Nail in coffin for 35mm film cameras

quote:

Originally posted by garyi:
There is nothing what so ever keeping film cameras in the market.

My wife up until December worked for Kodak, who in essence were utterly shitting themselves because they KNOW its all over.

Hence that Kodak advert that's telling us to make prints of your digital files. Er, no. I will if someone asks for one or i want one for the wall/portfolio but until then, it sits on a CD/DVD/HD until i need to.
Kodak along with a few others, are losing the film market and the print market is split up now between a lot more players with the advent of home printing.
They were top of the tree for a long time but they got fat and lazy and now the branches can no longer support the weight...

quote:

Originally posted by Joe Petrik:
But if they're still not fast enough, you could get a current entry-level D-SLRs like the Nikon D70s, Canon 350D or Pentax *-istD. All have shutter lags about as short as a decent SLR, and pro cameras, such as the Nikon D2Hs and D2X, are every bit as fast as pro SLRs with shutter lags around 40ms.

The problem in the SLR market is the difference in cost between an entry level 35mm SLR, and the current entry point for digital SLR's.

The cheapest AF Nikon 35mm SLR at Jessops is the F55 and with a 28-100mm lens it sells for £149.99. Also at Jessops the entry level digital Nikon SLR is the D50 which sells for £629.99 with the same lens.

I use Pentax kit and the entry level digital SLR in their range is also about £600. That's way, way too high as an entry point but plenty of people out there will also be put off buying a 35mm SLR now because in a couple of years time there probably will be viable entry level digital SLR bodies, perhaps at the £300 mark.

Just checked the review of the Pentax *istDS on photo.net and noticed that it's by Vuk.

I to can see a split opening in the digital part of the photo market as witnessed by the phone shots of the tube evacuations after the London bombings last month. The quality was on a par with screen grabs but the phone was there to record things and as a result for a day or so the chap who took a photo was the number one photo reporter in the whole world.

I also see that Kodak has finished producing the Kodak DSC SLR (N/C) and has released the P880 & P850 aimed at the non pro dslr market yet another case of technology trickling down from the pro market and giving the public better tools for the job. I bet these words were uttered when dry plates replaced wet and again when roll film replaced plates all those years ago.

Steve,

quote:

The problem in the SLR market is the difference in cost between an entry level 35mm SLR, and the current entry point for digital SLR's.

The cheapest AF Nikon 35mm SLR at Jessops is the F55 and with a 28-100mm lens it sells for £149.99. Also at Jessops the entry level digital Nikon SLR is the D50 which sells for £629.99 with the same lens.

True, the gap is large but it is closing.

Another way of looking at it is how much do you need to spend to get something decent. Forgive the Nikon examples, but it's the only brand I know well... the Nikon D1, introduced in 1999, sold for something like $5k, while the D70s, introduced this spring, is better in every conceivable way (except for its viewfinder and build quality) and is well under $1k. Not quite a camera for the masses, but it's no longer a luxury item either.

quote:

I use Pentax kit and the entry level digital SLR in their range is also about £600. That's way, way too high as an entry point but plenty of people out there will also be put off buying a 35mm SLR now because in a couple of years time there probably will be viable entry level digital SLR bodies, perhaps at the £300 mark.

That's the logic I was using until I factored how many pix I wasn't taking because of the cost of film and processing as a result of my general ineptitude with film photography. I still shoot film, but digital has been fun and a great creative liberator. At some point, you take the plunge.

By the way, have you seen Vuk’s review of the *-istD? He was rather impressed and you know how picky he is. [edit: I see that you just have]

Joe

quote:

Originally posted by Joe Petrik:
By the way, have you seen Vuk’s review of the *-istD? He was rather impressed and you know how picky he is. [edit: I see that you just have]

He certainly seemed to like the camera and I'd buy one myself if it was cheaper, or if it had a sensor covering the full 35mm so that my lenses won't change focal length. I like shooting wide angle and I don't like the idea of my 18-35mm zoom becoming only 27mm at the wide end.

Regards
Steve

This Killer App for a mobile phone must be one of the last nails in the coffin for 35mm film cameras.

Steve,

quote:

...if it had a sensor covering the full 35mm so that my lenses won't change focal length. I like shooting wide angle and I don't like the idea of my 18-35mm zoom becoming only 27mm at the wide end.

I was waiting for that to happen, too, but as of August 10, 2005 Nikon has yet to produce a full-frame sensor and I now doubt that they ever will.

As far as I know, only two D-SLRs have full frame sensors --- the Canon 1DS Mark II at $8k and the Kodak DCS, but I believe the Kodak camera has recently been discontinued. In principle I'll all for full-frame sensors so you don't have to worry about focal crops, but in practice full-frame appears to be a mixed blessing. Apart from the very high cost, full-frame sensors have all sorts of problems smaller ones don't, like severe vignetting with wideangles.

Joe

I don't see why vignetting should be any more of a problem with digital than it already is with 35mm. Most wide angle zoom lenses vignette to some extent at the edges when wide open, however I've never found it a problem myself as mostly I'll be stopped well down anyway.

Steve,

quote:

I don't see why vignetting should be any more of a problem with digital than it already is with 35mm.

I'm not sure of the exact technical reason -- something to do with the rays of light coming in at too oblique an angle for the CCD/CMOS sensor to handle -- but however much a wideangle vignettes with film, the situation is worse with full-frame digital. (The smaller sensors with their 1.6x, 1.5x or 1.3x crop factors get around the problem by being within the vignette zone.)

Vignetting isn't a total disaster, so I shouldn't overstate the problem, and you can minimize it by using exceptional wideangle lenses, or by dodging, burning or fiddling with vignetting correction in Photoshop. But whether mild, moderate or severe, vingetting will be worse with full-frame digital than with film.

Joe

P.S. A link of possible interest.

P.P.S. I realize the irony of my post -- I was a long-time full-frame advocate -- but I no longer view 24x36mm CCD/CMOS sensors as the Holy Grail of D-SLR photography.

Vignetting

The sensors in a digital camera are at the bottom of small pits, so they only receive the full amount of light when the light rays are perpendicular to the face of the sensor. Wide angle lenses cause light at the edges of the image to arrive at the sensor at quite an angle and so less light arrives at the sensor. With film the film surface is essentially flat and so can accept light at quite a steep angle.

The software supplied with some DSLRS can compensate for the vignetting of known lenses, ie current lenses - this might be more of a challenge with legacy lenses.

The Olympus 4/3rds system is a fresh new design and all the new Olympus lenses are designed to maximise the angle that the light strikes the sensor.

Derek,

quote:

The sensors in a digital camera are at the bottom of small pits, so they only receive the full amount of light when the light rays are perpendicular to the face of the sensor. Wide angle lenses cause light at the edges of the image to arrive at the sensor at quite an angle and so less light arrives at the sensor.

That's it. Thanks for putting legs on my sloppy explanation.

Joe

quote:

The Olympus 4/3rds system is a fresh new design and all the new Olympus lenses are designed to maximise the angle that the light strikes the sensor.

As of yet I have not seen too many dslrs adopting this system of new sensor size (ratio?) and lens design, so what is holding it back? Is it the investment in lots of existing lens systems that will fit nice new digital boidies or what?

Is the 35*24 still a good ratio for pictures or should the 4:3 or even the a3 or a4 ratios be given a go?

Unless you're into golden means and the aesthetics of proportions, 3:2 is as good as 4:3, which is as good as 4:5, which is as good as 1:1. It's down to personal preference or the result you're trying to achieve. I mean, if you were asked to shoot an album cover, it seems to me that seeing the world through a square viewfinder would aid composition.

Joe

Roy

Olympus had the advantage / disadvantage of being out of the SLR market for many years so their development level re auto focus etc was behind the CanNik herd - it also meant that the pressure to accomodate legacy glass was minimized. Hence they were able to design a DSLR system from the ground up. The 4/3rds system has been licenced to several other companies but so far only Sigma have produced any lenses. Panasonic and Kodak (I believe) have licenses to exploit the standard.

RE old Oly lenses, Olympus have made available an adapter that allows one to use legacy Oly glass in manual mode (focus and aperture). As I have no Oly legacy glass I have not had experience of using such glass.


Re image ratio - Joe and I have "discussed " this at length <g> however one should remember that the image sizes have been generated from other manufacturing standards - eg 35mm movie film, size of glass plates, etc - very few of them have come about because the ratio was the best for aesthetic purposes. To a lot of people the best ratio is the one that they have been using for a long time.

The size of the sensitve emulsion in a camera is almost as curious as the relationship between the width of US railway tunnels and the Roman chariot.

Film dead? Probably.

Here's a room set I did last week, shot on 5x4 (90mm Sinaron lens) film and then scanned to a 75mb file at a cost of £25+vat per scan. I also took a shot with my Nikon D2x camera as a back up.

I'll post closely cropped sections of both images at 100%. Detail is obviously more refined on the 5x4 shot (comparing is difficult on these 50kb pics), but I'm always surprised at how good the D2x is. You can see how much more tone there is on the 5x4 shot where the light graduates from the light bulb. Apart from a subtle differences, the D2x is superb.

I never thought I'd say this, but it's good to see Joe post again. The padded cell seems to be left with pricks like Martin.D and BigH47.

Here's the 5x4.

Here's the D2x.

quote:

The padded cell seems to be left with pricks like Martin.D and BigH47

well fuck you too, and remember a mind is like a parachute - best used open.

What are mindless catalogue pictures got to do with it anyway, i have scanned images taken on a Nikon FE2 with a 105mm f2.5 lens - they make digital pics look rubbish, whats yer problem?
Martin

Count or whoever you are - just had a good look at your images in photoshop CS and the scanned analogue ones are clearly better - i dont see why i'm a prick for wanting a fantastic 35mm body from the last chance saloon?

quote:

Originally posted by Martin D:
whats yer problem?

Hormonal.

This is from a Grattan shoot I did last week, i took some polaroids as backup zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

If all you do is take pictures of kitchens mate, you need to get a life

I disagree strongly

Here's a picture I took using a camera and lens.

Joe