terminals on the back of the projector and sealed it up with some shrink wrap tubing. Turned it on, Works, great!
I took it apart to find out why the focusing knob didnt work. The shaft has a nylon gear on it over a knurled section. Ofcourse the knurl section was more than the gear could take and it split. Just a standard rack and pinion that moves the lense in and out.
Now despite the fact that ALL my tools are 250 miles away, I went to enco to look at rotary tables and day dreamed about making a new gear. Then a light bulb went off and thought that maybe an R/C car pinion could work. Went to the hobby store, and wouldnt you know, a 48 pitch, 19 tooth pinion was a perfect fit. I still have to go visit the parents though and drill it out on the lathe to fit the shaft, but I now have a replacement gear.

Now for my other thoughts. Screw digital, I know all the benefits of it, but screw it, screw it, screw it! Can you easily take a digital image and make it into a nice color slide with the resolution? Print to transparency with the same resolution? Find a LCD projector that is even close to a color slide? I think not.
My uncle gave me a beutifull Canon FTb camera, it was my grandpas, used only a couple of times and been in storage ever since, brand new condition. Even has the plastic cover over the hot shoe. Obviously the camera needs new light seals and foam, and after my expirience of fixing my Minolta SRT100, I am going to take it to a pro to fix.
I found a guy upstate NY. This guy knows his stuff. A true master. He is going to recalibrate the shutter, check the tensions of the springs, change the circuit inside to use newer batteries, verify the changed settings over a period of time, clean it up, put new foam and light baffle in, and what ever else he does for a pretty damn reasonable price. He told me that the FTb has ball bearings all over, and is built to last a lifetime, I believe him.
Then I asked him how digital cameras were hurting his buisness, he told me, "Quite honestly, it is putting me out of buisness, I have to decide by the end of the year if I should close shop up, my partner left 2 years ago."
So I so humbly say, **** digital.

Your Old Dog
09-02-2005, 11:42 PM
Tell your repair guy to go into the buggy whip business. There's more call for it. Better yet, I'm in Upstate NY. I can tell him if you want.

Digital Photography has brought me back to shooting with passion once again. No more waiting and waiting for anything. It doesn't make the art look any better if you season it for weeks waiting for lab work or spend hours of your own time doing it. Digi's will only get better with time.

J Tiers
09-03-2005, 12:10 AM
They need to.........

The one issue with reasonably priced digitals that is nasty as heck..... is the lack of a focus ring.

Of course, you couldn't see focus on that little 50 x 75 pixel display, which is why they don't have it.

But it drives me nuts trying to fool the thing into focusing right on a small item, or one of the wrong color, etc, etc.

I understand focusable digital is still "rather expensive".............

But you cannot tell if it focused right.... You can see everything else on the display. But even if it shows a focus box, it may be lying.

BillH
09-03-2005, 12:18 AM
Manual focus film SLR's all the way.
Love my color slides, have 2 professional photo labs nearby, get my slides back the next day or sooner even.
Im just upset to see film go away, the old guys who fix your slr's and keep them in tune, and everything else associated with film. I still want to try large format at some point.
Anyone else fascinated by old photographs?

Doc Nickel
09-03-2005, 02:12 AM
Yeah, screw digital. I only saved over $400 in film and development costs the first year I had my little point-and-shoot. And since I was taking photos for the web anyway, ultimate resolution was irrevelant.

Recently I picked up a Canon 350D, which is an 8MP true digital SLR. So far I've taken over 10,000 photos since I got the thing in March, and as Ol' Dog noted above, it's rekindled my interest in "real" photography again.

That 10K in film would have run me, what, $6 a roll for the film, and $12 to $20 a roll for developing? I don't even want to add that up, but it's got to be pushing eight thousand dollars.

Putting him out of work? A pity. How about the guys that used to service early IBM mainframe computers? Much call for that nowadays? Screw those new, cheap computers. How about the art of rebabbiting a Model T connecting rod? Damn those modern cars and their replaceable bearing shells! To hell with those newfangled refrigerators, they're putting the ice-man out of business! And the guys who bring coal to your house...

Face it, digital phtography is faster, cheaper, more versatile and easier. And these days, if you're printing a normal-sized snapshot (4X5 or even 8X10) neither you nor I can tell the difference between a 4+MP digital print or a 400 ASA film print, without the aid of powerful magnification.

I can blow my 8MP images up to 18" x 24" and I'll bet even you couldn't tell the difference between it and a nice film print.

Every market changes. You can change with it, or you can go out of business.

Doc.

Doc Nickel
09-03-2005, 02:28 AM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">have 2 professional photo labs nearby, get my slides back the next day or sooner even.</font>

-I can look at the image in the onboard LCD in less than a second. If I don't like it, I can dump it and save "film". If I like it, I can walk inside, pop the card in the printer and have a finished print in two minutes.

I was just fiddling around a few weeks ago and took this photo (http://www.docsmachine.com/photography/moon2.jpg) of the moon. 300mm lens and a tripod. Had no idea what settings to use- automatic mode gave me a white dot on a black background. I played with various aperatures and shutter speeds- even changing my ISO in midstream, let's see you do that with film- until I got one that looked good.

Got it all done in about 20 minutes, had the printable image in another ten. At around midnight, and at almost zero cost. No film cost, no development costs. With film, I'd have had to record the settings manually (rather than have the EXIF data automatically attached to the image) and just take a barrage of shots at a wide range of settings, then develop it and hope one came out right. If not, I'd have to try again.

Film is not dead, and never will be. But the majority of the market is and will go digital, because as I said above, it's easier, faster and cheaper. In my SLR, a 1Gb Compactflash card can hold almost 300 images at max resolution. If I kick it down to minimum resolution just for snapshots, that same card holds well over 1,400.

Find me a film camera- stills, anyway- that can take over a thousand frames on a single "roll". Or a film camera that can adjust the ISO (or ASA) of the film on the fly. Or alter the recorded white balance of the film, or take a single frame and record both an unprocessed RAW image and a ready-to-print JPEG image at the exact same time.

Doc.

Rustybolt
09-03-2005, 09:35 AM
I often wondered why SLR manufacturers didnt offer a digital camera back to their analog SLR camers. Replace the back cover with a digital one. You get to use all those great SLR lenses and have the convenience of digital and you don't have to buy a whole new system.

hoffman
09-03-2005, 09:41 AM
Yea Doc, I have a Rebel XT and love it.

I'll bet if Bill got a digital SLR he'd change his tune...

------------------
Deep Sea Tool Salvage

ricksplace
09-03-2005, 10:16 AM
I've had a traditional darkroom for almost 40 years. I shoot film in everything from 35mm to medium format to 4X5. I also use digital a little, and must confess, I use it more and more. There are things you can do in digital that are impossible in analog.

I took a picture of a male choir and one of the guys wears a really bad toupe. Now everyone in the picture wears the same bad toupe. Hilarious. Impossible (almost) in analog. Simple in digital.

I still like the resolution in a 16X20 print from a 4X5 negative. And yes, you can tell the difference in that size from a digital image. I think the equivalent to a 4X5 negative is about 60 mb. A lot of the pros I know have switched to digital. One of the best professional photographers I know uses two Nikon D100's and his flotilla of Hassy equipment is sitting unused.

Digital has opened up photography in a way the first film cameras Kodak made opened it up in the early 1900's. If you haven't tried digital yet, you owe it to yourself to give it a try.

This is from a staunch film guy. I'll still shoot film as long as they keep making it. I'll shoot digital too.

Rick.

J Tiers
09-03-2005, 10:33 AM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Doc Nickel:
-I can look at the image in the onboard LCD in less than a second. If I don't like it, I can dump it and save "film". If I like it, I can walk inside, pop the card in the printer and have a finished print in two minutes.
</font>

And you have absolutely NO IDEA if it was focused on the right thing until you "walk inside"..... that may be 10 miles, or more.... what then?.

For distance photos, probably little issue there.

For close-ups (macro-type, of things that may be 15mm in size), 3mm wrong focus depth and you may as well have no picture at all. And the on-board display is useless.

Even if a "focus box" is displayed, you may not have correct focus. Sure, you can repeat the picture..... but each of the cameras has its own focus oddities.... won't focus on red, likes shiny things far better, etc, etc. You generally cannot get around that.

AND if you won't see the picture in full size until you get to a computer, well..... I have had 5 photos ALL not focus right, in slightly different ways. ALL appeared to have nailed the right depth per focus box......

I have resorted to a focus target, held in for focusing, and pulled out..... sometimes works, but sometimes the camera "re-thinks" as the target is pulled out. Grrrrrrrr.




[This message has been edited by J Tiers (edited 09-03-2005).]

ibewgypsie
09-03-2005, 11:24 AM
OKay, I am converted TO digital..

BUT.. the projector you have, try this and you can put yourself on through college with it.

Take a picture, put the slide into "that" projector, focus it onto a sheet of construction paper. Trace it with a pencil, shade it with your thumb and pencil black.

TRACING a projection picture is easy. I used to do it with a air brush. People paid big bucks for it.

You can seal them with a clear laquer. Like all other artists use.

People won't believe your talent, you won't believe the things you can buy with thier money.

mochinist
09-03-2005, 11:47 AM
Wow this is alomost like the argument's between the CNC and manual crowds. Anyways for a guy like me who basically only takes pictures of family events the digital is great, I used to waste alot of money on pictures because I would get a roll of film back and maybe like 10 of the 30 pictures, now with the digital I only print what I want, and I can even edit and fix the pictures on my computer before I have them printed. The other great thing about digitals that no one has mentioned, is chicks love taking pictures of themselves and putting them on the internet, you got to love that.

BillH
09-03-2005, 02:49 PM
Guys, I have a 2 mega pixel digital that is great for posting stuff on the net. You can pay outrageous money for Ink to print out your digital images, unless you are contempt at just looking at them on the computer, fine.
The difference between the two? One requires utmost skill to get professional results, the other uses a micro processor to ensure even a Baboon can take great pictures.
Perhaps it is the hobby of film that I like as well, even if it becomes Esoteric as Evan has said.
Yes, I know 95% of all commercial photography is now digital, and yes, that Canon Rebel XT looks like an awsome camera, and yes it is great to not have to go to a photo lab or develop your own film, and yes digital has amazing color, but is your digital camera a mechanical masterpiece inside that any machinist could respect? Hell, you obviously all could care less about that, right?
And Doc, Didnt you hear? Its about quality, not quantity. Your taking that many pictures, you must be bracketing a lot, ultimately not the best technique, but hell, digital, who cares.
Hell, perhaps libraries in the future will have your digital images archived? Think 100 years from now you images will be readable? Lets hope so. One day only a few people will know the art of film, they will be looked upon as the rest of the world lost another art form. Pretty pathetic that some people will make a name for themself because they held onto a technique that once everyone knew but all now have forgotten. Just like wood boat making, and yes, machining as well. Hell maybe I'll get my own show on discovery channel cause im one of the last few people that know film. I could have JFsmith come on as a guest when my ratings drop to bring them back up as we yell at each other.

BillH
09-03-2005, 02:59 PM
And what the hell is "REAL" photography?
You talking about composition? Putting things into the frame?
To me, "REAL" photography is using the skills you developed to get results that most people find very difficult to do.
Hell, Let me guess, you dream about your lathe or mill having the star trek computer on it where you can just say, "Lathe, make part 234c, and take into account the modifications described earlier"
And if you ever had that, I'd bet i'd hear you say, "I love my digital Lathe, it has allowed me to get back into the "real" art of machining".

pockets
09-03-2005, 03:02 PM
First off let me say that I'm not a photographer. My last article, in Live Steam, proves that. A lot of what I do is research. Anything, from glass plate negatives to Kodak Brownies to the latest 35mm, is better for my purposes , than digital. When you start enlarging a digital, in search of detail, it just goes to pieces.

A lot of you, who think you are recording history with your digital cameras, are just screwing future researchers.

My $0.02
Greg B

John Stevenson
09-03-2005, 03:03 PM
Bill,
If you are going to go to the expense of getting a 35mm camera overhauled you might do better at getting one that's worth the expense.
The FTB, whist being a decent camera was only medioce in performance and features.

If you are that set then make me a decent offer for an FTB that's only had 10 rolls of film thru it in it's life.
Still locked away in the attic with a case of lenes.
That long since it saw light of day i can't even remember what's in there.
I'm sure it has the genuine Cannon Macro lens, just can't remember.
I know I'll never use it again purely on cost / waiting grounds.

John S.

[This message has been edited by John Stevenson (edited 09-03-2005).]

BillH
09-03-2005, 03:12 PM
John, I'd have to get your camera overhauled as well, the FTb is free. The FTb is also a family airloom, was my grandpas, and in brand new condition, except for the foam and light seals rotting away. Even if your light baffle and foam remained intact and perfect, the years of sitting unused would mean the internals would need to be cleaned and checked for accuracy, the springs re-tenshioned, etc.
The lenses on the other hand, I need a nice canon FD macro lense.

John Stevenson
09-03-2005, 03:16 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by BillH:
And what the hell is "REAL" photography?
You talking about composition? Putting things into the frame?
To me, "REAL" photography is using the skills you developed to get results that most people find very difficult to do.
Hell, Let me guess, you dream about your lathe or mill having the star trek computer on it where you can just say, "Lathe, make part 234c, and take into account the modifications described earlier"
And if you ever had that, I'd bet i'd hear you say, "I love my digital Lathe, it has allowed me to get back into the "real" art of machining".</font>


Bill,
Someone who starts on digital does have the chance to move sideways onto film.

What you are saying is that someone who wants to enter metalworking has to start with a 10EE.
Most starts with old, cheap, worn, import [ delete as required ] and them move on.
Some don't and fall by the wayside as other things take preference.

This is called a learning curve.

John s.

Treven Baker
09-03-2005, 03:16 PM
This is a funny discusion.

I have a microchip watch on my wrist. As much as I apreciate the mechanical wonders that old watches are I don't wear one. I do have a few in my drawers that I pull out and look at with a loop to show people how beautiful they are.

In fact there are very very few people who wear a spring driven wrist watch and tell you how wonderfull it is anymore.

I have no CNC machines or digital measuring devices in the shop though. A dial caliper works just fine for me.

I can't stand computer chips in vehicles and none of mine have any.

I'm just fine with digital photography. I like being able to delete and look at the pictures right away. I also like the control and usability of my Olympus OM2.

BillH
09-03-2005, 03:24 PM
John, I dont see what I said would translate into newbies must start on a 10EE, however that would of been awsome if I did. I never used a 10ee, only a mini lathe and my South bend 9". I would sure hope that a 10ee would be easier to use and required less skill to get the same or better results.
My argument is, What is Real photography? I would think some one that could get as good results on a South Ben 9" as a 10EE has more skill than some one who cannot get the same results with a southbend.
Some must think the art of turning reality into a photograph has absolutely nothing to do with photography, which is absurd.

ricksplace
09-03-2005, 03:45 PM
I shot my nephew's wedding a while ago as a favour to my brother. I used a pair of Pentax MESuper's, a Pentacon6 TL (a medium format SLR that looks like a swollen Praktica, with wonderful Zeiss lenses), and a graflex Century Graphic as film cameras, and two digital cameras, a Nikon D100 and a Fuji Finepix, both 6mp digital slr's. (I had an assistant to carry all the stuff and reload my film cameras for me.) I must admit, the digital cameras were MUCH easier to use. I used the PHD setting. (Push Here, Dummy) Large, dedicated flashes and auto focus, auto everything else too. The high end digital cameras are pretty hard to fool in either the focus or exposure department. I borrowed the digital cameras just for that shoot, and found them very easy to use.

I shot about 300 digital images and about 200 film images. Film in B&W and digital in colour. I gave my nephew and his wife all the proofs and negatives, and a selection of prints in colour and B&W.

Guess which prints sit in the frames on the wall in their living room? The B&W prints from the medium format graflex and Pentacon.

IMHO, photography is about creating images that people appreciate and enjoy. It doesn't matter whether the images are digital or analog, it's what the customer or the photographer likes.

I must admit, I have an affinity for well machined mechanical cameras. Probably why I like machining too. (If you can call what I do on my lathe machining!)

Rick.

HTRN
09-03-2005, 03:53 PM
I'd like to chime in. I have alot of camera equipment. Lotsa stuff for my Minolta SLR, a couple of Rollei's, a vintage Polaroid, an Exacta manual SLR with a couple of BIG(600mm lenses) for it. I even have an Omega developer. At one point I considered buying a Mamiya 645.

No more.

Last month I bought a digital Nikon point and shoot and haven't looked back. I waiting for the day that Minolta releases a good digital SLR that uses their lens mounting so I can utilize all the lenses I have.


HTRN

------------------
This Old Shed (http://thisoldshed.tripod.com)

Doc Nickel
09-03-2005, 04:39 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I often wondered why SLR manufacturers didnt offer a digital camera back to their analog SLR camers.</font>

-Actually, for a while they did. I forget who and where, but that was very early in the consumer-level digicam days, and so the electronics were fairly limited. One of the main drawbacks, however, was the fact there was no way to "interface" between the camera proper and the digital sensor. In my Canon, for example, the sensor is only "charged" and therefore light-sensitive for the fraction of a second when the button is pushed.

In an add-on, the sensor would have to be constantly charged, awaiting the shutter to snap. That cost huge amounts of battery power.

Also, at the time the digital add-on cost more than the camera. It was typically cheaper to buy a complete camera than a conversion. Nowadays that's less the case, but then, nowadays there's far more demand for complete cams rather than conversions.

On the third hand, there are large (and terribly expensive) backs that fit medium-format cameras. People can convert their old Hassleblad into a 22 or even 24 MP 4" x 5" digital, to keep using their huge collections of very expensive lenses. A converted medium-format like that is also faster- there's no cartridge loading or changing, you can take up to one frame every second and a half. (Which is incredibly quick for a medium-format.)

Doc.

Doc Nickel
09-03-2005, 05:09 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And you have absolutely NO IDEA if it was focused on the right thing until you "walk inside"..... that may be 10 miles, or more.... what then?.</font>

-Sure I do. I can zoom in on the image in the rear LCD, up to 1-to-1, pixel-for-pixel (100 pixels of the image is shown on 100 pixels on the LCD.)

I had to do precisely that for the above moon photo, and you can see, the focus is pretty darn good.

In any case, after practicing and experimenting- and getting immediate feedback- I've learned to trust the autofocus, and to compensate for what it can and can't do.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">For close-ups (macro-type, of things that may be 15mm in size), 3mm wrong focus depth and you may as well have no picture at all. And the on-board display is useless.</font>

-Very true. That's why digital SLRs like the Canon EOS and Nikon D50 and D70, among others, have a true mirror-and-pentaprism viewfinder; because nothing beats the human eye to find focus.

Almost every image in National Geographic for the last five or six years, was taken on a digital camera, almost exclusively a Canon professional series. They don't seem to have any real difficulty with focus or macro...


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And Doc, Didnt you hear? Its about quality, not quantity. Your taking that many pictures, you must be bracketing a lot, ultimately not the best technique, but hell, digital, who cares.</font>

-Actually, for the first three months it was "practice". I took a few decent "keepers" but the vast majority of them were snapshots and practice shots. I spent that three months relearning long-disused knowledge like aperature and shutter speeds, experimenting with the new options like custom white balance (which has itself been a godsend to getting decent photos, especially under fluorescent lights) and trying out the capabilities of post-processing RAW files.

A photographer as new to film use would have had to do the same thing- the only difference being he would have paid hundreds or thousands more in film stock and development costs.

Also, a nontrivial number of those frames were taken at some sporting events I shot. There, just like photographing the Superbowl, you have to shoot everything, in the hopes you get that one split-second "keeper" scene.

In my case, the first one I went to I took 300 frames and got three good images. The second one I fired 500 a day over two days and got maybe ten good-to-great shots (and a whole bunch of pretty good snapshots). The third I took a thousand in one day and got about 12 to 15 keepers (and a bunch more decent snapshots.)

And the more I shoot, the more I learn the capabilities of the camera and lens, and so the more likely I am to shoot only those frames needed.

Just like a film photographer would have.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Hell, perhaps libraries in the future will have your digital images archived? Think 100 years from now you images will be readable?</font>

-Who knows. If I print them out, then yes. It's analog data just like any other paper-substrate image. And inks, by the way, are a far more stable medium than the silver halide grains in film stock.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And what the hell is "REAL" photography?</font>

-Capturing the image you see, or the image you would like to see.

Prior to this digital, I'd occasionally snap a picture with my old point-and-shoot or even my old Minolta 35mm, of something like a sunset. Nice reds and oranges and blues. But when I look at the photo, it's all a muddled orange and washed out.

With the digital, I can now bracket a shot (automatically in some cases) or fiddle with the red/green/blue levels (RGB) or even choose between (s)RGB or Adobe RGB, alter the hue and saturation, and so forth... right there, in-camera, while I still have the same scene to shoot again and again..

That, to me, is 'real' photography, capturing the true image, not just a vague snapshot of it.

Doc.

Ries
09-03-2005, 05:09 PM
I am forced to use slides for my business- in my field, most of the clients require 35mm slides for submittals.
So I am sitting right now in front of a shelf holding 15 notebooks full of about maybe 10,000 slides. And those are just my active, relatively recent ones. There are boxes more upstairs in the attic.
At least nowadays you can print slide labels 80 at a time on the inkjet printer- I remember trying to fit those 4"x5" sheets of white labels into the old IBM selectric, and typing labels manually.

I gotta say, though, for anything that doesnt require 16" x 20" prints, digital is quicker,cheaper, takes up less room, and looks just fine for most uses. If you are really ansel adams, by all means, use a hassleblad. But for quick documentation, home made advertising, do it yourself magazine articles, emailing images, websites, and most of the everyday uses I have, digital is the ticket.

I heard that Kodak is discontinuing the manufacture of slide projectors- so very soon, even if you want one, you wont be able to get one. And less and less varieties of slide film is being made. Whether we like it or not, for all but very special high end uses, film is on the way out.
Much like analog tape for tape recorders- many types are no longer made, and analog recording studios are finding certain sizes are just not available.

Progress does not stop to ask you your preferences- particularly in this day and age where the bottom line reigns supreme.

Doc Nickel
09-03-2005, 05:22 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">A lot of you, who think you are recording history with your digital cameras, are just screwing future researchers.</font>

-What's better, then; a single frame where we have to forensically determine if that blurry smear in the background on the grassy knoll is or isn't a second gunman, or a thousand frames taken from a hundred different angles, that shows quite clearly it's a shadowed treebranch?

When my grandfather passed away 20+ years ago, I recall my mom was somewhat upset to learn we had relatively few photos of him, perhaps fewer than two dozen. With three that we know of prior to about 1960- and two of those are a wedding photo and one in his military uniform.

