Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Panasonic / Leica dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 7, 2006, 9:31 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

way back when Kodachrome was king, everybody seemed to want you to use Kodachrome 25, and perhaps 64. I still have flashbacks...

we would organise a shoot, maybe the sky was grey, maybe the site was underprepared, in some cases we would then have plan a reshoot. So you get through the day, and send the film off to the lab, wait the 2 or even 3 days to find out something went wrong. There are always images that go underexposed on such slow film, but if its a critical image, guess what, we have to reshoot.

In the relieving world of digital
if the sky is grey, great! nice flat light, we replace the sky with a stock blue gradient later. If there is something you want to remove from the frame.... no problem. If there is a need to make some other surgery all you need is the software and the skill set. Out of the million thigs that go wrong, usually the situation can be recovered, hardly ever a need to reshoot.

Now we are the lab, now we have the skills, and we charge accordingly. The client is happy too, turn arounds are usually the next day. And no not a loupe and a lightbox, but a cdrom and the nearest pc. Maybe several key people need to see it all at once. If some editing needs to be done we can discuss it then and there. I dont like it, I love it.

Riley
Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2006, 9:25 PM   #32
Member
 
NickTrop_redux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 59
Default

Oh... if you shoot a lot, and do post... yes, this point I concede. I said in my initial post, that I would shoot digital if photography was my job, though there are still photographers who prefer film. I never shot 14 rolls during a vacation. However, I also never had trouble with a lab... well once I did, that was it. How much do you pay for processing 14 rolls by the way? I pay around $6.00 a roll, that would be only $84, about the cost of a full set of ink tanks. No matter what medium you use prints, cost money - roughly the same per print digital or film.

If you're only uploading photos and not printing, you don't even need a full megapixel. What do you need a $1,500 DSLR kit for?

Sorry, I still don't get the whole DSLR thing if you're a hobbiest. Unless you shoot such a volume of film that the cost becomes an issue, or do a lot of post processing... I can't for the life of me understand where it's worth it or what's the attraction.

Item A... last a life time (or at least half a lifetime), costs $200-300 bucks, even less, for a decent kit... Requires no PC, knowledge or software that can be both expensive and has a long learning curve, no usb cords everywhere, no printers, no expensive inks, no plug-ins, no hard-drives, has extremely long battery life (years sometimes) and many are operational without them... etc.. Simple to use, three simple controls: aperture, shutter, focus. It is essentially a stand-alone item.

Item B costs 4 or 5 times as much as item A, lasts only 5,6,7 years... (a guess, I admit). Requires PC, knowledge of software with a long learning curve (also expensive if you use Photoshop), usb cords, printers, expensive inks, plug-ins, hard-drives, have comparitavely short battery life... etc.. Are ergonomic nightmares, and if you buy this particular Panasonic model, has obvious design flaws (buffer issue, dim finder)...

Both produce the same end product - a picture, of comparable quality to each other.


Little point-n-shoot digital you slip in your pocket? Yep, that I get.
DSLRs? Sorry, still don't get that one... not for the life of me.

NickTrop_redux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2006, 9:59 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

yeah but I think you conveniently batch all digitals together
what about those roll film cameras that were rubbish then and are rubbish now
mostly when digital began, they were consumer cameras that attracted otherwise new entrants into the market.

The more professional digitals are a fairly recent innovation, and Im pretty sure the dust hasnt quite settled on that yet. Fair or not, the top end digitals emulate 35mm cameras because thats what the market expects. Yet within the workings and functionality are quite different. A case in poit is the Leica digital back, which IS a roll film camera, and IS a digital camera. Hybrid it may be, but for want of a full frame chip many manufacturers would have gone that road. While now that may be possible, in the years since the tooling and factory layouts have completely changed, and going back isnt an option.

on the dim finder thing
while many have issues in sun, I think thats understandable
surely dim means in terms of WYSIWYG its underexposed
you can get cameras that gain up automaticly, the more sophisticated thats for sure
but personaly I prefer dim, for when it really is dim; and you can always use the viewfinder. For after all, the LCD back isnt found on a film camera is it.


Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2006, 11:51 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

NickTrop_redux wrote:
Quote:
Oh... if you shoot a lot, and do post... yes, this point I concede. I said in my initial post, that I would shoot digital if photography was my job, though there are still photographers who prefer film. I never shot 14 rolls during a vacation. However, I also never had trouble with a lab... well once I did, that was it. How much do you pay for processing 14 rolls by the way? I pay around $6.00 a roll, that would be only $84, about the cost of a full set of ink tanks. No matter what medium you use prints, cost money - roughly the same per print digital or film.
Quote:
Not having had a roll processed since 2003, I don't pay anything, but like then, pro labs todaydon't charge $6 a roll to process, print a roll of 36 exposures and do a photo CD, at least not down here:
Quote:
Since establishing my site at Smugmug I do very, very little printng at home. It just isn't cost effective for small prints at all.

