I've decided to get back into cameras after a few years out of the whole scene and was amazed at how digital seems to have taken over, despite it having a lot of glaring faults that I can't really deal with.

90% of what I shoot is scenery and ambient light/cityscape/etc work as well as black and white, and digital still isn't good for that. I also just like the way film looks, especially with bokeh and similar effects.

My last 35mm camera (I've had a few 6x6 and 5*6 cameras as well, but 30 seconds+ per shot isn't very fun or spontaneous) was a Minolta X-7a. What I liked about it was the digital/electronic viewfinder that showed all of the information.

Here is my ideal camera:
1: Manual or Autofocus. If AF, it must have instant release/manual override when I touch the lens. (not a fan of Minolta's slow and grinding/fighting me AF on earlier models) It must have manual override as well for focusing - without having to go into pure manual mode. I touch the lens and it assumes that I know what I'm doing.

2:Aperature and Shutter priority.(main gripe with the X-7a, Aperature only) Aperature is non-negotiable, though. If I have to chose, Apeature is 10x more desireable than shutter.

3:Digital or similar readouts in the viewfinder.(X-700 didn't have this, though it fit #2)

4:If there is a LCD screen on the camera, I don't want to *EVER* have to look at it to work the camera while shooting. ie - at most I want it to tell me stuff that the viewfinder is already telling me. Very basic and not some mini-computer with twelve cryptic menus and modes. Otherwise I might as well be using my 6x6 where i have to look at the light meter and then the camera settings and then...

5:No oddball capacitors that die in 3-4 years. No oddball custom battery packs. No unobtanium repair parts.

6: works off of modern batteries for the light meter and/or is accurate with modern batteries.

7:That said, it must work if the batteries and electronics die or have an emergency override mode. Doubly so for getting the film out. Oh, and not eat batteries every other week. Off should be off.

8:It would be nice to have a depth-of-field preview. Remote control flash, timer, all the other stuff... pretty much all optional.

9:Not weigh a ton, yet be decently reliable. Something major brand as well, so I can get lenses and accessories. I do favor classic and metal over plastic and funky jumbo grips as well.

10: This is supposed to be a camera that I can take with me on a vacation or trip and enjoy myself. It must be reasonably affordable used. (ie - Leica and the like aren't going to work)

I did some research on MF cameras and got a few in mind, but none were close to perfect. But AF are a whole other area and I just have no idea. Can I get some recommendations on AF models? Thanks.

Canon EOS 3 or Nikon F100 used about $300 and then any of the lenses you invest in will retain their value when you buy a digital body. I would invest in a modern stabilized lens also. Fuji film these days is quite good.
Marc

You say no to Leica but I bought an M4-P with a 35mm for less than £500 recently. Of course, it has no meter let alone a meter.

I used to use an EOS 1 which can now be picked up for next to nothing. To this day, I've not used a camera that matches it for speed/accuracy of AF or meter accuracy. I grant, this is probably because I've never had my hands on a pro DSLR. The second time I used it, the strap released dumping the camera to the floor - in a mosh pit. Someone jumped on it. I expected the lens mount to be sheared off. I picked it up, shook off the beer and carried on shooting. Says everything really!

If I were buying a manual camera, I'd be looking at a Nikon F3 and FM2.

You might consider that Nikon manual lenses work fine with the F100 or F5. I picked up a F5 in pristeen shape for $500. Not small but much smaller than the D2/1 series digital.

Way to save money, if that a goal. Maybe you can tell, I got caught in the FD/EOS debacle.

Bob

Could you explain this? Thanks.

Oh - the F5 looks lovely, but it's big, heavy, and seems overly complicated(8 batteries?). This is the opposite of my ideal, actually. The F6 is too expensive, naturally, and a camera really needs to be able to use older manual lenses in shutter priority mode(IMO). Apparently, Nikon in their zeal for AF wanted to force people to buy AF lenses, so the partial ability to use manual lenses... I might as well just stay with manual cameras from Nikon, then, since AF is a bit of a gimmick to me/not something I'll use most of the time.

Here, these don't take 8 batteries:

http://www.cosmonet.org/camera/index_e.html

Good luck!

In the switchover from manual focus lens to autofocus lenses, nikon retained its traditional mount. Canon did not and obsoleted all of the manual focus equipment.

Latest Digital Nikons work great with manual focus lenses from the past.

Don't know who told you manual lenses don't work with Nikon AF camera. 80% of the lenses I use on the F5 are manual focus. There is maybe 4 or 5 lenses from the entire collection of nikon lenses that don't work. Those are typically very rare and unusual that require a locked up mirror or something oddball. 99% do work fine.

Bob

A friend was telling me last year that some of the cheaper Nikon digital models are not compatible with all the normal Nikon AI lens.
I suppose this is due to nothing else than a marketing trick.

Higher-end Nikons do work with (almost) all Nikon lenses as they are expected to do.

I suppose any Nikon film model should work with any Nikon lens though.

Those are great times for film users, you can find any sort of gear on online auctions that you might not have afforded earlier. I bought things (a bellow, a bellow lens, a macro lens, a torch flash, a spare body) for my Minolta MD equipment, "just in case".

Oh, I also bought an invaluable Minolta Spotmeter F. Also a Gossen reflected / incident light meter, but I do prefer using the Spotmeter.

Cheers
Fabrizio

Early AF nikon lenses used a mechanical connection to drive the focus. More recent lenses copied Canon's way of driving lens with internal motor. Only connection needed was electrical.

Cheapest DSLR's only support electrical method. Way to build a camera for less money.

D40/60 only support later method. Plenty of lenses to use.

D70/80 and above support all lenses, both those with the mechanical connection and the current electrical connection




Don't think thats a trick, just building to a price point.

Bob

The folding cameras aside - heh - I've pretty much taken Minolta out of the battle. Their cameras are nice, but they didn't have a good camera like the Nikon F4(I heard somone call it the best manual focus camera Nikon ever made - heh) that bridged both worlds. Not that the X-9 isn't a great camera, though.

Olympus just... sad, really... 'nuff said...

Canon... They DO still make an AF film camera new that's not so bad, really($300 is nice as well). Just seems plasticky and how does it work for manual overriding the AF? Optimally I'd find a camera that would keep all of the AF and computerized/metering functions while using an old lens or at least in manual mode. Just, so many models and they all seem so plasticky and like they were trying to make it complex. Like a recent BMW. Zillions of techno-toys for the sake of making it that way.

Still, Canon does have some excellent optics...

So among Nikon, I found several, but it does bum me out that the F4 won't activate VR on newer lenses. IS there any way to make this work? I'd love to have a viariable zoom with VR if at all possible, yet while having the older lens capability. I do like the depth of field function on the earlier Nikons, and there are a lot of good and inexpensive lenses out there.

I added another must to the list:
10: The camera must have a manual speed/selection dial. Basic functions should be doable by touch or very simple like a finger-pad to select metering area.

I like the F4 a lot, so far. I could also get a FA, which is a lot like the Minolta X700. Does everything - just manual. Lovely pictures, no doubt about it, but using AF lenses would be nice, too.(mostly because in manual mode, well, optics have gotten a bit better over time/more options)

Q: does the F6 activate the VR? Posibly some varaint made only in Japan or something?

Sorry for rambling, just Nikon is a lot of stuff to filter through. I do like how some of the MF cameras work in manual mode with AF lenses, so maybe that's the way to go? The FM3a looks interesting, since I can find one new, still.

Seems like the F100 fits your need. A lightweight weight F5 for the most part. I'd prefer the F6 but in this day with digital ruling the kingdom, probably not the wisest use of funds.

The FM3 is a fabulous camera BTW, pure mechanical. No worry about batteries to run camera. Last, maybe the best, of the old school

F100 will work with about every lense out there (including those w/VR). The old manual focus AIS lenses contains some real gems at fire sale prices.

see http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html for more info.

Bob

The FM3a looks interesting, to be sure. I also like the FA as well, though finding one to actually try out is proving to be hard(few people seem to sell theirs - heh - wonder why?) Honestly I don't use shutter priority hardly ever, and it seems like AF would almost be a requirement for fast action, but it might be nice to have.

The F100 has no mirror lock-up, and I hear it tends to meter poorly at night, which is fully half of what I shoot, so it's not really an option.