Today, there would be a hundred shots from the wedding alone. I have probably fifty pictures of my dad just taken since I got this Canon. He now takes a small digital and a camcorder on his hunting trips- years ago he'd come back with half a roll of 35mm, showing three scenery shots and four of the animal. Now he comes back with a hundred frames and two hours of live video.

Which is better- to look at that single scenery frame from before and to try and guess where it might have been taken from, or to see a series of images that shows everything from leaving the trailhead to reaching the top of the mountain?


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">In fact there are very very few people who wear a spring driven wrist watch and tell you how wonderfull it is anymore.</font>

-I also note we're not having this discussion by telegraph, either.

Doc.

sauer38h
09-03-2005, 05:49 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by BillH:
To me, "REAL" photography is using the skills you developed to get results that most people find very difficult to do.</font>

SLRs are "real" photography?

You don't even have to make your own plates. Talk about lazy!

Look up Frank Hurley. He photographed the Endurance being crushed in the ice in 1915. He had to make the plates, expose them, and develop them, all while standing out on the ice shelf during an Antarctic winter. If you're talking about "real" photography, that gets my vote.

http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/History/shackleton_picture_pop-ups/endurance_night.htm



[This message has been edited by sauer38h (edited 09-03-2005).]

BillH
09-03-2005, 06:11 PM
Sauer, that is something I would like to try.

IOWOLF
09-03-2005, 06:37 PM
I just got a fisher cameracorder FVD C1.
talk about versital, wow it was a far cry from my sony Mavica FD90, but I like that to.

------------------
The tame Wolf !

John Stevenson
09-03-2005, 06:40 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by BillH:
Sauer, that is something I would like to try.</font>


What, making your own plates or freezing your nuts off ? http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//biggrin.gif? http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//biggrin.gif

John s

BillH
09-03-2005, 07:04 PM
Plates, lol

Wirecutter
09-03-2005, 08:02 PM
Interesting discussion here, with the same overtones as in the engineer-vs-machinist, CNC-vs-manual, digital-vs-analog, and tube-vs-transistor debates.

My latest new-vs-old struggle is with yet another update of micro$lop windoze. Sometimes changing is just a PITA that must take place for what seems like arbitrary reasons. Other times, it's an improvement we are forced, kicking and screaming, to do in order to maintain the ability to do something.

On the subject at hand, I have wondered, just like Rustybolt, why the big digital photography advocates/manufacturers/whatever haven't come up with a digital "retrofit". The best reason I can come up with is that the sensor in a digital camera is a lot smaller. If you were to make a sensor the size of a 35mm negative, it would be extremely high resolution, and yes, beating the pants off of any film camera. But man, it sure would be something, with a jillion megapixels.

I suppose that a retro-kit would have to include some kind of lenses to adapt the original 35mm image target to a more reasonable size for a digital sensor. Thinking about it a little, that would make more sense, but the cost of such a thing would probably not be worth it.

My stepdad has just switched over to digital from film. He's a bit of a photography snob, though, so he had to go with a digital 35mm-type SLR, with interchangable lenses and the whole bit. Now a digital camera of that sort is pretty expensive - probably much more than for a film camera with the same versatility, but man it takes nice shots. And I'll bet it'll do anything any 35mm film camera will do, and do it better, with one exception: slides.

IMHO, the reason digital has caught on so big is that the more serious hobby photographers and the professionals are a minority of all photographers. Most of the people with digital cameras are like me. My 2 year old 3 megapixel digital is simply a much better camera than I am a photographer. I take photos to do eBay stuff, to show you guys stuff I have questions about, and to capture some memories. For that, it works beautifully and very cheaply. The makers of such cameras are watching the bottom line, and they go where the money is.
Am I missing something here?

-M

BillH
09-03-2005, 09:08 PM
After I fixed my slide projector, and viewed my own slides for the first time against my wall, I was giggling like a little school girl. I also noticed that my stock lense on my nikon FM10 probably isnt the sharpest one in the world either, but I had a smile on my face.
You going to use an LCD projector for your digital images? 1600x1200 against the wall? Geez, thats about 2 mega pixles, and those projectors cost a bloody fortune. My slide projector? Free at the dump, and its 500 watts.
I've seen digital Black and Whites, they look too fine, too fake in my oppinion, I guess I like the look of some grain in there. In my Color photo class, the teacher is allowing some people to use their digital SLR's, one girl has a Nikon D70, she loves it ofcourse.
I'll tell yah though, she is going to feel left out when the rest of us use that slide projector in class, and all she can do is show us a few 8x10's printed out from an inkjet.

PSD KEN
09-03-2005, 09:47 PM
I have a herd of Canons, from a #7S Rangefinder to EOS Elan, plus lenses.
But thinking about a digital 20D, which uses the EOS lens.
Other words, I like both worlds.
(7's and FT's don't need no stinkin' batteries)

Doc Nickel
09-03-2005, 09:53 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">On the subject at hand, I have wondered, just like Rustybolt, why the big digital photography advocates/manufacturers/whatever haven't come up with a digital "retrofit". </font>

-Again, they have. They were available to a limited extent several years ago, but were badly limited in several ways, not the least of which was making a back that communicated with the camera itself. The sensor isn't just a slice of silicon sitting there waiting for a blast of light. The camera needs to be able to "talk" to the back, and almost no one made a camera with the requisite electrical connections.

And today, for what a decent back would cost, why not just get a whole new camera with more features and wider capabilities, that takes the same lenses?


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> If you were to make a sensor the size of a 35mm negative, it would be extremely high resolution, and yes, beating the pants off of any film camera.</font>

-Yes, and it'd be horrifically expensive. Canon has a couple of "full frame" sensors, most notably in the 16.7Mp 1DsMkII... which is an $8,000 camera.

However, Canon just announced the 5D, which is a more "pro-sumer" grade camera, that will have a 12+ Mp full-frame sensor. At $3,200...

However, this angle of argument starts us off into resolution vs. pixel density; my 8Mp XT, for example, has a higher pixel density than the 5D will- something like 24,000 pixels per square millimeter vs. the 5Ds 14,000 per sq/mm.

Which is largely irrelevant for the vast majority of us. Even a 6Mp digital can take an image that has a higher pixel density than most printers can handle, and far more than is needed for the usual 4X5" snapshot. My 8Mp can take a shot that can be blown to 18" by 24" and still look very crisp until you get up close with a loupe or magnifying glass.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> I suppose that a retro-kit would have to include some kind of lenses to adapt the original 35mm image target to a more reasonable size for a digital sensor. Thinking about it a little, that would make more sense, but the cost of such a thing would probably not be worth it.</font>

-Canon, among others, already has such things. Their EF lenses (electrofocus) has some they call EF-S, designed specifically for the smaller-sensor cameras like the 20D and 350D. A standard non-S lens can fit on any camera that takes the usual EF (I have a 28-300mm zoom for my XT) but the EF-S lenses won't fit on the full-frame cameras.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> IMHO, the reason digital has caught on so big is that the more serious hobby photographers and the professionals are a minority of all photographers.</font>

-Actually, I think you have it a little bit backwards. The professionals leaped on the digital bandwagon with glad cries a decade ago. Most notably newspaper photographers, who could now send photos home to the publisher, from anywhere on the planet, in minutes.

More recently with the reduction in costs, especially in solid-state memory, professionals have been moving towards digital if for no other reason than "film" being dirt-cheap. As I noted earlier, I can take 300 images on a card that I can reuse several thousand times.

In fact, the shutter on my camera is likely to wear out before the card does.

National Geographic photographers on a deep, dark trip to whereever, can now take ten times more images, with considerably less bulk, and get them sent home to the maagazine as soon as they're near a telephone connection (or just carry a satphone with them) rather than waiting 'til they're home.