If you're only uploading photos and not printing, you don't even need a full megapixel. What do you need a $1,500 DSLR kit for?
Quote:
If you post images on a website where people buy yourprints or you order prints and enlargementsyourself like I do, you need a little more than 1 megapixel. I also use the site as by "backup drive" for images I don't want to lose should my apartment burn down or if I suffered a catastrophichard drivefailure, so everything that goes to my site is the full-size, highest possible resolutionJPEG file.
Quote:
This isn't about what someonepaid for "everything", just the camera. Whether the SLR outfitis film or digital, you have to have the lenses, flashes, etc.. $1,500 kit? Heck, I have a $1,700 LENS, the 7-14 Zuiko- pretty spectacular too, by the way. Canon film or digital shooters pay $1,500+ for a 70-200 f2.8L with image stabilization, or $1,300+ for a 16-35 f2.8L.

Sorry, I still don't get the whole DSLR thing if you're a hobbiest. Unless you shoot such a volume of film that the cost becomes an issue, or do a lot of post processing... I can't for the life of me understand where it's worth it or what's the attraction.
Quote:
That's why there's still film. Obviously, that's a good thing for you and many others. I agree, there are many-probably too many- people buying DSLR's. I see too many posts by people who've bought one, don't have a clue and then complain because the images are too soft, too this, too that,when the only soft part of the process is their ability/desire to apply settings to finish an image once taken- if you want point & shoot ease of use, DSLR's are not the way to go....by a longshot, but then again, neither is a mechanical film SLR that doesn't need a battery to work if you don't know what the heck you're doing. If you want brain-dead easy digital photography, go buy a 4 MP Kodak that applies horrendous amounts of sharpening and processing to their JPEG files. Their cameras are all about people who don't want to know how, and Kodak obviously sells millions of them. It's when those typeusersupgrade themselves to DSLR's and apply those same expectationsthat the problems begin....

Item A... last a life time (or at least half a lifetime), costs $200-300 bucks, even less, for a decent kit... Requires no PC, knowledge or software that can be both expensive and has a long learning curve, no usb cords everywhere, no printers, no expensive inks, no plug-ins, no hard-drives, has extremely long battery life (years sometimes) and many are operational without them... etc.. Simple to use, three simple controls: aperture, shutter, focus. It is essentially a stand-alone item.
Quote:
Unfortunately, many ofthe same people who don't want to learn how to process their digital SLR files right most likelydon't know the answer to what isthe sunny 16 rule either. Whether we want to recognize the fact or not, there are now lots of photographers out there today who didn't learn how to take pictures with a Canon Ftb. Their first camera was a Kodak Easyshare DX6340, and yes, they missed out on a lot and many of them will never "get it".

Item B costs 4 or 5 times as much as item A, lasts only 5,6,7 years... (a guess, I admit). Requires PC, knowledge of software with a long learning curve (also expensive if you use Photoshop), usb cords, printers, expensive inks, plug-ins, hard-drives, have comparitavely short battery life... etc.. Are ergonomic nightmares, and if you buy this particular Panasonic model, has obvious design flaws (buffer issue, dim finder)...
Quote:
absolutely, down to the part aboutergonomic nightmares. Not all of them are, but there are plenty I hate as well. As far as I'm concerned, makers can keep anything without a viewfinder of some sort... something that's starting to apply to all point & shoots. There's something fundamentally stupid about cameras that don't allow you to shoot them at eye level, held close to the face for more steady hand-holding. It isn't like the people using those type cameras are the rock of gibralter when it comes to steadyhand-holding technique anyway.

Both produce the same end product - a picture, of comparable quality to each other.


Little point-n-shoot digital you slip in your pocket? Yep, that I get.
DSLRs? Sorry, still don't get that one... not for the life of me.
Quote:
Which means you just need to keep doing what you're doing. I used to never understand some people owning $15,000 worth of Hasselblad equipment just because they had the funds for shootinga couple hundred rolls of film a year. Today those people are the ones who own $8,000 Canon 1Ds DSLR's and another$20,000 worth of lenses and accessories. You obviously have different priorities, as in everything else in life. Why does someone with the money own a Rolls Royce- wouldn't a nice Lexus do?
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 12, 2006, 9:27 AM   #35
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

Greg Chappell wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
absolutely, down to the part aboutergonomic nightmares. Not all of them are, but there are plenty I hate as well. As far as I'm concerned, makers can keep anything without a viewfinder of some sort... something that's starting to apply to all point & shoots. There's something fundamentally stupid about cameras that don't allow you to shoot them at eye level, held close to the face for more steady hand-holding. It isn't like the people using those type cameras are the rock of gibralter when it comes to steadyhand-holding technique anyway.
Though I prefer a viewfinder and agree that it provide the opportunity for steadier shots, on my Fuji F30 I have been getting good results without one. I would blame it on the high ISO speeds in full auto, but I have been getting good results even at low ISO.Maybe it is weight related, because when I used to shoot with my Panasonic FZ30 at anything but eyelevel, I would sometimes get blurry shots and that camera had IS. I hated the EVF on the FZ30 but it was better than nothing. I was glad I got rid of it and went DSLR as Istill prefer a real opticalviewfinder, but the tiny ones on compact camerasare a waste as far as actually seeing anything and trying to manual focus. They still help to steady the camera, but that's about it. I don't know why so many of them don't have the viewfinders. Maybe it's cost or size constraints, but cameras without them do seem silly. If the F30 didn't provide such high quality low light shots, I wouldn't have givenup the viewfinder..




meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 12, 2006, 9:47 AM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

meanstreak
I think its probably because they are P&S rangefinder like cams, but are complicated by the addition of a zoom, and they dont seem to be able to get over both the parallax issue, and the change in angle by zooming. It can be done of course but at a cost. Now that many are getting larger and better LCDs shutterbugs are being pushed to use that.
Gain up for low light makes that more viable.

Riley

Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24, 2006, 2:54 AM   #37
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 822
Default

- manual focus
If you want manual focus, you can buy a digital with manual focus.

- bright viewfinder

This issue only applies to a couple of recent cameras, the first that combine an SLR viewfinder with a "live view" LCD display. It results from the image being split with some of the light going to a second sensor. Might not bother those with good eyes (note that older eyes tend to have more difficulty adjusting to lower light--our pupil's maximum aperture tends to decrease as we age).

- High ISO speeds (digicam limitation)
Again only applies to some. Some are better than film at high ISOs.

- operational simplicity - a few simple settings..
.
It's simple because it's what you're used to.

- always ready to shoot, always "on" no boot up time
The 1.5 second power on only applies to a few models. Current Nikon models, for example, power on in under a tenth of a second.

- low light capability with fast lenses that don't cost a fortune.

Lenses of equal quality are generally cheaper for digital than film. Most DSLR systems were designed to use the exisiting lenses from film cameras. But now more lense are being made specifically for digital, and they are less costly, becuase they have to cover a smaller sensor size. Four Thirds system lenses include some especially good values becuase of this .

- Outstanding build quality relative to digitals

They have been building cheap and fragile plastic film cameras for a long time as well. You don't have to buy them either. You can also find well built digitals. Sure they could improve, and the well built film cameras are more plentiful right now (used anyway), but that's because it's a more mature technology as well.

-No such thing as "buffer" delay with a film cam.

It's been a long time, but the buffer delay on my last film camera was awful. You had to clear it every shot. And you had to do it manually, with a lever on the back. It was so slow, it was almost as if it didn't have a buffer at all!

Really, most people don't need a DSLR. And many don't really need a digicam either. And there are some good points there. I think many buyers of digital cameras already have a PC that they use regularly, and want to be able to view and store photos on it. They may already have a photo capable color printer as well. And many are used enough to using software, that downloading and resizing files in a photo editor is a breeze. There really isn't that much learning curve. But if someone doesn't already own a PC, has no need to get photos online, or on a computer screen, doesn't take a very large number of pictures, and only wants prints, then film is a very good option.

And if someone often wants prints larger than 11x14, than again film might be the best option, in a large format.

So it's up to people to decide for themselves what they really want and need. But it is true that some will buy whatever is hot at the moment (and right now that's digital), without enough thought about whether it really fits what they really need.



kenbalbari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2006, 8:27 AM   #38
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

kenbalbari wrote:
Quote:
- always ready to shoot, always "on" no boot up time
The 1.5 second power on only applies to a few models. Current Nikon models, for example, power on in under a tenth of a second.


I think people make way to much noise about start up times on cameras. How often do you people really have no notice that they are going to take a shot from the off position? My KM 7D and 5D starts up fairly quickly and in fact, I can leave it on in standby mode and it is ready to shot as soon as I touch the shutter. They use almost no power in standby mode. In fact I haveleft mine on by accident and several days later the batterystillhad plenty of power.


meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2006, 2:04 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

This looks to be a real fix to the RAW buffering situation with the L-1.

http://panasonic.jp/support/global/cs/dsc/download/L1K/

The only thing it does not talk about is what the buffering limit for RAW is after the firmware install. I guess we'll have to wait for an owner to report on it to us.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2006, 2:24 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

well spotted Greg

wow a firmware update page...

Riley
Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:58 PM.