|
|
Post by Ronv69 on Oct 21, 2020 12:25:37 GMT -5
I would like to have a better Lumix, but not anything with interchangeable lenses. As close as I can get to a digital rangefinder in a high quality camera a digital Leica would be perfect. For me the act of focusing the rangefinder helps me frame the best shot better than any other kind of camera. Even better than a view camera because of the brighter image. I've no idea why bridge cameras don't have a decent lens. If they did, I would go for one. Saves the hassle of getting dust on the sensor. There was nothing wrong with the lens on the Electro 35. They are still in demand and they sell refurbished on eBay for more than the original price. The Lumix has a Leica lens. |
|
|
|
Post by pappyjoe on Oct 23, 2020 8:19:17 GMT -5
Many billions of ‘photographs’ are being made today by fewer and fewer genuine photographers. Some really fine work has been posted here. Yep. Now everyone who buys a smart phone claims to be a photographer. I seldom shoot any photos these days but during the "season" I work with a number of photographers who think they are professional because they bought a good digital camera. In fact, none of the photographers I have contracted with for November and December have any formal education or training in photography but are damn good using photoshop. Then again, my job is to just sit there and look like Santa. |
|
|
|
Post by Plainsman on Oct 23, 2020 8:44:19 GMT -5
Please, Santa, bring me a digital back for my 4x5? I swear I’ve been a good boy!
|
|
|
|
Post by Legend Lover on Oct 23, 2020 9:52:25 GMT -5
Many billions of ‘photographs’ are being made today by fewer and fewer genuine photographers. Some really fine work has been posted here. Yep. Now everyone who buys a smart phone claims to be a photographer. I seldom shoot any photos these days but during the "season" I work with a number of photographers who think they are professional because they bought a good digital camera. In fact, none of the photographers I have contracted with for November and December have any formal education or training in photography but are damn good using photoshop. Then again, my job is to just sit there and look like Santa. You make a good point. In many ways, it's not so much being a good photographer, it's being a good graphic designer. |
|
|
|
Post by pappyjoe on Oct 23, 2020 10:04:50 GMT -5
Yep. Now everyone who buys a smart phone claims to be a photographer. I seldom shoot any photos these days but during the "season" I work with a number of photographers who think they are professional because they bought a good digital camera. In fact, none of the photographers I have contracted with for November and December have any formal education or training in photography but are damn good using photoshop. Then again, my job is to just sit there and look like Santa. You make a good point. In many ways, it's not so much being a good photographer, it's being a good graphic designer. I used to hate digital photography. Then I came to the realization that digital cameras are basically the same as the Instamatics shooting 126 and 110 film made in the 60s and 70s. All you have to do is point and shoot. |
|
|
|
Post by Plainsman on Oct 23, 2020 10:16:48 GMT -5
Ask one of the “new photographers” what an f/stop is and they’ll look at you as if you had two heads. I used to teach photography at the uni level and nobody got to even touch a camera until they could recite the f/stop and shutter speed interlock backwards and forwards. “If f/8 @ 1/250 passes 100 units of light, how many units does f/11 @ 1/60 pass?”  |
|
|
|
Post by Ronv69 on Oct 23, 2020 10:39:23 GMT -5
Ask one of the “new photographers” what an f/stop is and they’ll look at you as if you had two heads. I used to teach photography at the uni level and nobody got to even touch a camera until they could recite the f/stop and shutter speed interlock backwards and forwards. “If f/8 @ 1/250 passes 100 units of light, how many units does f/11 @ 1/60 pass?” 200 units? I lived and breathed this stuff 30 years ago when I operated a process camera for a living. I haven't thought about it since then. For those who don't know, a process camera is a giant stationary view camera used in printing. Mine was 30 feet long, weighed 2 tons and used film up to 64x84 inches. |
|
|
|
Post by Plainsman on Oct 23, 2020 11:07:55 GMT -5
That is a LOT of film!
The answer is... both settings have the same transmission.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ronv69 on Oct 23, 2020 11:52:23 GMT -5
That is a LOT of film! The answer is... both settings have the same transmission. Not only was that sheet of film hard to handle, but it had to be developed in trays because it was too large to fit the machine. We had motorized tray rockers. |
|
|
|
Post by sperrytops on Oct 23, 2020 11:57:45 GMT -5
I used to be into photography in a big way. Then I started taking wedding photos and that took all the joy out of it. Then when my children came along I had no inspiration. Now and then I would take a photo on my phone, but I'm not into it in the same way. I do miss it though. Those photos so far are excellent... Way above my level of skill. Here are some of a series I did on mushrooms...    And one i took when I did a wedding in England...  Beautiful shots, Paddy. I didn't realize you had this hidden talent. I was never into photography when I was younger but my older son was in a big way and got me involved. I collected old 35mm cameras for a while but today use a Nikon D7200 (slightly smaller frame size but a fun camera). I'd love to get one of those new Nikon Z series, but really can't afford it. It's fun taking shots wit the D and then comparing them to the Minolta 35mm. |
|
|
|
Post by Legend Lover on Oct 23, 2020 12:08:17 GMT -5
I used to be into photography in a big way. Then I started taking wedding photos and that took all the joy out of it. Then when my children came along I had no inspiration. Now and then I would take a photo on my phone, but I'm not into it in the same way. I do miss it though. Those photos so far are excellent... Way above my level of skill. Here are some of a series I did on mushrooms... And one i took when I did a wedding in England... Beautiful shots, Paddy. I didn't realize you had this hidden talent. I was never into photography when I was younger but my older son was in a big way and got me involved. I collected old 35mm cameras for a while but today use a Nikon D7200 (slightly smaller frame size but a fun camera). I'd love to get one of those new Nikon Z series, but really can't afford it. It's fun taking shots wit the D and then comparing them to the Minolta 35mm. You're too kind. |
|
|
|
Post by Plainsman on Oct 23, 2020 12:13:12 GMT -5
Not at all ‘too kind,’ That mushroom series is primo.
|
|
|
|
Post by pappyjoe on Oct 23, 2020 12:23:01 GMT -5
Ask one of the “new photographers” what an f/stop is and they’ll look at you as if you had two heads. I used to teach photography at the uni level and nobody got to even touch a camera until they could recite the f/stop and shutter speed interlock backwards and forwards. “If f/8 @ 1/250 passes 100 units of light, how many units does f/11 @ 1/60 pass?” One of the first photographers I worked with and learned from hated in camera light meters. His first rule of thumb was, "take the light reading from the palm of your hand" when outdoors and print skin tones to be 18% gray. His second rule was for shooting outside under bright sunlight - f/5.6 @ 500. I wasn't allowed to touch a 35mm camera until I became proficient shooting a 4x5 Graflex Speed Graphic. You haven't lived until you've shot aerials with a 4x5 while hanging out the doors of a helicopter. |
|
|
|
Post by sperrytops on Oct 23, 2020 12:26:34 GMT -5
I'm curious if anyone has an answer. I'm told that the professional level digital cameras (50k pixels) are equal to or better than 35mm pixel resolution. Is that true?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ronv69 on Oct 23, 2020 12:48:25 GMT -5
I'm curious if anyone has an answer. I'm told that the professional level digital cameras (50k pixels) are equal to or better than 35mm pixel resolution. Is that true? They are good, but not as good as Kodachrome. 😜🤠😎 For all practical purposes they are fine. The file size for a 50 megapixel image would be around 60 MB. For a high end pro camera that records extra information it could go up to 400 Mb. Most people really don't need more than 2 or 3 megapixels for every day snapshots. I rarely use the 10 MP setting on my older Lumix. |
|
|
|
Post by Legend Lover on Oct 23, 2020 13:30:13 GMT -5
Sensor size is more important than the pixel count too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Plainsman on Oct 23, 2020 13:45:40 GMT -5
IMO the 24Mp images from my Sony cameras can produce prints that just about equal the observable resolution of 35mm prints up to about 11x14. Subject matter, lighting, and other factors enter into the equation.
|
|
|
|
Post by pappyjoe on Oct 24, 2020 8:55:13 GMT -5
I'm curious if anyone has an answer. I'm told that the professional level digital cameras (50k pixels) are equal to or better than 35mm pixel resolution. Is that true? They are good, but not as good as Kodachrome. 😜🤠😎 For all practical purposes they are fine. The file size for a 50 megapixel image would be around 60 MB. For a high end pro camera that records extra information it could go up to 400 Mb. Most people really don't need more than 2 or 3 megapixels for every day snapshots. I rarely use the 10 MP setting on my older Lumix. In my opinion, there wasn't a better film to shoot than Kodachrome. It made for beautiful slides when properly exposed and processed and could easily be used for making color or black & white prints. I believe that the film emulsion of Kodachrome meant there was no visible grain in the slides unlike with Ektachrome which used a different emulsion and processing. Some random information: The largest print made from a Kodachrome slide that I personally saw was approximately 8-foot tall by 10-foot wide. That was at a photo processor in Seattle back in the mid-1970s. I read somewhere, that the resolution of a 35mm slide was the equivalent of a 20 megapixel digital image shot at a comparable ISO. Based on my experience as a photographer, I have always had the following opinions: 1. The larger the negative, the better the printed image will be. A 35mm camera is great for news and sporting photography but if want to shoot higher quality, go large format when you can. Shooting 120mm film gives you better quality than 35mm but 4x5 film gives you better images than 120mm. 2. My favorite film for shooting B&W portraits was Polaroid 55P/N. It was great because you could see the finish image in 60 seconds and you also had a fine grain negative for enlargements. 3. Somewhere around 1977, I had the experience of making prints from glass negatives for a small Coast Guard museum. Glass plates are fragile so I understand why they were replaced by celluloid and modern film, but the quality was amazing. |
|
|
|
Post by toshtego on Oct 24, 2020 9:44:06 GMT -5
Ask one of the “new photographers” what an f/stop is and they’ll look at you as if you had two heads. I used to teach photography at the uni level and nobody got to even touch a camera until they could recite the f/stop and shutter speed interlock backwards and forwards. “If f/8 @ 1/250 passes 100 units of light, how many units does f/11 @ 1/60 pass?” In the early 1970s, I ran an Arriflex M and a Bolex Rex V for a crew. I still have the old Bolex packed away. Lovely machines but a technology long surpassed. |
