DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Will we ever see a digital body for our Manual Focus lenses

Points well made Joseph.

Certain lenses are designed to produce certain signatures. Certain photographic needs are addressed by certain lens systems.

The notion that Canon lenses are poor manual focus units is actually a testimony to their AF ability. That was the objective going in with the EOS system ... speed. For many years they left Nikon and everyone else in their dust. Their larger lens mount also turned out to be a wise move as digital came on line.

I had great hopes to replace Canon with the N system. The very first wedding I tried with the N gear proved it to be totally inadequate for the need. The AF was way to slow and near impossible in the low light of a reception for moving subjects. My Canon IDsMKII with fast L primes can grab focus on a running black cat in a coal mine at midnight ... everything else is secondary to that need. The Contax system then became a luxury indulgence ... and eventually an orphan in my gear closet.

My mentor is a big named photographer in New York. He's the one that got me deeply involved in Contax C/Y glass ... he had prime ex&les of the best Zeiss had to offer including the 55/1.2, 21/2.8, 28/2 85/1.2, 200/2, and even a rare fast Zeiss Mirror the size of a VW car. But he has many other lenses from Leica (M and R) and even Canon (200/1.8) for their unique look and feel. He told me that the older Leitz 60/2.8 Macro was the best macro ever produced by anyone ever. It's was actually to expensive to continue making ... just like the impossibly priced R 35-70/2.8 that even at it astronomical price was a money loser for Leica. He also is of the opinion that the Leica 180/2 APO is the best of that focal length ever made by anyone. So, in that case Zeiss can't replace Leica.

Actually, prejudice for and against certain systems is a limiting factor. If you need AF like I do, I can't afford to cripple myself with a prejudice for Zeiss glass ... or Leica R for that matter.

Even in the world of Medium Format, I prefer Zeiss, but use Fujiblad glass more often. While I have the CF adapter to use all my Hasselblad CFE and CFi lenses while retaining full auto aperture functions, the difference isn't great enough to throw away the swift AF ability and data bus TTL lens info of the H camera system. Getting the shot takes precedence over differences in lens signatures ... although with lenses like the HC100/2.2 and 300/4.5 the difference is very hard to see in actual practice.

Now setting aside sentimental musings about C/Y glass, if Zeiss launched a finely made range of AF SLR glass and someone just happened to make a 20 meg full frame Contax digital camera to take them ... all my Canon stuff would be gone in a New York heart beat. I'd keep all my Leica R gear for those times I want a trip into the past and experience fine manual focus gears.

In the meantime I have real needs ... like a modern camera that I can swiftly control to get the money making shots with precise focus, balanced lighting and color signitures that are pleasing to the eye. Like this split second opportunity titled "The Gift" ... from a 5D and 24-105/4 zoom ... both of which I hate.


466578.jpg
 
Marc,

Your original post was:

"What is the burning need to substitute silicone for celluloid? From
what I can tell it isn't a commercial need, which I could understand.
So, I wonder why?"

From your response, it sounds like you were really more interested in stating your opinion then asking "why"?

In response to your points:

1) It is foolish to consider that when you take an image you take it for one purpose. Yes, cheaper cameras can e-mail just fine, but rarely does a photographer take an image "just to email". I say, start at the top of the quality heap and work your way backwards. And you are grossly kidding yourself (although you project yourself as a "leader" in deciding the future") if you don't think that digital quality can match or equal or surpass film in alot of applications.

2) Yes, you can scan your film and do the 2nd and 3rd points I made. But, you are doing so by spending countless hours and days which would be IMHO more productive by taking photographs, then fixing dust spots and scratches. I know. I have spent months of my life doing just that. What a headache.

3) You say "chimping" the LCD is the plaugue of shooting. The LCD is just another tool. Misuse the tool and it hinders. Use the tool properly and it improves your shooting.

I am not being disappointed in the quality or the "soul" of digital, but constantly amazed at the quality curve in the last ten years. You simply can not tell the difference at the "right" size between film and digital.

And to suggest that by learning digital now is a waste when compared to what will be available in the future is simply you wearing the blinders that life experiences and training do not prepare somebody for being able to better handle technical challenges in the future. 80 percent of my technical work is programming. I took Pascal in college. I have never used Pascal in a commercial application. But I learned from Pascal. In the future, bytes will still be bytes, and pixels will still be pixels. Our manipulation of them may differ in the future, but the foundation of their behavior will still be the same.s

And finally, there is the reality that what excites one photographer may not excite another. You get off on your photographs (which are great!), but another one may get off on the digital feed back of their digital system. For me, that feedback is improving my skill set. Please don't dish it.

Michael.
 
Michael, actually I was interested in why (and still am) ... I just just don't understand the rationale as stated, so don't get all personally offended by an opinion that differs from yours. Of course "opinion" is always the basis of any of these discussions ...yours included.

IMO, none of them were compelling reasons to "go digital" over film except in a most general photography sort of way ... none of which require anything near the quality and expense of Zeiss/Contax gear ... which this forum is about ... and this specific thread addressed.

1) The notion that shooting film precludes scans on CD is of course incorrect. 98% of all lab film processing is now from scans ... thus provide the e-mail and other electronic means you appear to designate as the domain of digital capture.

BTW, my reference to, and the context of, being in the forefront of digital was made to clearly state that my opinion wasn't one formed by a film user only, nor based on a fear of digital. So, no need to get personally insulting concerning this aspect just because I am forming my opinion based on first hand, state of the art experience.

2) As stated above, CDs of scans can be done when processing the film. I do not spend endless hours scanning, let alone days on end ... that chore is unfortunately reserved for processing digital capture. When I scan, it is of specific images that are to be printed at high resolution. Like digital processing or wet darkroom work, scanning improves with practice and craftsmanship. Dust spots aren't an issue because I exercise the same disciplines I learned in the wet darkroom. The difference is this: drop the film off at the lab, get back proofs (the only cost difference is that of the film and processing, the prints cost the same whether from digital or film); scan only the really important work destined for enlargements. For ex&le, a wedding with 600 photos needs all 600 processed in Adobe Camera RAW, with film I need only scan 30 to 40 for the album enlargements.

3) I agree. But it isn't human nature to not look. And the fact is that most do. The LCD is a necessary tool ... for digital capture ... not for film. Neg film's greater latitude precludes the need. Reviewing the image is indeed a great thing for certain applications ... however for me, being able to review the LCD has made absolutely no difference what-so-ever in the quality of my personal and wedding work. If I could, I'd shut off the LCD, but I need to see the histogram because digital exposure is more critical than film.

NOW, contrary to the first set of reasons you stated, I DO get the last sentence of your most recent post as a general advantage of digital ... which also would definitely impact photography done with a Contax Zeiss digital kit IF one ever came to fruition.

Digital feed back for certain types of work is a terrific learning and creative tool. It fosters experimentation, and is a fabulous tool to learn with ... like the inconspicuous use of flash for ex&le.

When I say learning digital can be a a waste for some , I meant digital camera capture. Scanning film will keep one abreast of many of the processing diciplines because the same ones are used for digital camera capture. For ex&le, the Software for my Imacon scanner is the same software for the MF Imacon digital back. Photoshop is Photoshop whether used on a digital file or a scanned file.

The final opinion concerning film's character verses that of digital is just that ... opinion. However, I am not alone in this opinion, and use of the very best digital capture gear at a huge expense has not changed that opinion at all.
 
Here's a test if you're so inclined.

I ran into this when I acquired the Canon 1DsMKII which I had hoped would also act as a easy to use studio camera. I kinda bought into all the hype that this new full frame DSLR would/could challenge MF.

First job I did was a jewelry catalog. 120 shots in 3 days shooting. First shot with the Canon stopped the shooting process dead in it's tracks. No matter what we did, the camera could not handle the spectral highlights ... a notorious issue with digital capture and an indication of other issues of tonal gradation.

Never had that problem with film.

I had to use a MF digital back to get the job done in time.

So, if you get a chance try shooting the wife's wedding ring if its a diamond.

Meanwhile here's a film shot using Zeiss glass. ISO 400 speed film. I'd need my H2D/39 to get anything close to this. It's a grab shot of a Hot Rod BBQ ...

466581.jpg
 
I see what you mean, Marc. I happen to shoot a lot of jewelry for a friend's ebay catalog, and I have faced the same problem with spectral highlights. Now that I'm back to film, the highlights look much more pleasing.
 
Well, I have sure never seen a barbecue like that before. It must be hard to keep clean: great shot. Was it on the 645?
 
Uh, my error also. Should read: "Specular" highlights. Thanks Edward.

Hasselblad 203FE John. Fuji 400 neg film. This is a 60% crop of the original because it was behind a barricade so people wouldn't be touching it all day long.
 
Thanks Marc,
Super quality. It just shows how good the camera and lens are but also the film, being 400 ISO and heavily cropped. Was that Superia or a professional film?
 
Back
Top