However, I think you're right in that the cheap consumer cameras provide a big chunk of the sales and income to drive R&D on the "pro" cameras, so it's probably a bit of both.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You going to use an LCD projector for your digital images? 1600x1200 against the wall? Geez, thats about 2 mega pixles, and those projectors cost a bloody fortune.</font>

-So use a cheap cardreader and display them on your TV. You won't even have to close the drapes and turn off the lights to do it.

Or burn them to a CD or DVD and watch them on your TV that way. Or E-mail them to the friends who can't come over and wait while you get the projector set up.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I'll tell yah though, she is going to feel left out when the rest of us use that slide projector in class, and all she can do is show us a few 8x10's printed out from an inkjet.</font>

-And how will those with slides feel when they want to show them to Aunt Tillie who lives on the other coast? Chances are they'll scan them and E-mail them, or print them out into an 8x10.

Or how about when other family members want copies? The girl with the Nikon can shoot another one out the printer in two minutes. The ones with slides will have to go have prints made- if, that is, they can find a shop that can still handle slides.

Doc.

J Tiers
09-03-2005, 10:22 PM
BTW, I know about the hassles of digital, because I use it almost exclusively..... I have an OM-1 that needs to be overhauled, and an OM-2 likewise, and I have not been in a hurry.

BUT, a few things.... a film image is at least potentially "evidence" in court. NO digital image is, judges are not stupid, and it is way too easy to make a fake image that takes a fair amount of work to discover.

The digital cameras that Doc Nickel mentioned cost quite a few nickels.... far more than a 4 mP camera even when that was the top resolution in consumer stuff.

For professional use, our catalog shots have been digital since 1990 or so. Back then, a digital camera cost $25,000, but the prints could be blown up to 4 x 5 feet without seeing any "pixilation".

I'll have to see if I actually have the image zoom, I am not sure if the A-70 has that.... it was about the best camera that was available at the time.... but I haven't looked for that feature.

BillH
09-03-2005, 10:32 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Doc Nickel:
-And how will those with slides feel when they want to show them to Aunt Tillie who lives on the other coast? Chances are they'll scan them and E-mail them, or print them out into an 8x10.

Or how about when other family members want copies? The girl with the Nikon can shoot another one out the printer in two minutes. The ones with slides will have to go have prints made- if, that is, they can find a shop that can still handle slides.

Doc.</font>

First, Doc, if you want to trash the picture by using an interlaced tv set to display it, you dont need anything beyond a 2mp point and shoot camera.
It cant compare to 5x8 foot projection on my wall with great detail.
As for aunt tille, well, I would like some people to see my slides... I'll use the slide scanner at school. People are going to miss film more than they think when it is all gone. Well, some will.

Your Old Dog
09-03-2005, 11:01 PM
This has been a fun thread for me. I'm a professional photographer and a machinist wannabe.

I think most of you have lost sight of how photographs/art are viewed. They are rarely held in the hand, inches from the nose as you scan for the smallest amount of detail.

A Nikon D100 (prosumer market) with good Nikkor optics can produce a 16x20 that will hold up with anything you can do on 35mm if you are going to view the print at living room distances. If you're going view it under a microscope the film may win out on detail but may loose on every other count such as color rendition, "apparent sharpness" and contrast. Digital photography allows you to massage a photo before printing for all of the above noted things.

As a firearms engraver, I thought it was more honest to engrave with a hammer and chisel and not the popular pneumatic hammers that you hold in your hand. A world famous engraver, Lynnton MacKenzie said "what does it matter "how" the chips get on the floor as long as the right ones end up there?" The same can be said of digital/film photography.

It is important for the descriminating photographer to be able to afford to take hundreds of thousands of photographs. For every 100 shots I take I might get one or two that I'm really happy with. Some folks are happy with absolutly everything that comes out of the camera in focus and properly exposed. That means to me they are letting the camera do all the work and they aren't really contributing much to the artistic experiance.

You lugheads are machinist! You are concerned with pixels! LOL I'm not knocking it, it's who you are! I'm someone a little differant. I don't mind a blurry picture if the picture carries much more then blurry pixels! By the way, I had some of my full size 6.1 meg shots printed at 11X17 by a professional lab. If you haven't done that yet you should. There is far more detail in the picture then you can see on your computer screen because the image pixelates as you zoom in. Keep shooting guys, as I told my students at Niagara University where I worked in the practicums, "your mistakes are the photos to study hardest. If you don't have any mistakes you have no business trying to create with a camera!" Usually if you look close to the edge of any photo you'll find something that doesn't contribute to the picture but in fact detracts from the focal point.

Ever wonder why the number of philharmonic musicians who operate machine shop equipment are so limited in number? !! Two differant mindsets!! My definition of a genious is one who has both a technical and creative sides of the brain fully developed. I certainly don't, actually I don't have either side developed yet.

Best wishes to all.........

Doc Nickel
09-04-2005, 12:59 AM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">First, Doc, if you want to trash the picture by using an interlaced tv set to display it, you dont need anything beyond a 2mp point and shoot camera.</font>

-I suppose.

On the other hand, at the moment damn near everyone has a DVD player, whether on their TV, or their computer, or even in their car. If you want to show your slides anywhere other than at home, you have to carry the projector with you. If you want to show digitals at Uncle Bill's place, chances are he's already got a DVD player, so all you have to take along is the disc.

Look, as I said before, film is not and never will be "dead". But digital offers far greater ease of use, versatility, features and capabilities, that it's somewhat silly for many people to stick with film.

My dad is still very much stuck on his old Minolta SRT101. But I still have a roll that's barely half-used that's been in my X-700 for probably three years now. (Prob'ly oughta go take that out and get it developed. http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//biggrin.gif )

Yes, it's a shame to see the workmanship and gadgetry of the old mechanical cameras go away, just as it was kind of a shame to see the skill and craftsmanship of the old Underwood typewriters lost to the ages.

But right now, as a barely-competent amateur photographer, I can do far more with digital than I could ever hope to with film, and I can do it faster and cheaper to boot.

Doc.

Wayne02
09-04-2005, 01:16 AM
I've had the the Canon rebel dslr and a good selection of lenses for some time now. The camera works fine for landscape, people, some macro's with the right lens, but it sucks for true action photography.

I shoot mostly action photography like sports - soccer, basketball etc, and a ton of motorsports photography. In hindsight the rebel was the wrong choice for me to buy.

Yes I know you "can" get "some" good action shots out of it, and I'm aware of some of the band-aid workarounds to help the tracking of the auto-focus. But that is simply not good enough, this camera is not the one to get if you are heavy into action photography.

At any rate it's funny how much things have changed in the world of photography. My family and I just got back from a camping trip with my in-laws to the coast. Father in-law has a point and shoot, and I had the rebel with a bunch of lenses.

We took a boat load of pictures. He had his laptop with photo printer in his rv, where we could review the shots and print the good ones. No need to wait for development etc. The quality of the printed shots (on photo paper) was simply excellent. How's that for instant gratification. Both our families went home with all the pictures already printed and ready to frame. No muss, no fuss.

The next step is digital picture frames (yes they have them now). It's way too much trouble to print this stuff all the time. Should be able to select a "run" of pictures that will cycle through your digital picture frame while it hangs on the wall. No need to get tired of that same old shot of your mother in-law.

Wayne

Doc Nickel
09-04-2005, 01:36 AM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The digital cameras that Doc Nickel mentioned cost quite a few nickels.... </font>

-And they also do so much more.

My 350D cost just under a grand. That's pretty spendy for a film SLR, but compare it to what they can do.

In the digital, I can alter the apparent white balance, the effective ASA/ISO, and the RGB levels with just a push of a button or two. With film, the ASA can be changed only by switching to a different roll of film, and the colors can oly really be altered in the darkroom.

I can cram almost 300 shots into a 1gb card- if resolution isn't a propblem, as when I'm taking shots to be uploaded to the web, I can get about 1,400. At $6 a roll of 24 exposure, that's something like $350 in film. (To say nothing of development costs.)

