Would you buy the new Fuji Range Finder?

Would you buy the new Fuji Range Finder?

  • Total voters
    788
5:00 PM said:
The amount of work and/or cost it takes to get scanned 35mm shot by my F5, M4 or Canon P to look as good as even a dirt-cheap Nikon D40 is pretty damn heroic.
Click to expand...

Not to be a jerk, but you must be doing something wrong.

And in reference to your thoughts re: the D3x - a well made scan from a 6x7 neg or chrome blows any small format (smaller than 6x4.5) digital sensor out of the water.
 
rogue_designer said:
Not to be a jerk, but you must be doing something wrong.

And in reference to your thoughts re: the D3x - a well made scan from a 6x7 neg or chrome blows any small format (smaller than 6x4.5) digital sensor out of the water.
Click to expand...


Although I'd like to believe you, I'm not sure it's as clear as that. There are a lot of people out there who think that the current crop of full 35mm frame high res dslrs can match or exceed 6 by7 in delivered print quality

I'd love to find out for myself

Mike
 
sojournerphoto said:
There are a lot of people out there who think that the current crop of full 35mm frame high res dslrs can match or exceed 6 by7 in delivered print quality
Click to expand...

I've never heard anyone whose handled big prints, seriously make that claim.

I suppose for small machine made prints the extra effort required, and additional dynamic range, tonality and detail wouldn't be as apparent.

But once you're looking at well made gallery prints, (especially big prints) it's pretty clear to my eyes.

I'd like to see a more scientific comparison certainly. But looking at a 16x20 from a drum scanned 6x7 and printed with care, I think it's an order of magnitude over what even the best of the small sensors can do.
 
Looks like another "collectible." I'm sure it will make Fuji some money, but they sure aren't interested in actually selling film cameras at that price.
 
It's quite possible I'm doing something wrong and I only work in color (that may be "something wrong" in itself). But I no longer believe experienced gallery viewers can tell the difference between great color prints made from film and great color prints made from high-end DSLR files. Too many skilled people have been fooled too many times in blind comparison tests.

Actually, I'm getting into MF film to try and prove myself wrong about this. Still, based on what I've seen coming out of a D3x over the past two weeks, the damn thing is a steal at $8K. A line has definitely been crossed with this camera.
 
I applaud FUJI for getting this camera to market, but with Yen at 90 to the Dollar, $2400 is currently beyond my household budget. Keep in mind that all of my current crop of folders were bought at bargain basement prices.


I was kind of expecting this to come in around the $1500 range. So, for me at least, a second hand Mamiya 7II is looking good by comparison.
 
35mm film = 36mm x 24mm exposed surface

Rollei Pan 25 = 115 lines per mm 4140 x 2760 x 4* or 45.7 effective megapixels

Rollei Ortho 25 = 165 lines per mm 4950 x 3980 x 4* or 78,4 effective megapixels

Rollei ATP1.1 (Advanced Technical Pan) = 200 lines per mm 7200 x 4800 x 4* or 138,2 effective megapixels

*lines per mm = 2 gradations of resolution, each way, hence 4

Some micro films: Also over 200 lines per mm, however the best quality and resolution of lenses from Zeiss or Leica are just going over 300 ln/mm in the middle and at full aperture. Further all micro films are limited in use with high light contrast situations and they need special low contrast developers for regular pictographical use.

So it's not so easy to transfer these results to digital. Further a scanner has also a limiting resolution factor.
Rollei ATP1.1 is also available in 120 roll film but medium format lenses are much lower in resolution so the extra area in film surface will not give a real big improvement anymore.
 
Price? Confirmed?

Price? Confirmed?

Lani Kai said:
Well, it's going to be 218,000 yen and production will be limited to 5,000 units, available mid-March.
http://www.fujifilm.co.jp/corporate/news/articleffnr_0250.html
http://www.yodobashi.com/ec/product/100000001001085682/index.html
Click to expand...


I don't see an 'official' price on the Fuji page. The Y218,000 price is shown on a retailer's site, correct? Couldn't that be a pre-release, speculative, or highly marked-up price?

Can Cameraquest give us any information, now that Yodobashi seems to have some sort of basis for their pricing?

If it is $2400+ US, i think i'm out of consideration, as well. While i don't think it's an outrageous price for what it is - a newly engineered/produced medium format camera - i just don't think i could justify it, considering everything else i already own, and the state of the film/lab industry.
 
I don't believe one can apply the same 'math' to the two different technologies. Resolution of a film scan is just not the same as resolution of a digital camera file. About the only similarity i find is the point where one starts to see pixels upon enlargement, but even that has variables. As well, digital files can be more easily up-rezzed before seeing artifacts.

Forgetting the science - my digital files are ALWAYS perceptibly sharper than my film scans, whether they be from 35mm or 6x6/6x7 film. They're also 'cleaner.'

More importantly, unless you're shooting only stills (landscapes, still lives), with a tripod and the absolute finest-grained film, it's all moot anyway. At 'real life' ISOs, at least for me, film grain gets in the way and i don't shoot anything above ISO 400 color film. I'm going to try Fuji's 800, but i know what to expect. With digital, though, i can go up to ISO 1600 and still get cleaner results than with ISO 400 120 film.

I'm certainly not saying digital is "better," though. I still prefer the look of film, and it has nothing to do with statistical measures of "tonality." One can always still insist upon the superiority of film, but just not with these kinds of figures.


russianRF said:
I would think it's obvious that medium format film (especially under 400 ISO) would mop the floor with even the best 35mm digital. Else, why bother having medium format digital?

Here's a little math I worked out for Efke 35mm film:

35mm film = 36mm x 24mm exposed surface

Efke 25 = 115 lines per mm 4140 x 2760 x 4* or 45.7 effective megapixels

Efke 50 = 105 lines per mm 3780 x 2520 x 4* or 38.1 effective megapixels

Efke 100 = 90 lines per mm 3240 x 2160 x 4* or 23 effective megapixels

*lines per mm = 2 gradations of resolution, each way, hence 4

Using the same math for medium format:
Efke 25 medium format = 115 lines per mm;
60mm x 60mm exposed surface; 6900 X 6900 X 4 or 190.4 effective megapixels

Unless my math is way off, we are a LOOOONG ways away from digital 35mm matching medium format film. And I'm sorry, but sensor size is indeed important; until they can get 6900 by 6900 resolution without interpolation, film will offer better tonal range...

EDIT: I would also point out that it would seem obvious that greater sensor/film size equals more clear details and better tonality. After all, sensor size is EXACTLY the determining factor of quality between DSLRs and digital point-and-shoots. It's why an 8mp DSLR will still spank a 12mp point-and-shoot.
Click to expand...
 
What I love about film at this point are the "flaws" inherent in it. I get a certain available light glow from my Canon P and 50/1.4 that I've never seen from digital shot under the same conditions. If anything, poor-quality scanning seems to add to the effect.

Scanners are the black hole of the industry. I think the total lack of progress in consumer scanners over the past 5 years tells you how serious the leading DSLR makers are about supporting film going forward. Not. At. All.
 
Be careful for what you ask for when scanning medium format negs. You can easily wind up with RAW or TIFF file sizes in excess of 200 megabytes.

Scanning is tedious for me. I prefer to print through the neg with an enlarger, if it is B/W. The print is my scan. It takes a few minutes with developing, fixing and washing - but I find it faster than scanning film.

For color, digital capture is a godsend. The work flow is soooo much faster when going from camera to print.

$2400 x 500 = $1,200,000 - which doesn't seem like a very large number in this day in age.
 
CK Dexter Haven said:
I don't believe one can apply the same 'math' to the two different technologies. Resolution of a film scan is just not the same as resolution of a digital camera file. About the only similarity i find is the point where one starts to see pixels upon enlargement, but even that has variables. As well, digital files can be more easily up-rezzed before seeing artifacts.

Forgetting the science - my digital files are ALWAYS perceptibly sharper than my film scans, whether they be from 35mm or 6x6/6x7 film. They're also 'cleaner.'

More importantly, unless you're shooting only stills (landscapes, still lives), with a tripod and the absolute finest-grained film, it's all moot anyway. At 'real life' ISOs, at least for me, film grain gets in the way and i don't shoot anything above ISO 400 color film. I'm going to try Fuji's 800, but i know what to expect. With digital, though, i can go up to ISO 1600 and still get cleaner results than with ISO 400 120 film.

I'm certainly not saying digital is "better," though. I still prefer the look of film, and it has nothing to do with statistical measures of "tonality." One can always still insist upon the superiority of film, but just not with these kinds of figures.
Click to expand...


Yes, film resolution tends to be measured at MTF of about 10%, which is further deteriorated by scanner MTF. Digital capture retains a much higher MTF up to the resolution limit and then either goes to zero (AA filter) or aliases. I think this means that even theoretically lower res digital often looks better than film as detail is better retained up to the cutoff. Certainly I've got 5D prints that show more apparent detail at 18 by 12 than 35mm scans, though I'm still learning that process...

On the other hand, Zeiss managed to record 400lpmm on spur ortho film with the zm25 2.8, but even then admitted it had nothing to do with real photography.

Mike
 
CameraQuest said:
are you buying from Japan?

The Japanese price is seldom the US price.

Cosina has yet to announced the price of the Voigtlander folder.

Stephen
Click to expand...

If we're getting the Fuji version, we have to so far... doesn't look like it will be offered in the US market. Or did I misunderstand.

I am hopeful that the Voigtlander version is announced for US sales at a lower price point.
 
oh man...i thought 2k was being on the safe side. no prob. i can save an extra $400 in one and a half months. the question now is whether to buy a leica mp instead!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom