Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-10-2014, 12:34 PM   #46
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by FrankC Quote
I completely agree with you about the number of frames shot on digital vs film. However this and your point regarding the longevity of the 67II may all be moot since 120/220 film will most certainly be discontinued if not by the end of the decade then sometime within the next. Thus turning your 67II & my RZ67 into interesting conversation pieces sitting on our mantels.
At B&H, there's as much of a variety of 120/220 film now as there is 35mm. I think 20 years ago 35mm would've crushed 120.

...as it should be. There really isn't a lot of use cases where 35mm film makes sense these days. There's far more use cases where 220 film makes sense... although for me it doesn't make sense until 4x5, and by that point, hell, just go 8x10.

08-10-2014, 12:42 PM   #47
Veteran Member
FrankC's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 318
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
as it should be. There really isn't a lot of use cases where 35mm film makes sense these days. There's far more use cases where 220 film makes sense... although for me it doesn't make sense until 4x5, and by that point, hell, just go 8x10.

If one was to look at the price of gear (35mm vs MF vs Large Format) prior to digital, MF & 4x5 was really too expensive for the non-pro. But now the prices for a decent MF or even a 4x5 camera and lens is well within the range of many more people. But it is now as it was then, barring budget concerns, the camera you use choose to use is solely dependent on what you want and need to do with it. But certainly I agree with you: With the prices so cheap for MF gear, just as long as the system meets your needs/wants, why go 35mm?


With the assumption that those still using film are either enthusiast or pros, it wouldn't surprise me to see 35mm disappear sooner than MF film.
08-10-2014, 12:45 PM   #48
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 566
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by FrankC Quote
I wonder how much minimum advertised price (MAP) policies have altered the street prices. It used to be that a camera would have a MSRP of one price, but the street price would be 20-30% lower, and if you were smart enough to check the ads at back of a Popular Photography magazine, you'd see even lower prices. I remember the MSRP of a Nikon F4 being about $2,000, store prices at $1,800 and B&H selling it for $1,500. You don't see this anymore. The MSRP is the street price, it is the price list at the back of the photo mags.
I saw the price drop of the 645D from $9,999 in 2011 and then as soon as the D800 hits the shelves it drops to $6,800. Does anyone really believe the manufacturing costs somehow magically dropped the second the D800 came out? Now the 645D is at $4,999 which tells me that any retail shop could have sold it for far less than MAP, but the restrictions put upon them by the manufactures prevents them from doing so.
It's common belief that internet pricing pretty much killed off the brick-and-mortar camera shops. However, with the pricing restrictions put onto online retailers, it's ironic that now it's cheaper to buy from a local store than from B&H or Amazon. When I bought my 645D B&H was at $9,999, but I paid $1,000 less because I went to retail shop and asked for a discount. You can't do that online, so if you're a little pissed about the pricing of the 645 lenses as I am, call a small mom & pop store and strike a deal. I seriously doubt that any of them would refuse to make a deal - especially in today's market.
MAP is a pretty fraught topic these days. Personally I am glad MAP is being enforced more rigorously, because it really was hurting smaller pro shops. A lot of mom and pops went out of business from failing to adapt to an utterly changed landscape, so it's sad but many brought their downfalls on themselves---but non adherence to MAP even whacked good business people. Ironically, it seems Amazon has helped matters: when B&H started to complain to the manufacturers (especially Canon and Nikon, who have just recently changed their policies and tightened way up...), finally some things started to adjust. Now my 2 local (one is about an hour away, one is 2 blocks) pro shops are starting to be able to compete on a more level playing field.
08-10-2014, 02:20 PM   #49
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,750
QuoteOriginally posted by Califmike2003 Quote
I agree, the cost of a good computer, software, printer, good monitor is thousands and thousands of dollars alone.
Photo editing is independant of if you are shooting film or digital. One can shoot jpegs and order prints online (and in many shops you can order your prints too). This is strictly the equivalent of what when one ask for somebody else to develop his films shoots.

To do that on digital, any computer can do the job (you seems to have one as you are present online) and the storage effort to keep 500jpeg/year (equivalent number of photo you do on film) is really low. The cheapest external drive available would give you worth of 500years worth of photos backup for $100. You don't need specific software as the free one typically do already more than what you need.

My father simply doesn't shoot RAW and use a 5 years old cheap laptop and this doesn't prevent him to print photos. In fact this is the majority that do like that.

So here you total cost for computing: $100.