Q:(thanks for all the input so far)
What other cameras out there are like the Nikon F4/F6?(ie - good in manual mode as well - kind of a "super MF" camera)?

P.S. If money were no object, I'd just get a Pentax 645N II, but body, lenses... $1000-$1500 pretty easily. And only slightly better quality than a top-notch 35mm. I kind of wish someone made a 35mm type camera with just a bigger back for 120mm film and didn't charge $4000 for it just because they feel that they can. Like a modified F5...(I can dream, no? )

Truth to be told, if I could find a *decent* 120mmSLR for under $500(none exist, of course), I'd use that instead. My old Roleicord with its non-Zeiss lenses that I had growing up took better pictures by far than anything I've shot to date. Of course, being young at the time, I sold it for very little money.

Now I've sort of come full circle. I like the idea of a simple yet high quality camera. I don't really have a need for digital, and likely never will, either, since I don't shoot professionally and approach it more like art. 20-30 seconds for a good shot is perfectly normal. I don't fire off shots every two seconds like my sister does(and then delete 8 of the 10 - heh).

Bronica ETRSi, Mamiya 645 and Pentax 645 can call be had for a song. I saw an RB67 going for £250 with lens and back.

If you want MF, you can find it for cheapness.

The question, though, is 6*4.5 really that much better than a good 35mm?

Q:Is there any system out there that allows for 35mm like loading of 120? Either automatic drop-in loading(or close to it - thread and shut the door type like on most 35mms) or maybe some sort of insert/etc that I can pre-load and drop in like a film canister and close the door?(maybe carry 3-4 of the things with me on a trip, in a case) Not really interested in swappable backs or digital, as digital backs are insanely expensive. Rollei and the like are just notwhat I'm looking for. Too many parts and so on. I want a camera. And a lens. Open door, drop in film. Fiddle a bit, close door. 30 second or less loading.


EDIT:
Oh - most peolpe here might know this - a few might not... a 5*7 print, which is 2000*2800 printed resolution(400DPI linear, dye-sub), is 5.6MP. Beyond that, digital won't do a thing. It just won't print more resolution unless you go really big.

But since a CCD array is actually only about .6 of a true pixel in each dimmension(like your CRT - a pixel is a full spectrum point of light and NOT what they manufacturers say is one), you suffer huge losses and can't actually print better than ~1200*1700 comparable to film, unless you're looking at something like the Sigma sensor. But they aren't anywhere near 2000*2800 resolution.(1760*2600 for the DP1 so far). This is why prints on a digital lab machine don't look a bit better past 6MP or so. It hit a limit and the only thing more MP gets you is

So film wins, for now, since the machines do a 2000*3000 optical scan of the film. The thing is... according to this, other than me having slides or negatives to send out to a special lab or show, there appears to be no difference between 35mm film and MF film when printed, because the labs have all gone digital, which limits me to 2000*3000 maximum resolution for film. And any 35mm film will easily do better than this.

So are there any labs that actually have better machines - something that will show a difference compared to 35mm/ or maybe isn't digital in the Los Angeles area? Of course, not silly expensive or takes 3 weeks to get prints back.

Your comparison between digital and film and digital is deeply flawed, and obviously NOT based on any actual comparisons. Digital capture, even from a camera with a Bayer sensor, is much better pixel-for-pixel than a film scan due to film grain. A 6MP Canon 10D will beat a 3000x2000 scan of 35mm film at the same ISO, and that's with a sensor several generations old.

And shooting in ambient darkness is where digital is particularly advantageous compared to film. With a digital SLR, you can shoot at ISO 800 or higher, and have less noise/grain than the same format ISO 100 film. I spent a few years shooting concerts for a promoter where flash was not allowed and ISO 800 was as low as I could go and avoid excessive motion blur, and digital will capture far more image detail than film, especially at higher ISO.

Your criticisms of digital prints are largely unfounded as well. The reason inkjet and other digital print technologies have largely replaced optical printing is because they offer better resolution, greater fade resistance, higher DMax, and greater gamut. The resolution advantage becomes greater as print size increases; unlike optical printing, digital prints' maximum resolution per inch is constant regardless of print size. You can make a 4x6 foot inkjet print with a resolution >300 pixels per inch; this is simply not possible optically, even with the best enlarging lenses. Most fine art photographers print digitally now for these reasons, even if they still shoot film.