And my card can be emptied and used again, thousands of times.

I can take both a processed JPEG and an unprocessed RAW image at the exact same time, saving the RAW for later postprocessing, in which I can do far more to it in a few clicks than any darkroom can accomplish in days of manual work.

I can take a photo and see it, right then and there, on the screen on the back of the camera. Is the color right? Let's add a little red and see what we get.

Besides the high quality of the SLR formats, we now have cameras on PDAs, cell phones and MP3 players. For those that just want a snapshot, now there's an easy way to carry one around, even more compact than a disposable film camera.

Why is this in any way a bad thing?

Doc.

Doc Nickel
09-04-2005, 01:55 AM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Yes I know you "can" get "some" good action shots out of it, and I'm aware of some of the band-aid workarounds to help the tracking of the auto-focus. But that is simply not good enough, this camera is not the one to get if you are heavy into action photography.</font>

-I think this fellow (http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/6171/pic0078oc.jpg) and this fellow (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=26592&stc=1&d=1125803567) might disagree.

Now, if you have the earlier Rebel, the 300D, I'm told there are some issues with the firmware- Canon deliberately crippled it in order to keep the camera from competing too closely with the slightly-higher-end 20D.

The later 350D has considerably better autofocus AI, a slightly faster frame rate, and a far faster startup time. I bought mine almost specifically for sports.

Also, if you're using the stock "kit" lens that came with it, that's definitely not a sports lens. It's decent within it's limitations, but a better ring USM Canon lens is far and away better.

For example, look at this image (http://www.docsmachine.com/images/lenscompare.jpg) I made. The left half was taken with my 75-300mm zoom, a $125 lens. The right half was taken with a Canon 300mm prime. Both were handheld, and this is a 100% crop. The prime had image stabilization. Same camera settings- automatic, I don't know what the shutter and aperature were.

No, the Rebel isn't as good as a pro-series 1D, but it also costs $3,000 less.

Doc.

Your Old Dog
09-04-2005, 10:22 AM
Wayne, have you tried shooting your sports stuff on manual focus and manual iris? Even the highend DSLR's are not fast enough to keep up with that kind of action.

I generally bang off a few shots to get feel for exposure and then set it manual. That's one less thing the on-board-computer has to deal with that takes time. If that camera allows you to shoot in the RAW mode do so. It takes the camera less time to write a RAW image to memory then a compressed image.

Manual focus on sports should not be a problem unless you're shooting speedboats coming at you! If you are, you should have bought one of the Nikon D series as they have dynamic focusing. It actually calculates wether the target is coming to or moving away from you and has everything good to go when the shutter eventually trips! It's a feature that can really screw you up if you don't realize it's on. Focus on someones eye and they flinch or move toward you once you start tripping the shutter! The computer can't tell the differance between a speedboat and an eye!

My first digi was a Nikon Coolpix 990. It was extremely slow from the time you wanted to take a picture till the time you actually recorded it. It was great shop/eBay camera as it had a macro mode that worked to 1 inch away. I had a Tupper Ware bowl with a 1 inch hole cut in the bottom of it. Turned it upside down on macro subjects, put the lens upagainst the hole and shinned a light thru the side of the bowl and got some fantastic light tent type images. I plan to buy another 990 for the shop. They go for about $200 at present on ebay.

Good luck.

[This message has been edited by Your Old Dog (edited 09-04-2005).]

J Tiers
09-04-2005, 11:01 AM
The medium is less of an issue than the way teh machine works.

With a manual camera, whether emulsion, digital, or midgets with etch-a-sketch, you can do a ton more than with a similarly priced digital. That's because you have control over the major inputs.

Doc has several thousand dollars to spend on digital cameras. Good for him. I don't.

The usual digitals can't be pre-focused, waiting for the action to come in range. I can BIAS teh setting to favor aperture or "film speed" on the A70, but I have no way of pre-focusing, nor pre-setting aperture, etc.

It's like having a butler who is a bit of a bumbler. Eventually he gets the guests to you, but first he thought you were one place, then another, taking them on a tour.

The digital camera takes lots of pics for "free", thats the goos news. The bad is that you probably HAVE TO, in hopes a couple come out OK. First one thing is wrong, then another, eventually you hold your mouth right and there it is.

I am used to composing the pic IN THE CAMERA, and getting what I want with SLR. Ain't happening, you can see what teh image will show, but to see focus detailing etc, you must push buttons and fuss for a couple minutes to get what you get with the SLR NATURALLY in one glance.

This will be fixed. When digital stuff comes out, there is usually a lot of menu-driven clickety-click scroll thru stuff.....

Eventually manufacturers figure out that we want it to FEEL like the previous item. Like digital-based guitar amps.... first ones had displays, and up-down buttons, etc. Now they have.... KNOBS, just like an old Fender.... because that is preferred as input means.

Cameras will eventually get there again as digital. Maybe not the ones for the great unwashed, teh digital disposables, but the majority of "serious" cameras.

Wayne02
09-04-2005, 09:38 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Your Old Dog:
Manual focus on sports should not be a problem unless you're shooting speedboats coming at you! If you are, you should have bought one of the Nikon D series as they have dynamic focusing. It actually calculates wether the target is coming to or moving away from you and has everything good to go when the shutter eventually trips! [This message has been edited by Your Old Dog (edited 09-04-2005).]</font>

YOD,
I'm shooting road racing cars coming towards me, passing by, and then going away from me - coming into a corner, going through the corner, and exiting the corner. In most all cases there will be multiple cars in the shot.

Or, I'll be under the hoop at a basketball game in a poorly lit gym getting shots of the players coming towards me. Or, on the sidelines of a soccer game tracking a group of players with the ball coming towards me or angling away from me.

I can sometimes get a few good manual focused action shots, but they are few and far between.

Wayne

Wayne02
09-04-2005, 09:43 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by J Tiers:
Eventually manufacturers figure out that we want it to FEEL like the previous item. </font>
Not only feel like the previous item, but sound like it as well. Several of the digitals have an option where you can turn on the pre-recorded "shutter sound". Guess it bugs some people to not have the familiar shutter sound like on the film slr's.

Wayne

BillH
09-04-2005, 10:06 PM
An all manual(as reasonable as possible) Digital SLR, now theres an idea. I looked at some of the autofocus film SLR's, bahh, I like the controls and feel of a manual SLR much more.
Rather have rings on the lense then buttons on the body. Even played with that Canon that looks at your eye to determine where it auto focuses. Neat gimmick, thats all it is though.

Doc Nickel
09-05-2005, 06:30 AM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If that camera allows you to shoot in the RAW mode do so. It takes the camera less time to write a RAW image to memory then a compressed image. </font>

-I can't speak for the point-and-shoots, but typically the write speed of any of the medium-grade-and-up dSLRs is considerably faster than the maximum frame rate. Whether or not you're recording in RAW, RAW+JPEG or just large JPEG, typically the only real bottleneck is the card's write speed.

And in my Canon, I can't tell the difference in write speed between the "fast" Ultra II card and the plain-jane Kingston.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If you are, you should have bought one of the Nikon D series as they have dynamic focusing.</font>

-The recent Canons have that as well, it's called "AI servo" focusing. It works great if the lens can keep up. The low-end lenses are fairly slow, and have trouble keeping up with the anticipated focus. The ring-USM Canon lenses, however, are very fast. When I upgraded recently, I probably doubled the number of good shots I got when taking sports images, mainly due to the faster focusing.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">With a manual camera, whether emulsion, digital, or midgets with etch-a-sketch, you can do a ton more than with a similarly priced digital. That's because you have control over the major inputs.</font>

-If you're talking a point-and-shoot, yes. But most good dSLRs have full manual modes; mine has every feature any good manual does, plus a few that are impossible with film.

The two majors, aperature and shutter speed, I can adjust on the fly using the finger wheel right next to the shutter button, and read the setting in the viewfinder. It takes two buttons and three seconds to set the ISO, and the same two buttons and only two seconds to set the white balance.

Given a pretty decent film SLR and a pretty decent digital SLR, what can you do with the film that you can't with the digital?


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Doc has several thousand dollars to spend on digital cameras. Good for him.</font>

-I wish. In fact, I had to scrimp, save, borrow excessively, and eBay off some stuff I'd rather have not sold off, in order to get this camera, and later again for the lens.

However, I needed a good quality versatile camera to take some very good photos- possibly publication quality or even better. And for the money, digital offered far better capabilities and features, pound for pound, than film.

To say nothing of a quicker and shallower learning curve, for those of us whose high school photography classes were several presidential administrations ago. http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//biggrin.gif

I could have spent slightly less for a film camera, but then, I'd have burned up that difference plus some already, just in film and development costs.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The digital camera takes lots of pics for "free", thats the goos news. The bad is that you probably HAVE TO, in hopes a couple come out OK.</font>

-Yessir. And there are many situations, such as photographing wildlife, sports or any kind of racing, where taking a large number of shots is mandatory, since the peak of action may last as little as a second or two (like a basketball jump shot) and may be difficult to anticipate (such as a crash during a NASCAR race.)

In order to get ten pretty good shots of some paintball action, I recently fired off a thousand frames at a tournament. That would have cost me $250 in film. More likely, I'd have limited myself to three or four rolls, increasing the chances I'd have missed the ten good frames I got.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I am used to composing the pic IN THE CAMERA, and getting what I want with SLR. Ain't happening, you can see what teh image will show, but to see focus detailing etc, you must push buttons and fuss for a couple minutes to get what you get with the SLR NATURALLY in one glance.</font>

-You're comparing a pocket point-and-shoot with a film SLR, and that's like comparing a disposable with a Nikon.

My digital SLR has the same viewfinder your film SLR does- and may well give me more information, with the shutter, aperature, exposure compensation, focus lock and other readouts visible in the window.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">When digital stuff comes out, there is usually a lot of menu-driven clickety-click scroll thru stuff.....</font>

... Which typically gives capabilities that are impossible with film, just as a desktop PC is far more complex to use than an Underwood, but capable of so much more.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Cameras will eventually get there again as digital. Maybe not the ones for the great unwashed, teh digital disposables, but the majority of "serious" cameras. </font>

-They're already there. Damn near every major newspaper and magazine photojournalist has switched to digital, and likely did so years ago. The newspapers demand it because the digital file can be sent in from the field within minutes, with no developing time. Magazines demand it since all the graphic work and layouts are done electronically these days anyway- why take a film image, then have to convert it to digital in order to use it, when one can take it directly to digital, saving time, money and materials?

This next Superbowl, see if you can look at the rows of professionals with their 400 and 600mm lenses down on the sidelines. If you spot one of them still using film, I'll be astounded. Those guys are literally working on deadlines only minutes after the close of the game- the smart ones have wireless laptops shooting images home to the magazine or newspaper while they're taking yet more.

Try that with film.

And as I noted earlier, almost every image in National Geographic for at least the last five years or more, has been taken with a digital, almost certainly a Canon. The quality of the photography in that magazine is legendary- why would they have switched to digital if film supposedly offers so much more?


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Or, I'll be under the hoop at a basketball game in a poorly lit gym getting shots of the players coming towards me. Or, on the sidelines of a soccer game tracking a group of players with the ball coming towards me or angling away from me.

I can sometimes get a few good manual focused action shots, but they are few and far between.</font>

-If you're doing sports with manual focus, no wonder you can't get any good shots. Any decent dSLR has an autofocus far faster than you'll ever be. And as I said before, the ring-USM (ultrasonic motor) Canon lenses (since those are the only ones I have any practical experience with) are faster still.

The camera has capabilities like that for a reason. If you don't use them, they don't do you any good- and I know that Canon uses the same autofocus lenses on their film bodies as well, so it's not strictly a digital-versus-film argument.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">An all manual(as reasonable as possible) Digital SLR, now theres an idea.</font>

-Most digital SLRs have a full-manual mode. Unless you mean truly mechanical, since for example, my aperature can be set manually, but it's done electronically- no ring on the lens, it's a fingerwheel next to the shutter.


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Even played with that Canon that looks at your eye to determine where it auto focuses. Neat gimmick, thats all it is though</font>

-Yep, even Canon dropped it for much better "AI" autofocusing. That's part of the development cycle- we all tried, and eventually dropped, old systems like the Osbourne, the TRS-80 and the Commodore 64, in order to get where we are today.

And in ten years, we'll look back and laugh at how we ever got along with "only" eight megapixels, or "only" 250 gigabytes of hard drive, or DSL connections that "only" did 128 mb/sec.

Doc.

[This message has been edited by Doc Nickel (edited 09-05-2005).]

Your Old Dog
09-05-2005, 07:30 AM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Wayne02:
YOD,
I'm shooting road racing cars coming towards me, passing by, and then going away from me - coming into a corner, going through the corner, and exiting the corner. In most all cases there will be multiple cars in the shot.</font>

Wayne, a couple of things here. Have you taken the time to closely examine a bad image to see if anything in that image is in focus? If there isn't, you have either bad triggor technique, too poor of lighting for task at hand or a faulty camera/lens.

If anything at all 'is' in focus then you likely have a slow responsive autofocus motor on your lens (cheap lens?), dirty lens/camera contacts, poor lighting conditions or too slow an ISO choice.

The boys who stand on the sidelines with "photo" written on their backs get paid good money to stand there. It's not all for "artistic" reasons, sports are a difficult subject to shoot. It's also a place where digital rulez (d2h)once mastered.

Or, I'll be under the hoop at a basketball game in a poorly lit gym getting shots of the players coming towards me. Or, on the sidelines of a soccer game tracking a group of players with the ball coming towards me or angling away from me.

Someone has probalbly made a camera that doesn't focus on contrasty subjects but I don't know what it is yet. So without having to qualify the statement let me say..... Most cameras read the darkest and lightest value in the target and search out focus until the file size of the target gets the smallest. That's how it knows when it's in focus. Generally, you loose contrast as light values fall off. Even against black and white, the edge contrast will fall off making it much more difficult and "time consuming" for the camera to make up its computer (mind).

Most basketball shots I've seen under the hoop are very wideangle and focus isn't near the problem in that case. For outdoor racing shots I'd try to figure out the Hyper-Focal Distance settings for the lenses I use and rely on mathematics to get you the shot you want. In other words, use the charastic focus traits of a lens in your favor. If you familiar with the term "dof" of depth of field, just focus to a point ahead of the focus plane (using charts) and know that eveerything between two given points will be in "acceptable" focus. Small iris for depth of field, fast shutter speed to stop action and much larger ISO settings to allow the other two parameters to work.

Don't rule out a defective camera. I read somewhere that with the D100 (the camera of choice for me) the problem rate might be as high as 10 percent.

Taking pictures ain't going to be as precise for you as running a lathe or mill !! Many of us who take pictures for a living think it's more an art then a science !! Good luck, if you have more questions email so we don't bore the forum/gauntlet !!

BTW, I think some folks are confused on what a DSLR is. My Digital Single Lens Reflex camera has a mirror in it that flips up out of the way when the exposure is made. So, that means, until the exposure is made, I am looking at the actual subject and not the subject brought up on an LCD screen with all it's small amount of detail. I do have such a window on the back of the camera to get an "idea" of how the last shot just went. If I've interrupted what others are saying I think they thought a DSLR had a LCD screen inside the eyepiece. It don't.

Ray........