Now if you want to do some advenced photo editing, this is possible if you shoot on film or on digital, and in both case it involve a computer that have to be fast enough (a €600 desktop computer is more than enough), you may want a screen that really show you what you'll get when printing (€150) and some advenced RAW editing software (€100)... Still with the initial hard drive backup, you are under €1000. This is independant of your shooting medium (film/digital) and purely optional step.

Stop saying nonsence. Some of us shooting with digital may have no clue at what shooting on film involve, but we know what you need to shoot on digital. You can get an used DSLR for $200, work with your 5 year old entry level computer and already get some nice photos...

08-10-2014, 02:30 PM   #50
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
gofour3's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 5,386
QuoteOriginally posted by FrankC Quote
However this and your point regarding the longevity of the 67II may all be moot since 120/220 film will most certainly be discontinued if not by the end of the decade then sometime within the next
A while back I might have agreed, but film has seen a big upsurge the last few years, especially with 120 film. Yes 220 film is pretty well dead and only available in a couple versions.

I’m constantly surprised when I go to my lab to pickup my processed 120 film, how may other people are also shooting 120. The h/w costs to shoot MF film have come down so much, pretty well anyone can afford a camera & a couple lenses. Also b&w still looks better on film than digital, so there are plenty of 120 film sales to keep the market going for decades. (It wouldn’t surprise me if 120 film sales are catching up to 35mm sales)

The h/w cost for MF digital is just too costly for most people and it always will be. MF film shooters still probably outnumber MF digital shooters 10 to 1.

I keep on bringing this up and I know I sound like a broken record (pun intended), but vinyl was also constantly being relegated to the technology graveyard in the ‘80s. Flash forward to today and vinyl sales are better than anytime in the last couple decades, which is more than one can say about CD sales.

Long live analog!

Phil.
08-10-2014, 03:27 PM   #51
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 916
Phil-- I bought a 1000+ rolls of 220 several years ago because I thought there could be an availability issue. I was right.
08-10-2014, 05:23 PM   #52
Veteran Member
Silent Street's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Geelong & Richmond, Vic AUS
Posts: 553
QuoteOriginally posted by desertscape Quote
Phil-- I bought a 1000+ rolls of 220 several years ago because I thought there could be an availability issue. I was right.

I have not seen any 220 roll film for many years. I think I have discovered why...
08-10-2014, 06:11 PM   #53
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,608
QuoteOriginally posted by gofour3 Quote
A while back I might have agreed, but film has seen a big upsurge the last few years, especially with 120 film. Yes 220 film is pretty well dead and only available in a couple versions.

I’m constantly surprised when I go to my lab to pickup my processed 120 film, how may other people are also shooting 120. The h/w costs to shoot MF film have come down so much, pretty well anyone can afford a camera & a couple lenses. Also b&w still looks better on film than digital, so there are plenty of 120 film sales to keep the market going for decades. (It wouldn’t surprise me if 120 film sales are catching up to 35mm sales)
Long live analog!

Phil.
There's an entire block (one side) of art printing businesses in the bohemian part of town here (Cherokee Street). I guess artists congregate in one area, restore old row houses, share tools and work, help each other out in business and create stuff. If someone wants to talk to an old-school Printer, they're down there teaching apprentices. A few have a web presence. Most will take enthusiast work - it turns on the lights (but you'd better be pretty good or they'll chase you out).

They also do large copy work - Say you have a large old portrait of a relative and you want copies for your siblings - they'll do it.

Film -120- isn't going away. It's just going underground.

08-11-2014, 04:49 AM   #54
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 566
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Photo editing is independant of if you are shooting film or digital. One can shoot jpegs and order prints online (and in many shops you can order your prints too). This is strictly the equivalent of what when one ask for somebody else to develop his films shoots.

To do that on digital, any computer can do the job (you seems to have one as you are present online) and the storage effort to keep 500jpeg/year (equivalent number of photo you do on film) is really low. The cheapest external drive available would give you worth of 500years worth of photos backup for $100. You don't need specific software as the free one typically do already more than what you need.

My father simply doesn't shoot RAW and use a 5 years old cheap laptop and this doesn't prevent him to print photos. In fact this is the majority that do like that.

So here you total cost for computing: $100.

Now if you want to do some advenced photo editing, this is possible if you shoot on film or on digital, and in both case it involve a computer that have to be fast enough (a €600 desktop computer is more than enough), you may want a screen that really show you what you'll get when printing (€150) and some advenced RAW editing software (€100)... Still with the initial hard drive backup, you are under €1000. This is independant of your shooting medium (film/digital) and purely optional step.

