|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: Paul, I wouldn't write film SLR's off just yet (Reply to this comment)
by colonialpara
Howard,
Let's not forget some of the current leaders like Joe McNally, the late Eddie Adams, the late Galen Rowell, John Shaw, Frans Lanting, John White, Vincent Versace and Rod Planck to name a few.
Cheers,
Paul
|
Nov 22 '04
11:10 am PST
|
|
Great Essay, Paul (Reply to this comment)
by colonialpara
I was at Photo Expo East in NYC a couple of weeks ago and actually got my grubby little paws on an F6 at the Nikon booth. It's about the same size as the F100 and to get the framing speed of the F5, you'll need to buy the MB-40 battery pack. That adds another $300+ dollars to the $2300 you'll lay out for the body.
While the F6 has some great improvements over the current F5, I'm not so sure that they are worth an additional $600 out of pocket. Then again, when first introduced, the F5 was around $3000. I'm hoping Nikon will wise up and drop the price of the F6 and the battery pack back down to where the F5 currently retails for.
Should they not do that, I guess I'll be sticking with the F100, especially as I want to buy another and sell off my N90S.
Then again, I may just head into B&H Photo in NYC and see if I can get a "left-over" F5.
Paul, as usual, you've covered all the bases. When I read one of your reviews, I know I've seen the best.
Cheers,
Paul Connors
|
Nov 10 '04
8:20 am PST
|
|
But what a great minority you belong to (Reply to this comment)
by sweeper
While digital now dominates in many sectors (wedding, portraiture, commercial), film is still very much entrenched in the fine art, landscape, and many outdoor markets including several magazines that are still going through a slow transition to total digital.
I really like that digital is making great strides. Some folks confuse photography thinking is as one big market. While it's great for appropriate applications digital has a great deal of improvement and innovation before it can equal film. Here I'm talking about the larger format systems. I'm also saying it'll be a few years before digital projection can match the resolution of a projected 35mm slide and a few more years before it can match a projected Velvia slide shot on medium format. Also us long-time slide shooters just KNOW how our film will respond to certain situations. I still think in terms of film and understand it will handle contrast, hue, saturation and color balance. I'm still calibrating my habits to think in terms of how my digital sensor. Pros are probably worse off than I am since they are so locked into habits.
In a few months, I'll pick up my first dSLR, a Fujifilm S3. But, for quite a while, I'll still grab my N80 when I know certain shots "count."
Thanks for some good history and a perspective from a pro.
Dave
|
Nov 03 '04
8:18 am PST
|
|
Paul, I wouldn't write film SLR's off just yet (Reply to this comment)
by Howard_Creech
I have yet to see a digital image that is the equal of a really good slide (say Kodachrome 25, the original Fujichrome 50, or Ektachrome 64) or classic fine grained slow speed B&W film. Like you, I really enjoy the "pop" of a good slide (which you don't get with digital images) and being able to hold it up to the light or look at it on my light table.
Don't get me wrong, digital is here to stay and I really find the whole digital imaging revolution fascinating. I've had a blast shooting with a whole bunch of different digital cameras (some good and some not)and they have a level of convenience, immediacy, and maleability (for manipulation) that film can never hope to equal --- what digital images don't have is the spark or the magic that made film's greatest photographers really shine.
When we finally see a digital photographer (working completely in the digital medium from image capture through making the print) the equal of Henri Cartier-Bresson, or Bill Brandt, or Brassai, or Robert Doisneau, or Eve Arnold, or Clarence John Laughlin, or Jim Marshall, or Ernst Haas, or Eliot Porter, or Ansel Adams, or Dorthea Lange, or Robert Frank, or Bruce Davidson, or Helmut Newton, or Walker Evans, or Edward Weston, or Wynn Bullock, or Minor White I'll be convinced that digital imaging has finally replaced film.
Howard
|
Oct 30 '04
1:37 am PDT
|
|
Re: Canon EOS 1D Mark II (Reply to this comment)
by paulphoto
Steve, I can only relate my comments on Canon in the film-based world. I love my Canon A-1! I don't use it now; it's for keep's sake.
I'm sure you are aware that Canon just released its new Mark II, EOS-1 Ds? With 16.6MP and full-frame image, but is expected to cost about $7000. With a price like that, for a poor part-time pro photographer like myself, it's impossible to afford.
Nikon also released its new D2-series, the D2X, with 12.4MP. Yeah...digital photography is getting better and better, and also more expensive.
Thanks for your visit and comments! Always a pleasure...
Paul
|
Oct 29 '04
10:33 am PDT
|
|
Re: Good read. (Reply to this comment)
by paulphoto
Gary, your point is very well taken, and thanks for reminding me to see the brighter side of the majority. You are absolutely right. This kind of camera is not but for the pros who need a dependable and reliable equipment for their day-to-day work...certainly would not appeal to non-pros who only use it once in a while, and especially with a price tag more than 2 grands.
Your extra info on the F6 via the provided link at photo.net is quite appealing. Indeed, you are aware of the F6, too!
Digital photographers will be surprised (and may have a frown on their face) to see a new film-based SLR camera emerge in the mist of a digital age, which is pretty much what is going on on that site. I think the introduction of the F6 is a daring one made by Nikon (and it was a minority at Photokina this year). But as you know, the F6's blue print may have already been drawn up by the time shortly after F5 came out, even before the digital race. So Nikon had a choice, go on with the project to build both the F6 and D2-series or cut short and lose money.
Nonetheless, I'm still glad to see the F6. Whether it will be a successful sale for Nikon, time will tell. For me personally, I just want a reliable camera for my work.
Thanks for your delightful comments!
Paul
|
Oct 29 '04
10:33 am PDT
|
|
Canon EOS 1D Mark II (Reply to this comment)
by viper1963
As you know I am a HUGE Canon guy. I switched over from film three years ago to digital. Film has its advantages over digital. In my view digital appears a little on the unnatural side of the specturm but if I do not tweak it too much in Photoshop, you cannot tell the difference.
Today I own three Canons (EOS 1D, EOS 1D Mark II and the EOS 20D). I still own a Canon EOS 1V for film photography but I only shoot film maybe once or twice a month.
Great review.
Steve
|
Oct 28 '04
11:01 pm PDT
|
|
Good read. (Reply to this comment)
by watchdr_2000
Paul, you do realize that you are in the minority, don't you? But keep in mind that the majority chose the inferior VHS video system over the vastly superior Beta.
Of course there will still be a need for film cameras for quite a while, even although digital is catching up in quality much faster than anyone predicted - or anticipated.
On the down side though, not many non-professionals are going to lay out $2,300 for a camera body only. But I can certainly see this camera having enormous appeal to professional photo-journalists, sports photographers and those into travel photography to name a few.
Here's the full spec sheet and a very lively discussion on the pros and cons - like your editorial, a very interesting read, Gary.
http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/f6/
|
Oct 28 '04
8:46 pm PDT
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.