[This message has been edited by Your Old Dog (edited 09-05-2005).]

[This message has been edited by Your Old Dog (edited 09-05-2005).]

J Tiers
09-05-2005, 10:32 AM
Don't get me wrong.... I use the digital and NOT the film cameras right now. I don't like that it doesn't work the same as or as well as a FILM point and shoot, in some ways. Definitely not like the SLRs I am used to.

If I set up a shot, where I have total control over time, light, composition etc, I don't like having to "fool" the camera in some really silly way JUST to get the thing to FOCUS.... Down with the focus hocus... I'd rather play with exposure, aperture, etc, if I have to fiddle.

The "cheap point and shoot" digitals are up to $500+ for ones with reasonable features that at least allow you to get close to the performance of an SLR.... except for you can't focus them.

I have not even PRICED seriously a digital SLR, because when I bought the digital I do have, those prices were well north of a grand, and I wasn't gonna spend that.

The "cheap point and shoot" that I use is the Canon A-70, which was the best and highest rated one I could find, with better color rendition and focus performance (as reported in credible sources), than most others, including the various Nikon units of similar ilk. At that, it should have cost me somewhere around $450 IIRC, but it was selling slightly under $300 then.

I have used several other d9igitals, and the reviewers and testers were right... it works the best of all I have tried. That isn't near perfect, though.

I use teh digital, but have access to several cameras, from a wood view camera thru a number of 1940s Leica to the Olympus. I like the Olympus manual OM-1 and intend to get it fixed. The OM-2, maybe. The view camera also will be refurbished if possible. Leica, well ancient Leica are hard to fix right, hardly anyone does, and I don't know where that will go, or if it is still possible.

All I want is to find an *affordable* digital that feels more "SLR-ish" like the OM-1 or similar as far as inputs and options.

Wayne02
09-05-2005, 12:35 PM
My only experience with a film slr is the canon AE1 I think it is? A camera which I really liked and took fantastic pictures.
Then I bought the digital rebel and it has the control layout and feel of the film ae1 body. Except the rebel body is plastic where as the old ae1 was metal.

I really like the A70 camera. I was thinking about getting one for the shop. I need to replace my very old trusty olympus that I use out there. I would like to stick with canon and their style of memory cards. There are times where I just don't feel like lugging that rebel w/ 200 + lens around.

Wayne

3 Phase Lightbulb
09-05-2005, 12:53 PM
I can't figure out my new camera.. Every time I take a picture, this is what I get:

http://www.gp-training.net/protocol/redeye/iritis.jpg

What am I doing wrong?

Your Old Dog
09-05-2005, 02:54 PM
How much are you drinking these days? http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//biggrin.gif

Get a little more sleep and some of those roadmap lines may go away! Let me take this auspicious occasion to thank you for not posting a brown spot!

3 Phase Lightbulb
09-05-2005, 03:33 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Your Old Dog:
How much are you drinking these days? http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//biggrin.gif

</font>

I drink 6 to 8 20oz Gatorades/PowerAids a day when at home... Probably 8 to 10 12oz cups of water when at work.. I used to drink Snapple all day long at work and all the time at home but I got really sick of hauling in glass bottles, and hauling out the empties.

Your Old Dog
09-05-2005, 06:12 PM
Fellow Senior Citizen are you? http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net//biggrin.gif

tryp
09-05-2005, 06:15 PM
I personally like both formats, for fun and putting pictures on the web, cheap everyday use I love my digital point and shoot, I'm not snobbish enough to need a 1400 dollar digital SLR yet. I also have a heirloom film SLR and some old brownies that my grandmother passed to me. On these I shoot 100 ASA black and white only which I develop myself. Using chemical solutions I mix from scratch (ie no kodak, from hydroquinone, metol, thiosulphate etc.)

One thing that is stupid is the huge ammount of used film equipment that is on the market from people that are switching to digital, they have no use for it proffesionally (or at home) yet they still want a premium for it.

ricksplace
09-05-2005, 07:20 PM
JTiers -There is a place you can get your leicas reconditioned in North America. Kinderman Canada is the only licensed leica repair depot in North America. Ask for a guy by the name of Gerry. A friend of mine had two leicas repaired there, a 3F screw mount (an entire new shutter installed and calibrated) and an M3 two-stroke, (a stripped gear replaced and entirely recalibrated) IMHO, leicas are worth fixing. Just look at the $$ they bring on ebay.

Rick.

BillH
09-05-2005, 08:29 PM
So what is so special about leicas? The name? The original 35mm?, the quality of the lense and craftsmanship of the camera itself? If they werent so bloody expensive I'd love to have one in my collection as well. I must say though that the brand new leicas look to be all plastic and horrible ergonamics, probably farmed out, and only paying for the name.
At my old job, before I was into photography, a co worker brought in a small leica camera, he was so fond of it, I didn't know any better at the time, I thought it was just a very nicely made camera.

tryp
09-05-2005, 08:40 PM
6-8 powerades a day Adrian, you sure got hooked by the marketing. That's alot of empty calories. In a month the money saved from kicking that addiction would buy some shop supplies.

The picture reminds me of our old maintenance supervisor. He went into a reactor a few years back to take some polaroids,he kept swearing when the flash went off that it was pretty bright, and he kept passing pictures out the mandoor of the vessel. The guys were busting a gut when the pictures started to develop. They never even told him to stop, there was a whole cartridge of pictures of the guys crusty face in varying grimaces floating around. We blew one up and all signed it at his retirement dinner.

ricksplace
09-05-2005, 08:54 PM
Now that's a good question.... Why are leicas so damned expensive? They are VERY well built. All machined parts (at least the older models). I have never owned one, but I have used one and fondled a few different models. There are not too many cameras built with that level of craftsmanship. Are the optics any better than top quality Japanese cameras? Not really. Now the leica owners will start screaming. I have read lots of lens tests comparing leitz summacron and even elmar lenses against the top nikon, pentax and cannon lenses. Sometimes the Japanese lenses score better on resolution tests, sometimes the leitz lenses do. To my knowledge, leitz lenses do not use any plastic in the manufacture of their lenses, and they are the only company that doesn't.

Most of the 35mm fun shooting I do is with a few old Kodak Retina cameras, a 2A and a 3C. Six element Schnieder Kreuznach Zenon lenses, German made, beautifully machined, and they fold up into a compact unit. The 3C sold for $189.00 US in 1954. I like to use them because they are beautifully machined and a mechanical work of art, not to mention the fact I can't afford a leica.

I have met some leica owners who own them for the snob appeal. The leica owners I know own them for the same reason I use the Retinas, they enjoy using well made mechanical works of art. Could I get the same picture quality from a modern Japanese camera? Probably better. But I wouldn't have as much fun.

Rick.

J Tiers
09-05-2005, 09:23 PM
The Leicas I am familiar with are NOT SLR. They have a viewfinder, but it is not through the lens.

I looked up the M3, and IIRC, it was a newer camera than the ones I know about. These are an earlier version of the III, similar looking to the IIIf, may be in fact IIIfs.

Frankly, they are very old-tech, but well made, with a funny shutter curtain setup that is what goes bad, and is what nobody seems to know how to repair.

IIRC, Leica themselves won't repair them anymore.

[This message has been edited by J Tiers (edited 09-05-2005).]

ricksplace
09-05-2005, 09:37 PM
J Tiers -I am only familiar with the rangefinder leica cameras too. My friend had a shutter rebuilt in a 3F screwmount rangefinder camera by the guy I mentioned above. It was a cloth focal plane shutter, much the same as many of the older SLR's and rangefinders. Apparently, he's the only person in North America who can rebuild one of those shutters from scratch.

If you want to see a mechanical marvel, the Retina 3C has a coupled rangefinder, split image focusing, interchangeable lenses, AND FOLDS UP!!