I've used digital before and I can't stand the way it handles falloff, fringing, bokeh, pixellation, moires, and most of all, the noise if you shoot at faster speeds. Oh, and it stinks for black and white compared to good film. Though Digital IS loads easier, I'll admit. And you can tweak with it afterwards.*

For 35mm, Digital is getting closer to replacing it in terms of resolution and quality(maybe another 8-10 years, which isn't much at all, considering), but for medium format, it's nowhere close. Well, there is an option or two for decent digital backs(40MP Leaf), but I'm not paying 20k+ for one.

Concerning the printers, you missed my point. If all you get is 2000*3000 for 35mm or 3000*3000 for 6x6, then it's of course going to be vastly worse than even a basic home scanning setup, where 4800DPI is now common.(10K DPI+ in each dimmension for 6x6). That's why digital printing tends to stink - at least at the labs. Because the film gets scanned at a horrendously low resolution and then messed with by the internal software.

A good digital camera will of course blow this away, because it bypasses the cheap internal scanner. Apparently if you print at home, you can do much better than the labs. This was one of my questions elsewhere. I found out that need to do it at home since the labs are using inferior technology aimed at speed versus quality.

Yes, digital printers have better resolution, but that means an immense amount of data as well. And, the software you are using had better be perfect. If your digital camera only has 8MP, well, you're going to quickly run out of real estate before the software has to make some pretty drastic adjustments and filling in as it gets larger.

With film, a 100MP scan gives a *tad* more information, which is why I'll probably end up doing it this way. Film, a scanner, and a printer. It looks like I'll have to probably bypass dye-sub for now, though, and start looking at inkjets.

In any case, this forum has been very helpful. I've pretty much decided on one of three 6*4.5 cameras, I have the scanner down to 2-3 choices, and that leaves the printer, which looks like a large inkjet. I like dye-sub, but the technology has issues and it's not fully mature, while inkjet seems to have evolved more quickly.

*technically, once you scan film, you can alter it as well like digital - just with 200-500MB of data per print, there's a lot more room for error

You obviously haven't used a 1Ds or any of the newer generation DSLRs from Canon or Nikon. A Canon 1Ds totally blows 35mm away in terms of resolution, even the original 11MP version; the Mark II and III models go even further. Michael did a side-by-side comparison between the original 1Ds and drum-scanned 6x7 here; the 1Ds stands up to drum-scanned 6x7 very well.

Falloff, fringing, and bokeh are properties of the lens, not the recording medium. Moire is pretty much a non-issue unless you're shooting a medium format back without an anti-aliasing filter. And digital is capable of excellent B&W if you bother to learn some of the B&W conversion tools out there and don't limit yourself to Mode-Grayscale in Photoshop...



BTW, this was shot at ISO 1600.

Pletko,

I'm glad you're getting back into photography. Good on you as the guys who live upside down say.

But, you ask a question and are given information, but then proceed to become the expert.

You read too much. These guys live with cameras day after day. You sound like your quoting Roger Clark ( ClarkVision.com ) and even he has changed his tune in the past year or two.

I have not entirely abandoned film for digital, but my remaining holdover is 4x5 where quality rules. Even then I recognize medium format digital has caught up(well nearly <G>). I'm in 4x5 for camera movements and cost reasons. I have kept a few 35's for fun (M2 and F5) but they rarely get packed in the camera bag.

35mm based digital kills medium format film. Its just a fact.

bob

Mmmmm... Sorry to ask a dumb question, but... Where were you living in the past 5 years?

More seriously, the flaws you're talking about may be real when one consider the ouput of a 2001' Canon D30 (and not 30D).
Today, a decently-processed DSLR capture at 1600ISO has a comparable amount of grain/noise as a scanned 35mm 100ISO slide, with dynamic range comparable to the corresponding negative.
And now, we can process all that (including defringing and a very nice falloff handling) with reversible selective adjustments in LR2beta... It's a good time to be a photographer.


For me, the main problem with scanning film is the emphasize (almost a parody, without exaggerating that much) on the grain, probably because the square & uniform "pixel structure" is added to it.
Noise reduction can be applied, but it will be hard not to smear that "tad more information" (especially in textures) with it.