Stop saying nonsence. Some of us shooting with digital may have no clue at what shooting on film involve, but we know what you need to shoot on digital. You can get an used DSLR for $200, work with your 5 year old entry level computer and already get some nice photos...
These computing costs are only relevant for mid level cameras today, and as you say, those content with jpg and minimal or no processing.

I assure you, however, that these don't reflect the costs at the top of the camera pyramid. Those of us shooting raw, with 36mp cameras and now 51 mp cameras, shooting possibly several hundred images in a day, and for me in a busy shooting season like several weeks this past spring 1,000's of images, are starting to need a great deal more from our computers: processing power, RAM, storage---and backup storage on top of that, plus backups to the backup. With the new Z, a 64 mb card holds 500-ish images. If you bracket , that's an easy number to get to pretty fast. So now we need larger and more hard drives in multiples. Why multiples? I am now sweating bullets as a technician attempts to recover data off a failed drive this week, one that failed with almost no warning. Yes, they do that. So, yes, redundancy is vital. All this jacks up the cost. It's not horrific, but it's not as low as you suggest, either.
08-11-2014, 10:54 AM   #55
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,750
QuoteOriginally posted by texandrews Quote
These computing costs are only relevant for mid level cameras today, and as you say, those content with jpg and minimal or no processing.

I assure you, however, that these don't reflect the costs at the top of the camera pyramid. Those of us shooting raw, with 36mp cameras and now 51 mp cameras, shooting possibly several hundred images in a day, and for me in a busy shooting season like several weeks this past spring 1,000's of images, are starting to need a great deal more from our computers: processing power, RAM, storage---and backup storage on top of that, plus backups to the backup. With the new Z, a 64 mb card holds 500-ish images. If you bracket , that's an easy number to get to pretty fast. So now we need larger and more hard drives in multiples. Why multiples? I am now sweating bullets as a technician attempts to recover data off a failed drive this week, one that failed with almost no warning. Yes, they do that. So, yes, redundancy is vital. All this jacks up the cost. It's not horrific, but it's not as low as you suggest, either.
I agree but then we just need to do fair comparisons. If one is doing no post processing on film and shoot 500 photos a year and say that computing gear is expensive he has to see what you need to manage 500 photos a years without post processing on digital: not that much.

Now for sure I changed my computer to have something faster and it work really fine now on a K3 for RAW post processing... This is just a basic i5, 16GB RAM, a nice modern IPS monitor, an SSD for the system and an HDD for data... Included with OS & DxO it cost me less €1000.

Have a 51MP? Use a more expensive high end i7, adding maybe €200 more to the bill, and it will perform nearly the same as i5 on 24MP. And 16GB of memory is much more than you need. I did that because it was so cheap and so I can run VM easily.

If you are a pro and want full backup security that's going to be expensive - of course -. But if you are a pro shooting film and you want to protect your film, that going to be expensive too.
08-11-2014, 11:19 AM   #56
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,608
The truth is, at the top of the food chain photography is expensive. Enthusiast or pro, it costs money and time. Whether you invest your money up-front as capital expense + software (lately, ironically, changing to a rental model) or piecework your money over time for film and processing, it costs money.

In-camera processing, operating system image processors like iPhoto, simple online tools such as found in Picasa - all for jpeg's - acknowledge that the vast majority of photographers never alter actively their photographs before posting them, never post most of them and print a tiny, tiny percentage of them. Without auto-processing a camera is nearly useless to the vast majority of users.

The real question is, Why do so many people buy expensive cameras and lenses to output standard jpeg's when a phone or compact will do just fine for that use?

An example - I have several items FS in the Marketplace. In the past I would set up a softbox and take RAW product shots and PP them in PSE. This time I shot using the K-3 in natural light and just batch processed and resized the entire folder of of jpeg's using the PSE defaults and uiploaded them. Sure, I see a slight green cast in one, crops would help, etc - but would that change my success selling my gear? Even easier, could I have just imported them on my wife's iMac and let iPhoto do the entire thing? For this use a simple, batch process was sufficient.

Last edited by monochrome; 08-11-2014 at 11:29 AM.
08-11-2014, 12:43 PM   #57
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,750
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
The truth is, at the top of the food chain photography is expensive. Enthusiast or pro, it costs money and time. Whether you invest your money up-front as capital expense + software (lately, ironically, changing to a rental model) or piecework your money over time for film and processing, it costs money.

In-camera processing, operating system image processors like iPhoto, simple online tools such as found in Picasa - all for jpeg's - acknowledge that the vast majority of photographers never alter actively their photographs before posting them, never post most of them and print a tiny, tiny percentage of them. Without auto-processing a camera is nearly useless to the vast majority of users.

The real question is, Why do so many people buy expensive cameras and lenses to output standard jpeg's when a phone or compact will do just fine for that use?

An example - I have several items FS in the Marketplace. In the past I would set up a softbox and take RAW product shots and PP them in PSE. This time I shot using the K-3 in natural light and just batch processed and resized the entire folder of of jpeg's using the PSE defaults and uiploaded them. Sure, I see a slight green cast in one, crops would help, etc - but would that change my success selling my gear? Even easier, could I have just imported them on my wife's iMac and let iPhoto do the entire thing? For this use a simple, batch process was sufficient.
Agree again, mostly. I'am myself on the middle ground. Shooting Raw only, high end APSC and a good share of lenses (DA15, DA21, DA35, FA50, DA17-70, DA50-135). Heavy selection of the pictures I finally keep, and all of thems are typically post processed in DxO including tweaking to the color rendering, some reframing, adjustements in exposure, contrast, micro constrat, saturation... I do not do any photoshop through... And I do some multiple exposure HDR from time to time.

But I would not say that a phone is enough. Most people instantly see the difference between the photo a P&S provide and what a DSLR provide. They can also with little training get some nice portraits with bokeh or get good picture with difficult lighting condition... Something that a phone or even a P&S fail to do.

Does it need to be expensive? Maybe not, but it would be easier to focus with a K3 than a K5 and to get constraty photos and colors with an ltd than with a kit lens... On day to day basis, this is very sensible.

As the metering is also more accurate, you could more often just shoot Jpeg.
08-11-2014, 04:22 PM   #58
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 117
Shooting film again.

QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Film -120- isn't going away. It's just going underground.
MF Film has become the hipsters' choice. I'd shoot film again if I had a decent scanner and a 645N II instead of my steam powered Pentax 645 (I don't know why I keep thinking that it has mirror lock up) or ancient Mamiya 645E which now seems like a glorified box with a light meter. The 645D has spoiled me.
08-12-2014, 06:23 AM   #59
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 566
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by robertchow999 Quote
MF Film has become the hipsters' choice. I'd shoot film again if I had a decent scanner and a 645N II instead of my steam powered Pentax 645 (I don't know why I keep thinking that it has mirror lock up) or ancient Mamiya 645E which now seems like a glorified box with a light meter. The 645D has spoiled me.
I'm still shooting a bit of film. I traded in my 4x5 field camera (along with a boatload of other stuff, cameras and lenses & etc...) to help finance my 645Z purchase, but I kept and will keep my Fuji GSW690II. After reading a bunch of (kind of irrelevant, imo...) postings about the D and Z not really being 645, but "mini-me's" or "FF+", I've started to think of my Fuji that way: a mini-me of 4x5, or a medium format+. I know that although the 4x5 negs were definitely better tonality wise (in B+W), the 6x9's were damn good, and in transparencies or color negs I noticed little if any difference. Basically, the 6x9 transparencies were all I needed for my purposes---hawking my portfolio(paintings, drawings, sculptures, installations) to galleries---it was easy for them to see what was going on off a light table or the dreaded holding them above the head against the ceiling lights. And the B+W negs were much more easily handled in enlargers, and the prints looked fab.

So, as soon as I have some computing and scanning routines ironed out, I've got lots to scan and PP, and I'll start shooting it again.

You should try one of these big Fuji's---they're great.
08-12-2014, 06:46 AM   #60
Moderator PEG Judges
Loyal Site Supporter
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 33,158
QuoteOriginally posted by texandrews Quote
I did several searches and came up goose eggs
What a cracking phrase, I've never come across it before, but I know exactly what it means (well I think I do in this context).
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
35mm, bit, camera, cost, design, fa, ff, film, glass, hassy, lens, lenses, machine, medium format, memory, mf, pentax, people, price, report, ricoh, sony, volume, zeiss
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why are camera bags so expensive? 6BQ5 Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 32 11-15-2013 10:19 AM
Why are wide angle primes so expensive? bullitt_60 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 01-26-2013 04:13 PM
Why pentax f2.8 zoom is so expensive ^_^ benhai Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 45 11-14-2012 02:09 PM
Pentax - Why so expensive? userage Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 18 12-22-2011 06:53 PM
Why are T&S lenses so expensive and "special"? ytterbium Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 08-14-2011 08:47 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:05 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top