Food for thought

[tom_f77]

I'm impressed ManGo; are you *always* right?! 😛

Tom

 

[BrianShaw]

Speilberg is a highly respected film director and producer!

Sure, but some people would rather eat his mother's kosher cooking than watch one of his films.

Live and let live... and let free speech reign! Here's a code word: "paranoia".

 

[Kevin]

That's the way I read it too. Let's get back to cameras please before that fool throws yet another wobbler.

And stop quoting him please. You are in effect overriding the features of the ignore list.

 

[Trius]

So back to the original post, and specifically Mr. Puts'article. I agree with others, this Puts post was extremely confusing, convoluted logic and allusions, I'm not sure his point other than "film is different than digital, film is better at some things, yadda, yadda." But he's saying that his beloved Leica has abanadonded film? And they've cast their lot with a losing platform? Hmmm.

Bill: I'd love to know why you're now more interested in the 4/3s platform. I was enthused when it was announced and then (finally) released, but I'm not sure it's showing the promise that at least I envisioned. None of the cameras really excite me. Tthe E-330 is interesting in a few ways, but it doesn't really move me; maybe I just need to get a loan of one and try it out.

Of all the DSLRs, the Olympus seem to be the most "film-like" overall, though others have their strengths. Pentax seems to have good body design. The R-D1 comes closer to the film RF paradigm and Leica is late and we still don't know if it will price a digital M at a point that can sustain the company.

 

[bmattock]

Bill: I'd love to know why you're now more interested in the 4/3s platform. I was enthused when it was announced and then (finally) released, but I'm not sure it's showing the promise that at least I envisioned. None of the cameras really excite me. Tthe E-330 is interesting in a few ways, but it doesn't really move me; maybe I just need to get a loan of one and try it out.

Of all the DSLRs, the Olympus seem to be the most "film-like" overall, though others have their strengths. Pentax seems to have good body design. The R-D1 comes closer to the film RF paradigm and Leica is late and we still don't know if it will price a digital M at a point that can sustain the company.

I was initially underwhelmed by the 4/3 system. I thought that Olympus was on a fool's errand. They never had an AF SLR (they had bridge or ZLRs as they called them), so they had no AF user base looking to move their lenses onto a new platform. I figured the others who signed on did so as a sop to Olympus and a nod to open standards - there would be NO other 4/3 anything. There would be no other manufacturer making bodies for 4/3, just maybe a couple third-party lenses, half-hearted attempts.

I was wrong.

I with the sensor was physically bigger - 2x crop factor, yikes! On the other hand, the short flange-to-film distance makes it a universal recipient for a blood (lens) transplant, see Cameraquest for a gazillion adapters already. And now the Panasonic/Leica with a Kodak sensor and a 4/3 lens mount...uggga bugga. This thing might make it. They need a little more momentum - a big winner, but they have a chance - I didn't think they did before.

So, I need a backup DSLR body. Was going to wait for the 8mp Pentax so's I can use my SMCP FA lenses and M42's, etc, on it like my *ist DS. But now I see I can score a Evolt e-500 for a tad over 5 small without a lens. Put a M42 adapter on that bugger and dream for the Canon FD->4/3 adapter (drool). Long dream...but suddenly the ball's in play again.

If I was Cosina...I would cozy up to the 4/3 standard - they're all short guys, they'd welcome me on the team. I would get a chance to play in another big-guy league without breaking the bank. A digital Bessaflex TM based on a 4/3 mount and Kodak sensor - and at the SAME TIME, a digital Bessa R3 (not the Epson) with the same sensor AND 4/3 lens mount sitting as an adapter on top the ever-popular M mount. As I understand it, the 4/3 open standard does NOT have to be completely implemented in every detail, so mechanical mount without supporting AF would be OK (could be wrong here, but that's what I hear). Can I get an amen?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

Amen- I don't think I qualify as a short guy. Perhaps I do, depends on who I stand next to.

Anywho- Have I mentioned gunpowder and fireworks lately?

Back to 4/3- Yeah the Leica got my attention, I am saving for a Canon- but I could be swayed because of the adapters.

 

[DougK]

Amen, brother Bill!

I definitely qualify as a short guy... 5'8" (add half an inch if I stretch really tall 😀).

 

[John Camp]

There's a golf guru named Dave Pelz, a former NASA engineer, who did statistical studies of golf problems: like, a perfectly aimed and struck putt from more than 12 feet has less than a 50 percent chance of going in the hole. His observations were really revolutionary in a field that depended on tradition and rules of thumb; and then he wrote best-selling books about techniques for solving the problems he'd defined. The difficulty is that carefully defining a problem doesn't logically and necessarily lead to the best solution. Mr. Puts makes excellent and careful observations about some camera equipment, but that doesn't really lead logically to informed insight about the future of photography; they might seem to be related, but they really aren't. This observation read like he'd had a little insomnia himself, and put it on-line. But all that means is that Erwin Puts likes to b.s. a little, and that certainly wouldn't distinguish him on this forum...

I think digital can do just about anything film can, and many things, it can do better. But a few things, it can't, and that may insure the survival of film as a niche product. You really don't need a huge company to make film -- it could become a boutique industry, like the manufacture of LF cameras. In twenty years, perhaps you'll get an e-mail that XFilm is about to produce a special run of Tri-X, and would you like to be on the list for 20 or 200 or 2000 rolls?

What can film do better? How about for use in a camera like the MP that doesn't (necessarily) need batteries, but can still take exquisite pictures? How about the fact that thousands of people prefer film, not because it's better, but because they simply like it, and are willilng to create a market for it? I'm no audiophile, and haven't touched a vinyl record in twenty yearrs, but I see that they're still being sold and that you can spend way more for a turntable than for a Leica, if you so wish...

Film's going to be around for a while.

As for painting, IMHO, painting is simply a different art form -- it's related to photography like it's related to architecture.

JC

 

[yossarian]

I realize I'm late to the party again, but I should like to clarify the one and only point
Mr. Puts was making in referencing Lucas and Spielberg. Lucas was an early adopter
of and great enthusiast about Digital Cinema. Spielberg has been quoted as having
said he would continue to use film until it is no longer being made. There was
nothing implied about their skills or talents (or lack thereof), but only citing them as
being on opposite sides of the Cinema sub-topic of Film v Digital.

Most of this information was gleaned from back issues of American Cinematographer
Magazine.

Fred

 

[bmattock]

I think digital can do just about anything film can, and many things, it can do better. But a few things, it can't,

True.

and that may insure the survival of film as a niche product.

Nope. It won't.

You really don't need a huge company to make film

Yes, you do. A really large factory, anyway. Usually goes hand in hand with a really large company.

-- it could become a boutique industry, like the manufacture of LF cameras.

No, it can't. A machinist working in his garage can make a LF camera. A chemist cannot make suitable color, slide, or B&W film that anyone would want to use. Wet collodion, yes. Coated light-sensitive paper, yes. Film, no.

In twenty years, perhaps you'll get an e-mail that XFilm is about to produce a special run of Tri-X, and would you like to be on the list for 20 or 200 or 2000 rolls?

Nope.

What can film do better? How about for use in a camera like the MP that doesn't (necessarily) need batteries, but can still take exquisite pictures? How about the fact that thousands of people prefer film, not because it's better, but because they simply like it, and are willilng to create a market for it?

Thousands not enough. Miillions needed.

I'm no audiophile, and haven't touched a vinyl record in twenty yearrs, but I see that they're still being sold and that you can spend way more for a turntable than for a Leica, if you so wish...

All parts of a turntable can be made on a lathe and ordinary machine-shop tools, industry-standard motors, etc. It costs about 50K USD to put together a LP pressing facility out of 1950's gear that is refurbished - a number of niche record companies have sprung up recently after realizing this. Vinyl is a substance that is not regulated. Many of the components of film are.

Millions - probably tens of millions - to start a film manufacturing plant. And probably would not be a allowed by regulatory agencies anyway - old plants exist due to grandfather laws. And who will make your raw chemicals? Eastman Chemical makes biodiesel now - you will need some fairly specialized chemicals that only a dozen or so plants in the world make - and some have stockpiled and quit making. When it is gone, it is gone.

Film's going to be around for a while.

Depends on how you define "a while." Until next Thursday? Probably. Until 2010? Doubtful, with the possible exception of B&W.

As for painting, IMHO, painting is simply a different art form -- it's related to photography like it's related to architecture.

Except that I can't paint. I was sued by stick people, I can't draw them anymore.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks