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

I have got used to taking 3(!) sets of extra recharged batteries with me, after a really bad experience: went out, took 10 shots only to have the first set run down...replaced with another set, which were immediately dead...having discharged themselves over a few idle days. Once bitten, twice shy!
blush.gif
 
Marc, Robert,

Thanks for the insight. I checked out Iridient Raw Developer, but unfortunately I am currently windows based. I have purchased Photoshop CS2 and a book on RAW, so this will be my next area of study.

If anyone has an extra battery holder or a 400 lens for the ND that they can or will part with, I'd be interested.

Regards,

Mark
 
Marc,

You asked earlier why would anyone who owns a Contax body and some nice Zeiss lenses want to go digital. Something happened today which gave me the answer to your question.

I put a few Provia rolls at my usual pro lab for processing and scanning (since my scanner was being serviced at Nikon's). I picked up the films and CD this afternoon. What a horror. The film is full of scratches and finger prints. The scans are very dark and violet. The photos were of jewelry taken on a white background in studio for my friend's website. I had to rescan all the photos at home, and even with ICE set on fine, I had to clean the photos in PS, but still I'm not able to get completely clean backround.

This is one of the instances when I damn film and wish for a digital body.
 
I only scan a few of my photos. I make sure the ones I am scanning are the good ones.

It takes time while scanning, you could do something else at the same time.

I do get results better than non-medium format digital cameras. They look just more real, clearer outline, colour definitions are more substantial.

I only use NMF digital cameras for less demanding work, when time is an important factor.

There are many instance when I damn NMF digital and wish for film.

Think, my scanner costed several k USD more than 1Ds2, why did I go for the scanner rather than 1Ds2 ?
 
I suppose if it's any consolation (which it probably isn't) that if the pictures had been on digital, it is possible that the memory card might have corrupted which could have been worse!
 
Yesterday was a turning point for my work. The Imacon 949 film scanner arrived.

For the price of this machine I could have bought two Canon 1DsMKIIs and a 5D. But for no amount of money spent on any DSLR could I get results like this. I know, I have the the 1DsMKII and 5D as well as 39 meg Imacon and 33 meg Leaf Aptus MF digital backs.

Hasselblad/Imacon published specifications are under-exaggerating the abilities of this 949 scanner ... It is so fast that there isn't time to do something else while it's scanning ... unless you batch scan six 35mm frames ... and even then there's little time to do other things.

You cannot evaluate a scanned film image on a computer screen. What looks like it may be grainy, isn't when printed. Film is different than digital.

This offers a more full range of options. Friends wonder why such a huge investment in film when all the technological advancements are focused on digital.

Two answers: I want the creative option to use film ... and I have 35 years accumulation of negatives and slides to feed this monster for a long, long time : -)
 
Congratulations, Marc.

The merit of have the Imacon scanner is large Dmax. It can provide you with great details even in the dark areas. Same applies for the medium format digital backs.

I was using Minolta 5400II. The scan results do resemble in some way like Canon DSLR. The details in the dark areas are lost completely and it becomes solid darkness. Nobody will doubt the noise free nature of the DSLR, but the noise elimination also clip the important details of the dark.

Since some of you might still want a DSLR because the Imacon scanner is a lot more expensive, which DSLR should one go for ?

I would wait for the full frame Nikon and couple it with the new Zeiss NF lenses. It would also be a good time when the full frame Nikon or Sony come up, Canon will come up with something else and there will be a big drop in the prices for 5D and 1Ds2. At the moment, 1Ds2 is about 2 years old, so it is about time for Canon to replace it. Canon should have the new one behind the curtain, she would anounce it when others do so.

5D's price has stayed still for 1 year and if you buy it now, you could get a big depreciation soon when the new ones come up.

Sit tight and wait.
 
In USA, Canon now offers $600 "double rebate" with the 5D. It is a good value. I don't like my 5D's handling. But it performs very well and gives very clean hi ISO images for $2300.

I used to be a big Nikon fan in the days of F2 thru F5. But judging the images from my assistants' D200s, and D2Xs, I would not go for Nikon's dSLR even they go full frame, unless they improve the hi ISO, flash metering, etc.
 
Neither do I like my Canon. It is indeed very clean in all the ISOs, but it is a heavy price to pay with the lose of details in the dark and lost of image quality in general. The poor performance for Nikon in high ISO does not bother me, I rarely use high ISO anyway. The important thing with Nikon is that at least it has 6 modern Zeiss lenses to go with. I feel a bit slow to use Zeiss on Canon with the lost of automatic diaphragm.

The other thing I don't like on my Canon is the rendation of colours. Although I sold my Sony R1 a couple of months ago, I must say I prefer the colours from my exR1 a lot more than my Canon. Again, R1 does not have good high ISO, but it never bothers me.

What is wrong with 5D's handling ?
 
Yep, I would probably do the same when Nikon introduces its first FF DSLR. The new Zeiss lenses seem impressive, at least on paper. The MTF graph for the new 25mm f/2.8 is superlative, nothing to compare with the old C/Y one. It's a pity though that Zeiss did not provide an EF mount as well.

Which reminds me, when the ZF were first announced, I emailed Zeiss inquiring about the reasons why they chose Nikon, mentioning that:

1. Nikon has no FF cameras.
2. Canon has by far the largest market share.
3. Canon users are already exauhsting what is left of the C/Y stocks.

I received the usual very polite email from a German lady saying that it is possible to use the lenses on Eos cameras with an adaptor!!! Alright! But she did mention a hint that Zeiss didn't have the approval of Canon to use their mount.

I replied telling her that Sigma didn't get Canon's approval neither but that didn't stop them. Of course, no reply.
 
Back
Top