VinceC
Veteran
The film v. digital debate is off-topic insomuch as there is a rich market for digital camera users.
I think there is a large but not huge market for a quality interchangeable lens RF camera that is affordable to an enthusiast and well-built enough to be considered as a supplemental/second-body for a professional photographer ... in the $1,500 to $2,500 price range. It does not need to be feature rich. It does not need to be full frame because affordability is paramount. Leica has the upper end of the market.
The fact that Epson could not keep refurbs in stock at the $1,500 level shows there is a market. It needs high quality control, basic features (mechanical shutter not ruled out). Get out of the boutique mindset and chase customers who want DSLR image quality without DSLR size and mass. That's the real essence of RF photography. Purists might shudder at the thought of some kind of zooming viewfinder with framelines, but that might win a respectable following among advanced amateurs. Perhaps the zoom could have some kind of override or manual control so that you don't have to zoom for it to still be functional.
I think there is a large but not huge market for a quality interchangeable lens RF camera that is affordable to an enthusiast and well-built enough to be considered as a supplemental/second-body for a professional photographer ... in the $1,500 to $2,500 price range. It does not need to be feature rich. It does not need to be full frame because affordability is paramount. Leica has the upper end of the market.
The fact that Epson could not keep refurbs in stock at the $1,500 level shows there is a market. It needs high quality control, basic features (mechanical shutter not ruled out). Get out of the boutique mindset and chase customers who want DSLR image quality without DSLR size and mass. That's the real essence of RF photography. Purists might shudder at the thought of some kind of zooming viewfinder with framelines, but that might win a respectable following among advanced amateurs. Perhaps the zoom could have some kind of override or manual control so that you don't have to zoom for it to still be functional.
40oz
...
johnastovall said:
Oh, you've sold me. How much money do I get to spend to compete with scanned film? Because clearly all I care about in my images is how the resolution rates when scanned and resized for internet sharing. There is no other consideration I have, including cost. I don't care if it costs more than a car - if it can surpass in resolution a scan of medium format with an outdated scanner, I'm all over that!
Obviously, tonality is for idiots and losers, and only morons would still be using film. Thank you for showing me the light :/
See how sily this is? There are very few situations where digital surpasses even miniature 35mm film. If those few situations are your bread and butter, it's there for you. For the rest of us, there is no surpassing film, not yet and not likely for a while. Seriously, restricting conversation to "digital is better than film because the top end machines get better resolution than film scans" is boring, ignorant, and at least mildly offensive to anyone who looks at the whole image instead of focusing on zooms of one corner, or anyone who isn't pretending their equipment is the same as the top end stuff they don't have.
Digital doesn't surpass film as a whole package. For every Leaf back you can show me, I can show you Tech Pan or 8x10 plates. Neither is relevant. Each has their use. The reason there isn't a digital Ikon is because digital sensor technology is not capable of matching film tech at this time, according to the people at Zeiss which probably have way more data for both sides of the argument than anyone in this thread has at their fingertips right now. The fact that I agree with Zeiss and you don't doesn't mean anything, but it kind of implies the weight of the evidence is on my side of the argument, not yours.
And nobody loses in this argument, because each can make the choice that satisfies them. I don't think the people who shoot exclusively digital are fools, but I do think it's foolish to argue a point that just basic observation would tell you is wrong. There are certainly cases where a digital camera is apropriate. But that hardly means that a digital camera is somehow superior for everyone. The term "better" is subject to individual neds and desires. There is no such thing as "better for everyone."
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I don't understand why a question about whether a rumour might have validity degenerates into the tired, tiresome film vs. digital debate. How hard is it for adults to stay on topic? Oh well.
The whole "better than" argument (whichever side is chosen) is an example of the straw man approach: choose an example or subset of the argument that you can knock down, which thus "proves" your position.
Either the resolution or "noise/grain" arguments are examples, IMO. While both those characteristics are important, they really only support a photograph, not make it.