|
|
|
Post by instymp on Oct 24, 2020 10:18:12 GMT -5
2.25 was better than the 35mm also.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrlunting on Oct 28, 2020 13:46:07 GMT -5
I would love to get into photography. Studying mushrooms for years I would love to take pictures of fungi, wildlife and various other things on my hike. I just don't know what to look for in a camera.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gandalf on Oct 29, 2020 19:28:52 GMT -5
Some of my old film cameras. I set up the Bronica like a 35mm camera. Replaced the film crank on the right hand side with a grip that has a film advance lever, hot shoe, and shutter release button all built into it. Replaced the original viewfinder with a prism viewfinder that also incorporated the ability to use auto exposure. The multiple film backs allowed me to shot a scene with one film, switch backs, then shoot it again with another film.  My Nikon F2A. I've still got a Nikon FE and an FM to.   Some of my digital cameras. None are professional grade. As you can tell by now, I'm fond of Nikon.  And then there's my collection of ~80 35mm cameras from the 40's, 50's, 60's. |
|
|
|
Post by Legend Lover on Oct 30, 2020 6:32:21 GMT -5
Some of my old film cameras. I set up the Bronica like a 35mm camera. Replaced the film crank on the right hand side with a grip that has a film advance lever, hot shoe, and shutter release button all built into it. Replaced the original viewfinder with a prism viewfinder that also incorporated the ability to use auto exposure. The multiple film backs allowed me to shot a scene with one film, switch backs, then shoot it again with another film. My Nikon F2A. I've still got a Nikon FE and an FM to. Some of my digital cameras. None are professional grade. As you can tell by now, I'm fond of Nikon. And then there's my collection of ~80 35mm cameras from the 40's, 50's, 60's. That's some collection...now let us see what you can do with them  |
|
|
|
Post by Gandalf on Oct 30, 2020 13:08:34 GMT -5
Legend LoverHaven't done anything with film for years. Not doing much with digital lately. But I've got a lot of old stuff. I'll have to post some of it now and then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Legend Lover on Oct 30, 2020 13:26:05 GMT -5
Legend Lover Haven't done anything with film for years. Not doing much with digital lately. But I've got a lot of old stuff. I'll have to post some of it now and then. Please do...even your digital stuff too. |
|
|
|
Post by toshtego on Oct 30, 2020 13:34:00 GMT -5
2.25 was better than the 35mm also. A buddy of mine back in the early 1970s had a Hasselblad. I was always amazed by the image on the ground glass screen. It was sharper than my corrected vision. They were an amazing camera. |
|
|
|
Post by instymp on Oct 30, 2020 17:13:30 GMT -5
2.25 was better than the 35mm also. A buddy of mine back in the early 1970s had a Hasselblad. I was always amazed by the image on the ground glass screen. It was sharper than my corrected vision. They were an amazing camera. Top tier & above my income! |
|
|
|
Post by Ronv69 on Oct 30, 2020 22:00:05 GMT -5
2.25 was better than the 35mm also. A buddy of mine back in the early 1970s had a Hasselblad. I was always amazed by the image on the ground glass screen. It was sharper than my corrected vision. They were an amazing camera. I have a picture (taken with the Yashica Electro 35) of my friend sitting on a bench at the bottom of Carlsbad Caverns working on unjamming his Hassel-bad, again. In fact I have a dozen pictures of him unjamming his Hassle - bad. My Yashicamat 124G was trouble free. But it was expensive to feed. I did take better pictures with it though. |
|
|
|
Post by instymp on Oct 31, 2020 8:14:57 GMT -5
A buddy of mine back in the early 1970s had a Hasselblad. I was always amazed by the image on the ground glass screen. It was sharper than my corrected vision. They were an amazing camera. I have a picture (taken with the Yashica Electro 35) of my friend sitting on a bench at the bottom of Carlsbad Caverns working on unjamming his Hassel-bad, again. In fact I have a dozen pictures of him unjamming his Hassle - bad. My Yashicamat 124G was trouble free. But it was expensive to feed. I did take better pictures with it though. I had a couple Yashica Mats & they were workhorses. Great camera for what they were. Used for weekly newspaper. |
|
|
|
Post by pappyjoe on Nov 1, 2020 7:22:43 GMT -5
It was big. It was heavy. It looked like a 35mm on an overdose of steroids. But, my favorite medium format camera for shooting aerials and documentary photos was the Pentax 6x7.
|
|