These guys are all right - the only reason I shoot film is due to the disparity between an M8 and my bank balance. I used to shoot with a 5 mp Olympus E1. High ISO sucked but even at that rez, it was better than 35mm. When it was stolen I bought an EOS 30D. I hated the camera but the quality at 3200 was like Fuji Press 800 - but better.

Black and white on digital works very well. For me, it doesn't supplant Tri-X but for many with better post processing skills, it does.

Rent something for a weekend and see what you think.

As for 645 being only a marginal improvement on 35mm - the neg is over twice the size - ergo, it's over twice the resolution.

Heh. Well, I used to be up to date with film and digital about 5-6 years ago, and kind of kept up with it, but as they say, life happens. I decided recently to get back into it - and maybe explore medium format, again, since it had been about ten years since I sold my old Rollei TLR.

It's sort of like having missed windows XP and jumping straight from 98 to Vista. There are differences and such, but the technology takes time to get up to speed on.

Back then, the big debate was still manual versus AF. Digital wasn't anywhere close to replacing film.



I'd be glad if this was true, finally. But of course, I can't really afford a $3000 setup, either. This is a hobby for myself, and maybe a bit of artwork here and there as well. That software has improved is also good - but how much does this all cost? Yet, there's a simplicity about film that I like. Shoot, develop. Print or whatever as technology gets better. Doubly so with slides, since there's no printing (technically) required.

Anyways - this place has been helpful in many ways. (see, unlike a lot of people online, I can change my mind)

1 - I've realized that dye-sub printers have basically stood still and the inks have the same problems and so on in the last 5-6 years. Dot pitch, resolution, fading, susceptibility to VOCs and so on - nothing much seems to have been done.

So I'll just get a nice large format inkjet, most likely(unless there's a third technology I don't know about) How much do they cost, though? I'd like to find something that's good, but also not some consumer-level piece of junk. My only real requirement is it have zero banding and alignment problems. Used is fine, of course.

2 - For scanning, a Minolta scanner for $500 or so used will also be fine. 3200DPI for 6*4.5 or 6*6 should more than suffice. No need to get silly, really, considering that this is true pixels as opposed to a sensor type pattern. That's good for pixel for pixel, view it from 2 inches away printing up to 11*17 from 6*4.5. That's as large as anything handheld will ever get.(8.5*11 or so more realistically, even)

Few people get that close to a large framed picture as well. ie - if I print bigger, it would be framed anyways and likely 4x that size, but seen from a dozen feet away. But how much do large format inkjet printers cost? I'm not a fan of $20 ink cartridges. If I have to buy ink, I'd rather pour it into a tank.(my printing experience comes from when I worked with offset printing and such, mostly - from pictures and development to making the plates and so on). I'd rather his sort of approach, but then again, I'm not rich...

3 - The main question seems to be film or digital and cost. I just don't have the silly money that some people have. So let's pose this as a simpler question:

If I had $1500 to spend on a camera and two or three good lenses(this assumes no scanner - so maybe $1000 for film), and wanted something better than 35mm, what would I get? Used, of course, would be an option.

I don't want something that is junk or will break in 3-4 years, which is why I initially was considering a Nikon F4. (but was also looking around for other options - maybe some other maker had similar stuff)

I like the simplicity and straight-forward design of the professional stuff, but darn it, it's so silly expensive. I love the continuous tone output and technology of the Foveon sensors, for instance, but Sigma's digital cameras are such crap to use and the resolution is a whole generation or two behind. Have to shot in raw, have to set it to ISO100 and never change it, have to manually post-process every picture by hand... etc etc. Sigh.

Plus, 2640×1760 isn't "14MP". This isn't even what a typical 3000*2000 optical scan from a photo lab will do with cheap 35mm film. Nice technology, miserable implementation.

(see, I'm not *completely* out of touch with the technology - )



That makes sense, now that you mention it. Round peg, square hole in effect.(actually in projectors, which I do know a lot about, it would be a infamous "screen door" effect of DLP projectors). So does this mean you have to lower the resolution to less than the maximum optical, or apply a bunch of software processing to defocus it?

P.S.
situgrrl, I know how big 6*4.5 is - it's just not taken very seriously(mostly by pros it seems), which is a shame - it's a very nice format. The Pentax 645NII isn't much larger than a typical full-size/pro SLR. And they *are* pretty inexpensive. Though, I do wonder about parts and such, since they seem to have abandoned them in the last year or so... But film means a scanner as well, so... maybe not as inexpensive as I was hoping for...

Sorry for the double post. I just read GLuijk's thread about the software he made. This indeed is an astounding improvement over what I was used to. It seems to solve most of the problems that I had wit digital, though it's obviously only going to work for stuff on a tripod. It also wasn't available a year ago, so I may have just gotten lucky. ie - it seems as if his software and a little extra work to do multiple exposures manually may be the critical moment in the evolution of digital where it matches film. At least until cameras start to do this sort of thing internally.

Q: are there any digital cameras that allow for rapid changing of exposure - like via a remote or a simple single switch or button? So one could fire off a rapid sequence of shots. Optimally, each press would do a value up.

eg: Shoot - hit button *beep*
It's now at +2. Shoot. hit button *beep*
It's now at +4.

Total time for all three shots is maybe 1-2 seconds.

A digital SLR that could do this would be very interesting, especially since it would allow for night and low-light shots without much if any blurring(or an acceptable amount like a long exposure on film).

If you want manual, no electronics or auto anything, then try a Pentax Spotmatic or an early K mount.

The newest Pentax digital K20D is backward compatable, with adaptors, all the way to the M42 screw mount lenses which are all manual.

The shutter speed, film advance, aperture setting, etc are all manual.

Any decent DSLR has exposure bracketing, and can shoot 3 bracketed frames in less than a second. A Canon 1D-Mark II or Mark III can shoot a 3-frame bracket in less than half a second.

645 not taken seriously by pros? Go over to the MF forum here and see wha those guys are bolting their digital backs to! Contax and Mamiya have always been taken seriously because they have had the support network in place. Bronica less so but they were still a stalwart of the wedding industry when they went under. Pentax are different story - I don't beleive they have removable backs which is obviously necessary in a fast throughput situation.

I know a couple of girls shooting for the British music press who still use Bronica 645 for studio shoots.

As to your budget and what to buy? i'd look at the mid range DSLRs such as the 40D, D80, K20 and Alpha 700.

Used 30D and a sigma 18-200 OS
Marc

Nice to know technology has advanced this far.

I've been looking at the Fuji S5 as well - it's kind of the same trick Foveon is using in a different format. But the MP count on both isn't high enough. They need a digital back quickly. Imagine a Fuji back for $2000. It would turn the high-end market upside down. (it needs a massive price adjustment).

But multiple exposures seems to be a better, though more time-consuming way to get it done. And for much less money. Plus, some shots look like they would require 3-5 shots to do well.

Q: The newer cameras can do this(newer than 4-5 years old that is, evidently). Which ones can have that set as the default shooting mode? I want to be able to set up the camera and no matter what I do as far as priority or focusing and so on - it would always do a multi-exposure.

Also, which one(s) go to +4/-4 range. If a camera could automate this properly, I'd probably be happy with digital. (I tend to shoot a lot of low/ambient light and night shots, plus the typical high contrast scenery, so dynamic range is probably my top priority)

EDIT:
http://hdr-photography.com/aeb.html
I found a list! This cuts my choices down considerably. 3 shots, 8 range, and +/-4EV step. It looks like to do +4/-4, I'd have to actually take 5 shots at a 2 step difference and throw out two(or blend all 5 - why not)

The contenders:
Canon - lovely, especially the ID MKIII, but it's way outside of the budget. 5 shots in half a second is astounding, you're right.

But wow - pricey.

Nikon and Fuji would require 9 shots and my removing 6. Seems cumbersome, but would work in a pinch. It's amazing that nobody has a camera that does this in 4 steps as an option.

Others:
Pentax K10D
Samsung GX-10 (slow FPS)

Sigma(+3/0/-3 isn't +4/0/-4, but it's the only one to actually do it in only 3 shots) My only gripe is the low MP(4.6) and no 5 shot capability. Miserable software and ease of use.

One last question - I was looking around at software to do this and ran across Tfuse.
http://www.tawbaware.com/tufuse.htm

It also says it can do focus blending. Are there any AF cameras that can be set to do this as well? Hopefully any on that list above?

Adding 4 stops above and below the nominal dynamic range is going to give you, hmmm maybe 16 stops of capture range. I have yet to see a HDR shot that looks good when done in this manner. Subtlety is the watchword if your don't want a very artificial look. Personally I rarely go over +/- 1 stop. Now GLuijk's technique is about reducing shadow noise and I do believe it does provide some DR expansion.

Good luck,

bob

With Canon DSLRs, if you turn on AEB, it stays on until you turn it off. The 1-series do up to 3 stops/frame (+3, 0, -3), which is more than adequate for >90% of high-DR subjects. You can also do up to 7 bracketed frames in a series if you really want to, but it's hard enough to get 3 frames 3 stops apart to blend together naturally. There's a limit to how far you can compress DR before an image starts looking unnatural and strange.

Another consideration with blending multiple frames is that the more frames you blend, the greater the odds of one of them being misaligned and causing ghosting.

My bad - I meant +2 instead of +4. I was looking to duplicate the effects that I'd seen here - he said 4 and I didn't realize it was +2 and -2.

The Canons do look nice, though. 3 shots in not even third of a second. with the best one. Just wish they didn't cost so much... Obviously the reason I wanted this was in case I need to occasionally use 4 or 5 shots 1 stop apart. It's always good to have more capability than you think you'll initially need, especially since whatever I buy has to last me several years.

The Fuji S5 also looks nice with that change. And it has that fancy sensor as well, which would double the number - so 2 shots would work like 4.(aligning 2 images being easier and 4 being more than enough)

Edit - I looked at the SD-14's pictures and the Fuji's side by side. The Fuji almost looks a bit de-focused and blurry, though the color rendition is very good. the SD-14 just - gray doesn't look gray. It's hard to tell what one is the correct color.

http://www.dcviews.com/reviews/Sigma-SD14-...-S5-samples.htm
The 70mm one with the tower, for instance. What color is nearest to correct?
The girl - same thing. Her hair color - it's two different colors - which one?
The fence... which blue-gray is right?
And Lastly - the interior sideways shot. Which wood color and glass color is correct?

You can set the bracketing on the cameras - ie, you decide whether you want +3-3 or +2-2 or +2/3-2/3

I'm not sure of the pics you compared with the S5 and SD14 but if they were unsharpened RAW, bare in mind that the Sigma lacks an anti alias filter. This is a good or bad thing depending on your subjects and preferences. The Fuji will require more sharpening as a result.

Re: Which is right - it's almost a choice between Velvia and Kodachrome - except you get to choose after the fact in RAW processing. The real question therefore is, which do you prefer?

You might want to consider a used 1D-Mark II. The price isn't much more than some of the other models you mentioned, and they are still awesome cameras.

I think I had a link to it. They both do great job, but the color balance between the two is vastly different. I'd almost have to see a normal slide of the same thing to figure out which is portraying colors correctly. Look at the tower - it's most obvious there. One is kind of a dull beige and the other is gray. Not even close. Exactly like comparing say, Kodachrome and Fuji Reala - but it's the camera's sensor doing it and so I don't get a choice to alter the raw data. (neither looks like Velvia, really, which is a shame)

4.6MP that's gorgeous and 6MP with pretty bad in-camera blending isn't nearly a film replacement. I'm tempted to wait, but Fuji and Foveon seem to move at glacial speeds. I do like how both have a nearly film-like shoulder. What they are doing is obviously superior to typical sensors in that aspect. Are there other cameras that use similar technology? I do like how it takes essentially two pictures at the same time, so action shots also would be decent.

- Deleted -

How big do you expect to enlarge your photos? See, I got 12x16 out of a 5 mp camera quite happily. I never felt comfortable pushing a 35mm neg beyond that. I've never shot with either the Sigma or the Fuji but I would imagine them to be good for at least the same.



I think you need to download some RAW files and have a damn good play with a RAW convertor because I get the impression that you fundamentally misunderstand the concept of a RAW file. PM me your email address and I'll send you a file or two along with a link to see what I did with the RAW and some post processing. Go download Lightroom demo in preparation!

I've looked and I pretty much hate what those programs do to the pictures.

If you look at the Sigma SD-14, it just simply has a different color balance to a typical sensor and there's nothing you can easily do about it. ie - either you love it or hate it.

But as for the size, 4.6MP on the Sigma is too low. Hardly anyone would even take 4.6MP seriously these days. Now, true, they are full pixels. Figuring that into the equation, you get roughly 8MP or so for a comparable Bayer sensor.

But 2640 x 1760 is just too low for fine details to show up adequately. That's not quite 6*9 at 300DPI dye sub - not 400DPI. Beautiful but no room for enlargement.

6MP on the Fuji is okay I guess, but I can easily tell 35mm film from 6MP. 12mp or so it starts to blur the lines, and honestly 12mp cameras aren't uncommon anymore. But Fuji and Sigma seem to be stuck in some sort of time warp where everything moves half as fast.

Then, think about : Shoot, Go Home, Do Not Pass your Film to the Processor, Do Not send him 200$, Watch the Result NOW. Welcome to the digital world.
There are sensible softwares out there to process raw files, such as LightRoom. I understand you feel running all your images through PotatoChop a pain, because it is after all, but LR, if not as powerful, is reaaaaaally much more user-friendly.


I got a R1800 (smallish - 13"wide) - cheap when buying it (a few hundreds bucks), but ink costs (a hundred bucks every 50 prints or so, making ink more expensive than fine art paper ) made it compulsory to feed it with a CIS and 3rd party inks (InkJetFly for me).
For ink costs of larger printers, see eg http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/4...0tracking.shtml



Side note : in my experience, film scanning is an much greater waste of pixels than Bayer capture - you'll need a 16bits, 4000dpi scan and the obese 48MB file it produces to equal a 8-10MP DSLR... But the move towards MF film is good, because it does not drives you into scanning the grain to get reasonable detail, so results will not be that dramatic.


Jonathan's 1DmkII suggestion seems quite sound...
Otherwise, a used 20D will leave some more money to put on lenses, given your budget. It's not as tank-built as the 1D series, but it delivers an already very good IQ. Of course canon is not the only brand out there! But it's the only one I know.



Talking about dynamic range, keep in mind that a raw DSLR capture holds a full well (pun intended, sorry) of information in the shadows, and that decent raw converters extract this information very well (eg, it's called Fill Light in Adobe).
So, bracketing is not always necessary, far from that... See this tutorial for a good example of how to use bracketing soundly.
And about stitching those frames, TuFuse seems to giveone of the most natural-looking results today, much more to my taste/vision than Photomatix (as far as I tried it, ie not that much).

And for the "film-like shoulder", no it won't be film, but the "highlight priority" in the new canon 40d eg approaches it quite a bit. Poor man's solution : underexpose slightly, about 1/2 or 1 stop (we're talking about Expose To The Right of course!), and get that shoulder in the raw converter.

I've decided to wait a little bit and see what Fuji and Foveon do with their sensors. I like the results of both a lot. In the mean time, I can take up a month or so to research and look at inkjets and pigment printers and the like.

Most of what I print will be typical prints, but being able to do larger items for a reasonable cost(few dollars per print worth of ink is fine for larger stuff). Quality is the key - I loathe banding and smearing and so on like you find in typical consumer units. $300 for an inkjet that makes prints that are a mess or can't be synced up to Photoshop to get correct colors... Of course, I'm preaching to the choir here - heh.

I just wish it didn't cost so much, but it's nice to know that there are options at that end of things... Is the 3880 a major step down from the 4880? Obviously it can't use rolls. I see 3800s - the older models - going for silly low prices new ($1000 NOS), and used - like $600 now. This might be a good alternative as well.

Oh - yes, TFuse does look nice. Do any of those digital cameras allow for focus bracketing?

No camera will automatically bracket focus; you'll have to do that manually. All you need is a DSLR and a lens with a manual focus ring.

The ability to focus a picture after you take the shot, see this site Refocus Imaging. They have example photographs from different genres.


Here's a youtube video of the technology: Light Field Camera

That's not quite what I had in mind, but it's very cool. I suppose if you used that to alter the depth of field and then blend both together, you would have a more realistic effect(or at least closer to what our eyes see).

IMO, HDR isn't as important as this. It's nice to see someone working on this sort of thing finally.