So if someone says "I like the look of film, its grain" (or whatever), I say "So what?" or "That's nice/interesting". It's the image, the photo that really matters, and if the "look" of film best conveys the impact, great.
Same with digital: the "noiseless" image, the high resolution, etc. ... if they best support the image, then fine.
Personally, I don't give a flippin' rat's arse whether someone uses film or digital. And I look forward to the day when I have a digital setup that is really comfortable for me and supports my vision and work. Right now I don't have one. That's not necessarily because it doesn't exist, but it's just my reality right now. I have a fairly well-formed idea of what that kit would be, but truly, I don't have it all worked out yet in my head.
I have a feeling that I'll continue to use film for quite a long time as well, but hell, I've been "wrong"/changed my mind a lot more than I thought I ever would, so who knows?
The whole "better than" argument (whichever side is chosen) is an example of the straw man approach: choose an example or subset of the argument that you can knock down, which thus "proves" your position.
Either the resolution or "noise/grain" arguments are examples, IMO. While both those characteristics are important, they really only support a photograph, not make it.
So if someone says "I like the look of film, its grain" (or whatever), I say "So what?" or "That's nice/interesting". It's the image, the photo that really matters, and if the "look" of film best conveys the impact, great.
Same with digital: the "noiseless" image, the high resolution, etc. ... if they best support the image, then fine.
Personally, I don't give a flippin' rat's arse whether someone uses film or digital. And I look forward to the day when I have a digital setup that is really comfortable for me and supports my vision and work. Right now I don't have one. That's not necessarily because it doesn't exist, but it's just my reality right now. I have a fairly well-formed idea of what that kit would be, but truly, I don't have it all worked out yet in my head.
I have a feeling that I'll continue to use film for quite a long time as well, but hell, I've been "wrong"/changed my mind a lot more than I thought I ever would, so who knows?
jjovin
Established
johnastovall said:
Maximum theoretical resolution of the sensor used in Canon 1DsMkII is 69 lines per millimeter. And that is without factoring in the limitations of the Canon lenses.
If its dynamic range is around 8 stops, what then makes it better than a B&W film with at least twice that resolution (using Zeiss lenses) and dynamic range of 10-12 stops? Whatever we like, we just can't go against physics and numbers. Kodak sensors in medium format backs have greater dynamic range than Canon sensors. But they still lack the resolution of the film today. I do not doubt that one day digital sensors will surpass the resolution and dynamic range of today's films. However this is not the case with the present sensors. However much people like to say that digital is better than film, as far as quality is concerned, whatever luminous-landscape.com and other sites have to say, facts are just not on their side.
Whit that said, a 10Mpx digital camera is plenty good for my casual snap-shooting. And at least 10Mpx digital Zeiss Ikon would be a gift from heaven for me. However, for anything of lasting value for me I use film and only film.
Zoran
VinceC
Veteran
I am tired of the hassle of film. But I love shooting my rangefinder cameras. I hate having to make two one-hour roundtrips to drop off and pick up film at an affordable lab that does decent cheap film scans onto CD. I spent years souping black and white negs, and I don't really want to soup and scan. It takes too much time and I don't want to invest in a film scanner. Mostly it takes too much time. I like popping a CD into my computer and taking it from there. I really like popping the card from my digital camera into the computer.
I really don't care about differences in resolution. I'm not shooting spy satellite photos, I'm taking pictures of my kids and family. I know film has more latitude, so you just have to shoot digital with more care, like slide film.
I think the rangefinder renaissance has levelled off. Epson, Cosina and others have probed the limits of the market. It does exist, it is large but not huge, probably not growing fast, and it is also saturated with top-quality cameras and lenses. There are a few holes in the market, the most glaring being an affordable, reliable digital RF camera, something along the lines of the Nikon D200 that sells quite well at a $1,800 price range. The RD-1 tapped and probably saturated the early adopter market for a digital RF. What is needed is something more mature -- honestly, an RD1 type camera with long base length, lose the weird pointer dials, improve quality control, incorporate user-adjustable RF adjustment, increase the pixel count a bit. Keep the price around $1,800. Essentially, a Zeiss Ikon with an extra $600 for the electronics. Small quality consumer DSLRs from Canon and Nikon are selling for $500-$600 with kit lenses. So the electronics cost is simply not that high any more.
I really don't care about differences in resolution. I'm not shooting spy satellite photos, I'm taking pictures of my kids and family. I know film has more latitude, so you just have to shoot digital with more care, like slide film.
I think the rangefinder renaissance has levelled off. Epson, Cosina and others have probed the limits of the market. It does exist, it is large but not huge, probably not growing fast, and it is also saturated with top-quality cameras and lenses. There are a few holes in the market, the most glaring being an affordable, reliable digital RF camera, something along the lines of the Nikon D200 that sells quite well at a $1,800 price range. The RD-1 tapped and probably saturated the early adopter market for a digital RF. What is needed is something more mature -- honestly, an RD1 type camera with long base length, lose the weird pointer dials, improve quality control, incorporate user-adjustable RF adjustment, increase the pixel count a bit. Keep the price around $1,800. Essentially, a Zeiss Ikon with an extra $600 for the electronics. Small quality consumer DSLRs from Canon and Nikon are selling for $500-$600 with kit lenses. So the electronics cost is simply not that high any more.
Tohoku Ben
Member
It would be interesting to see Zeiss come out with a unique take on the digital rf theme - for example ZM body with a Foveon fullsize sensor (such as in the as-of-yet ghostware Sigma DP1). Whether something like that could be feasible/workable from an engineering standpoint who is to say... but it would be interesting. Dr. Scherle? Mr. Kobayashi?
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Maybe someone should really make a RFF Digital vs. Film FAQ and collect links to all the threads where points like the resolution argument have already been bashed to death "apples vs. oranges" style, so that we don't have to go over the same geek fest again and again.
Terao
Kiloran
Panasonic's recent annoucement about a new sensor technology may make a full-frame RF sensor possible. Problem for Zeiss is that they have a strategic partnership with Leica so I doubt they'd get access to that sensor...
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Ghostware it is, but a full-size sensor it has not - it's APS-sized.Tohoku Ben said:
Here's a little rant. IMHO because of all the commitments they've made to full-frame sensors there won't be a Zeiss digital rangefinder for at least three years, but during these three years there will be threads about it in all the major forums every two months, where there will be held venomous film vs. digital arguments. These will be largely strawman arguments arguing minor technical points such as "a Hasselblad with a top-of-the-line medium format film scanner has better resolution than a Canon 1Ds MkII". And they will be usually held by people who use neither. And when the Zeiss digital rangefinder will be finally there, people will complain that they're not buying it because it's not a Leica, and because it's made by Cosina, and because it's not all-mechanical, and because it's not a real collectible but a toy camera, and because it's disposable, and because it doesn't have a film advance lever, and because the company hasn't documented how to do rangefinder adjustments yourself, and because it will cost $3000 for which you can buy a used Leica MP and a film scanner which delivers better results anyway (repeat arguments mentioned above). And there will be threads about whether or not it's reliable enough, all of them based on anecdotal evidence, and people who have no intention of buying one anyway will be complaining about how Zeiss and Cosina can't build proper cameras. And after two months there will be some minor flaw with the camera sending all the forums into vitriolic discussions, the content of which can be summarised with "I told you so", and we'll have the same arguments over and over again, and all the while the camera will be bought by a small group of happy users while a much larger group will have very strong opinions about it that are in effect only reinforced and re-reinforced versions of what they thought about digital cameras all the time anyway.
