Kodak: Most photographers prefer film

john_van_v said:
My old OM-1 offered one thing that I have no experienced anywhere else-- really good shutter action. I was really able to synchronize with the scenes every time; I was never off. I want to get that back; it is non-existant in digital.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but that' just plain stupid!

Compared to your OM1 my Contax RTS is not slower, if not faster.
And compared to any digital SLR, your OM1s autofocus sucks, doesn't it?
 
john_van_v said:
Here is one other picture that I scanned from a proof sheet; I could not find the negative. I think it shows the dreamy possibilties that film offers, which directly contradict the hyper reality of digital, my present medium.
Click to expand...


From a DSLR point of view, unsharp and overexposed, if that was from a Canon digital Rebel, i'd send it in for maintenance.
 
Jeeze, Socke ... auto-focus isn't the be-all/end-all. I'd say if John doesn't miss shots with an OM, then why the hell does he need auto-focus.
 
Trius said:
Jeeze, Socke ... auto-focus isn't the be-all/end-all. I'd say if John doesn't miss shots with an OM, then why the hell does he need auto-focus.
Click to expand...


At least on a Canon D60 you can switch of AF, but I admit, that most photographers complaining about cameras from 1975 up are inable to switch to manual.

Edit:

I forgot, the Contax RTS (Real Time System) is manual focus, just with an "electronic" shutter. My RTS has a cloth shutter and my RTS II a metal shutter, both are much faster then I am. With a dSLR, the D60 I have myself and the 1D MkIIs I can borrow, shutter lag is close to 0 if the camera found something to focus on, a 1d is much faster then my D60, but on manual focus they are as fast as any SLR, if not faster.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A huge RF collector said he likes the Petri 7s the most. I thought he was crazy, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and eprayed for one (and got two). To be completely honest I can see why he likes them; they are noisy and feel pretty good.

To me the OM-1 is the SLR that can hang w/ the RFs.

Oh, and I do have a Leica:

leica_IIIc_industar_61.jpg


I also just got a brand new FED 5, and broke the shutter mechanism w/in 5 minutes of opening the box. But it was not a total loss, the Industar 61 looks pretty good on my IIIc
 
Socke said:
From a DSLR point of view, unsharp and overexposed, if that was from a Canon digital Rebel, i'd send it in for maintenance.
Click to expand...

Hey, the guy's face is middle gray-- that picture was perfectly exposed. If your $1K dSLR takes picts like that, don't send it in -- send it to me!!

Here is another perfectly exposed picture. Obviously I pointed the camera at my hand and up-ed it two stops to compensate for the brother's dark face. Having said that, I guess I will have to worry about accusations of racism!


File0005.bmp-001.jpg
 
john_van_v said:
Hey, the guy's face is middle gray-- that picture was perfectly exposed. If your $1K dSLR takes picts like that, don't send it in -- send it to me!!
Click to expand...

I expose for the highlights
mariachi.jpg


Not digital, HP5 in a Contax G2 with a 28/2.8.
 
I like HP5 over the others for this simple: you can always add constrast, but you cannot take it away. You do get the inside and outside pretty significantly. If I were printing it, I would try to make the trees a theme, white out the street-- and actually go back for more shots when there are more people to create some drama.

This requires printing of course. As I am learning, the digital scanning of b&w negatives is a wholly disspointing experience.

I am personally in a quandry right now. All my projects are done. I would like to go and re-do a cemetery that has been abandoned <somewhere in NYC, which I won't disclose> in HP5.

I actually have Suzanne Vega (my name is luka) living in my parents' apartment building, and the commerical (and no doubt digital) photogs are butchering her face. She is actually petty hot, but you would not know it from their work-- all of them, they suck.

I really want to approach her about it, but I am shy. Not because I am a shy person (I am not, I would rather go out and kick the mayor's ass), but because I have never planned a shot in my life-- that would be like Capa planning a war, or Lange planning a depression.

I took pictures of a junkie friend/patient of mine just before he started shooting speed --which landed him in the mental hospital and out of reach of my lens. I did it with both film in a Nikon, and electrons in my kodak c875. I think the film may have gotten over heated in my car, but still the comparison is significant.

File0127.jpg


100_2337.jpg
 
Last edited:
Socke said:
Sorry, but that' just plain stupid!

Compared to your OM1 my Contax RTS is not slower, if not faster.
And compared to any digital SLR, your OM1s autofocus sucks, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say your RTS has slower shutter reaction than an OM 1, or faster?

Despite the fact that you are an obvious savant (currently my worst insult), your grammer is worse than mine. Sorry, lol
 
Last edited:
john_van_v said:
Are you trying to say your RTS has slower shutter reaction than an OM 1, or faster?

Despite the fact that you are an obvious savant (currently my worst insult), your grammer is worse than mine.
Click to expand...

I just don't know for sure. The RTS and RTS II freel as fast as the OM-2n I have. The shutter release on the RTS is awesome and I like it much better than the one on the OM-2n.
So I don't think the RTS is slower than an OM-1 and it may be a bit fast.

My grammar is somewhat better in german and worse in spanish and portuguese, but good enough to buy batteries for my cameras in Lisboa and San Juan :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom