[aliquis]

Hm . . . . . .


I bet you that I can find more than a few "serious" photographers who shoot APS-C and don't even feel the need to go to FF.

it was sarcasm

[ilya80]

Hello sir:

I know I'm older and yet I continue to teach myself about a medium that I must deal with in order to continue photographing. It is what it is.

With all due respect, shooting film seems a lot more difficult to me yet, even considering there are a lot less options to screw up. It might seem easier, but to get a great, all-around-perfect picture with given lighting etc is a LOT more difficult to me when using film.

[Ben_Edict]

With all due respect, shooting film seems a lot more difficult to me yet, even considering there are a lot less options to screw up. It might seem easier, but to get a great, all-around-perfect picture with given lighting etc is a LOT more difficult to me when using film.

Film may be more difficult for YOU, but for others (including myself), who came from the "film-world" and have considerable experience, the basic transition from film to digital, with new and different limitations and workflows, makes digital not easier. We have the learning curve for film way behind us, already.

My personal opinion is, that film and digital, both have their pros and cons and their specific difficulties. For instance, getting an image, that is useably exposed under difficult lighting is actually easier with film. Because a good negative film has a larger exposure latitude and contrast range, than digital (not the least due to the characteristic S-curve of the gamma). Also all the RAW conversion is not really much easier, than dealing with darkroom stuff - in both cases you need exactly what to do and why to do. In effect, many tools are very similar, but the digital computer tools are something that we oldtime film-shooters have to learn on top of our film-related knowledge.

Ben

[gazonk]

My personal opinion is, that film and digital, both have their pros and cons and their specific difficulties. For instance, getting an image, that is useably exposed under difficult lighting is actually easier with film. Because a good negative film has a larger exposure latitude and contrast range, than digital (not the least due to the characteristic S-curve of the gamma).

I have to object. Some of us old film guys used to shoot slides. Which meant that you had to nail the exposure perfectly every time.

[tangus]

I guess a new model should be released soon to replace k7. Might be full frame.

[Ben_Edict]

I have to object. Some of us old film guys used to shoot slides. Which meant that you had to nail the exposure perfectly every time.

I wrote explicitly about negative film, which has amuch wider contrast range and exposure latitude. I also used mainly slides, but negs have their advantages!

Ben

[gazonk]

I wrote explicitly about negative film, which has amuch wider contrast range and exposure latitude. I also used mainly slides, but negs have their advantages!

Ben

I saw that you wrote about negative film, but if you too mainly used slides, your statement IMHO was a bit misleading. And: Negative film may have been great for pros, but shooting RAW is a relief for an amateur like me who couldn't afford to have a color darkroom at home. I think it's like shooting slides and negatives at once and getting everything developed and delivered at your doorstep in seconds.

[Ben_Edict]

I saw that you wrote about negative film, but if you too mainly used slides, your statement IMHO was a bit misleading. And: Negative film may have been great for pros, but shooting RAW is a relief for an amateur like me who couldn't afford to have a color darkroom at home. I think it's like shooting slides and negatives at once and getting everything developed and delivered at your doorstep in seconds.

The "good olde" colour darkroom was by no means more expensive than a RAW processing computer with all the necessary paraphernalia. I guess, we just assume (and thats NOT meant to critisize your statement in any way, just a kind of self-reflection) that we have computers anyway around and so don't account for all the cost involved: computer, hds, DVDs, monitors, ups, colour management, post-processing software, lighting for the workspace etc. It sums up pretty steeply and then add those things we think we need on top, like portable computing, scanners, a backup-pc...

You can buy expensive or cheap - but that was the case for film processing, too. Digital is faster from taking an image to viewing it in its preliminary state (unless we use Polaroids for comparisson) - and it is less smelly, but otherwise film could and can hold its own.

I remember a job, where I did micro photography for a customer (I photographed the nozzles of inkjet print heads in all their glory). From taking the images onto Fuji Provia to delivering the images, I needed about six hours, developing the slides in my small colour lab, because it saved an hour travelling to the next pro lab on a Sunday.

That is not really slowlyer than today, because now we spent so much time on the computer reviewing much more images, than during film days, doing basic but indispensible post-processing (rendering from RAW to TIF, sharpening, contrast correction etc.), which wasn't necessary in film days. Film-based images did simply not need sharpening and contrast would be determined in advance by the choice of film. Colour corrections would be applied with CC filters at the shooting stage and that was that.

I am not nostalgic. I shoot most of what I do digitally and enjoy that. I also enjoy all the post-processing and printing - but I cannot really see, that digital has made photography really that much easier. I think, there is simply another perception and approach to digital photography by many amateurs, because people now are used to have computers around and to spend their time in front of screens. So the digital camera fits more easily into this digital lifestyle, than the film cameras ever did into the life even ten years ago.

Ben

[solar1]

you seem pretty severe with the minolta/sony lenses

here is one gem: Lens Test: Minolta 85mm f/1.4G (D) AF - - PopPhotoOctober 2002

another: The 135 STF

This is only two lenses, there are more.

Pentax hasn't just had success with the K-X, but also the K-7. Entry level cameras are very important for manufacturers because it is often the starting point of many photographers to the respective camera manufacturer's system. As the photographer's skill grows they will often look to move up into more sophisticated, more professional camera models. Often from the same manufacturer.

Where can Pentax owner's move up after the APS-C K-7? It's easy from the APS-C K-x to the APS-C K-7, then what? The jump to the MF 645D is quite broad and steep. Pentax and many of it's users need a FF DSLR.

Sony had two FF cameras that were dogged by extremely high prices and poor sensor performance. People aren't dumb, they saw that and stayed away from the cameras (Sony A900 7 Sony A850). The next generation of FF sensors from Sony are rumored to be like the sensor in the Pentax K-X (sourced from Sony); very high on performance and much lower on price.

The Sony Alpha line is built upon the remains of the Minolta Camera division. Minolta is still around, so while Sony was able to purchase the camera division the Minolta name was not part of the sale.

I was never a fan of Minolta cameras or lenses, some of their cameras and manual focus lenses made the late 70's and early 80's were OK (like the 58mm 1.4), but their lenses (and coatings) were never as nice as Pentax, Nikon or Canon. From my work in college as a color darkroom manager I was not impressed with images taken on Minolta's (my opinion, I'm sure I will be dogged for this). Pentax has an awesome lens coating in the SMC, now Pentax is introducing digital and ghostless coatings. Quite impressive. Out of the standard 50mm 1.4 lenses from Nikon (G), Canon, Pentax (FA 50) and Sony (Minolta 1.4 50mm) the Sony is not that great.

Sony 50mm f/1.4 ( SAL-50F14 ) - Review / Test Report

Sony should have done their homework more before buying the Minolta camera division.

Another unfavorable Sony lens review (35mm 1.4 G):

Sony 35mm f/1.4 G ( SAL-35F14G ) - Review / Test Report

DPreview had an unflattering review of this lens too (very surprisingly) but when I just went back to look for it I could not find it. Maybe Sony had the plug pulled on the review. Advertising dollars have a lot of pull.

Sony hasn't been a complete failure. It takes awhile to establish a new division. The DSLR line is still relatively new for them. Sony makes some great Cybershot point and shoots.

[solar1]

I missed this news, if a link is available about this info... thank you for posting it.

The patent application that was posted a few days ago and the lack of any new DA lenses should give you a hint at the direction Hoya/Pentax is moving.
A.

[gazonk]

The "good olde" colour darkroom was by no means more expensive than a RAW processing computer with all the necessary paraphernalia. I guess, we just assume (and thats NOT meant to critisize your statement in any way, just a kind of self-reflection) that we have computers anyway around and so don't account for all the cost involved: computer, hds, DVDs, monitors, ups, colour management, post-processing software, lighting for the workspace etc. It sums up pretty steeply and then add those things we think we need on top, like portable computing, scanners, a backup-pc...

Well, I'm in the lucky position of getting state-of-the-art laptops from my employer, but even my 11 year old son has a MacBook he paid for with his own money, and if he decides he wants to do DSLR photography, he doesn't have to invest in anything at all besides the camera kit to get started with RAW photography.

Anyway, most families in industrialized countries these days have at least one PC, and if they buy a DSLR they will already have the software they need (or they can download free software) on their PC, or they can use whatever they get with the DSLR. A DSLR these days has about the same nominal cost as a film DSLR 30 years ago, despite 30 years of inflation. Memory cards are so cheap that they're cheaper than slide film even if you never delete a file from them.

Did I mention that I can get at least 3 645Ds for what a darkroom would actually cost me ?

Of course it's very different if you're a pro, but IMHO for amateurs SLR photography has never been easier or cheaper than today.

[RMabo]

I think it is time to look at that interview again, with the chief of Pentax Europe.
Upgrades/replacements of current DSLR's - which means K-7 and K-x.
Plus a pro level body above the K-7.

If the K-7 upgrade would be 24x36 then what would the pro level body above this be?
Surely the K-7 upgrade must be APS-C. I believe much of the same K-7 as we have today, perhaps with a new sensor, perhaps with improved AF and other functions.

Have no idea about the new camera above this.
Could be APS-C pro, could be 24x36 - but 24x36 requires a huge investment in new lenses.

[gazonk]

A DSLR these days has about the same nominal cost as a film DSLR 30 years ago, despite 30 years of inflation.

Correction: My memory may have failed me, and in any case this doesn't seem to be the case in the US, according to this page, the MX costed only $189 in 1978, while the Nikon F2AS costed $549,-. Adjusting for inflation, that's $657 and $1909, so the MX body was about 25% cheaper than the K-7 body is now, and the F2AS was far cheaper than the D3S.

[Rorschach]

Did I mention that I can get at least 3 645Ds for what a darkroom would actually cost me ?
.

I don't know about your math, but in my case it's the other way around: I could get at least three darkrooms for the price of a single 645D.

Pro-grade enlarging machines and periphernalia can be had for a song nowadays.

[Ben_Edict]

I don't know about your math, but in my case it's the other way around: I could get at least three darkrooms for the price of a single 645D.

Pro-grade enlarging machines and periphernalia can be had for a song nowadays.

Very true. Even colour processors are only worth another song.

Ben