Philipp
iml
Well-known
rxmd said:
I'm prepared to bet money that if Zeiss do produce a digital RF in the next three years (and I won't be surprised if they do) it won't be "full frame". Given current sensor design, I doubt anyone will be able to produce one in that time frame. Further into the future, who knows if anyone will bother to produce FF sensors, as fewer photographers remember 35mm film and more grow used to crop factors, it's likely to become much less of an issue for all bar a small niche.
Ian
Huck Finn
Well-known
rxmd said:
Great post!
Must be that clear air in Uzbekistan that leads to a clear mind.
einolu
Well-known
just gotta say, 3 years is a really really long time in the digital world
Olsen
Well-known
The tonal range of 1Ds II is 9 stops. M8 some 8,5. I haven't shot serious b&w film for many years, I would not know what could be expected of them. That 'color is a different story', we can agree upon.jjovin said:
georgef
Well-known
...so this Zeiss designer was called in the office last friday and given the brilliant assignment of developing the new digital Ikon! (s)he spent the whole weekend calling all friends telling them about it in no short excitement!
...Ready and charged with creativety and drive, (s)he buys the morning coffee come monday and sits down at the computer to check relevant discussions...get the "feel out there" kinda thing. Seeing what the main points of agreement are within this tight-knit group of RF-ers. And happens upon THIS post!
...........
...By now the letter of resignation has been drafted. By day's end the desk will be cleared, and with his/her Holga on one hand and 3mp PS on the other (s)he walks out the door to the fresh early summer afternoon.
...life will be better spent outside...
PS: dont send me hatemail; I thought this thread needed some smiles!
"..if you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with..."
cheers,g
...Ready and charged with creativety and drive, (s)he buys the morning coffee come monday and sits down at the computer to check relevant discussions...get the "feel out there" kinda thing. Seeing what the main points of agreement are within this tight-knit group of RF-ers. And happens upon THIS post!
...........
...By now the letter of resignation has been drafted. By day's end the desk will be cleared, and with his/her Holga on one hand and 3mp PS on the other (s)he walks out the door to the fresh early summer afternoon.
...life will be better spent outside...
PS: dont send me hatemail; I thought this thread needed some smiles!
"..if you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with..."
cheers,g
Olsen
Well-known
Ha, ha! I should hastely remind you that I frequently shoot with my Hasselblad gear (500C/M, 203FE and a SWC), scan the negs through my Nikon 8000 ED, - and with my Zeiss Ikon - and with my Leica MP - and with my 1Ds II and with my M8 (I have a carton full of other cameras that I don't even use). My best cameras? My Hasselblad 905SWC (I want to be burried with that one) and the 1Ds II. If the negs stands the danger of having to go through a scanner, I rather use the 1Ds II - and hopefully my M8....as soon as I learn how to squeeze out just as elegant files from that as from my 1Ds II. Otherwise you are perfectly rightrxmd said:
Olsen
Well-known
From an armchair expert to another; I ask you again; have you tried a 1Ds II? Ever held one..? I have had one for 2,5 years now - some 10.000 exposures - and can do regular comparisons to my scanned analogue film stuff. I draw the same conclusion as many others on the Net; that 1Ds II is only a fraction from reaching the resolution of MF. Well, I do get better results with my 1Ds II than any of my scanned stuff, but that's because I have a cheap amateur scanner - and that I am only an armchair expert on scanning. Have me excused. You show us what a B&W film is good for. Fine. I did mention earlier that analogue film beats digital with a few special types of film. Do you have a comparison from a decent digital camera to show for? Could we see some relevant comparisons in color too..?varjag said:
jan normandale
Film is the other way
rxmd said:
there's always one in the crowd who rains on the parade isn't there..
This has been one of the funniest reads in a long time.. keep it up!BTW what about digital pinhole cameras? ;D
R
ray_g
Guest
I think it won't be much longer before full frame sensors become more readily available to manufacturers. It seems Sony may be coming out with a full-frame flagship dslr, probably based on the Maxxum 9.