lf-photo.org.uk

I've just got to let off some steam

Having recently traded up our Nikon D100 cameras (used for anything that moves too fast or is too far away for LF) for D200. Well, I just went to take a flash picture of something, only to discover that the Metz 54 MZ-4 that I have only used about ten times since buying it, is not compatible with the D200

Apparently, Nikon have changed from using D-TTL to iTTL and that this means that, if I want to take advantage of iTTL, I have to buy another whole flashgun

Now the Metz 54 MZ-4 includes a dedicated, interchangeable adapter which, I am informed can be upgraded, but that would only allow the flashgun to fire in manual or auto mode, not TTL mode, so even if I pay the £15 or so to get the "firmware upgrade", I will end up with a lesser quality of flash control. The only way to complete compatibility is to buy a complete new flash, the 54 MZ-4i.

Now what on earth has all this ranting got to do with the UKLFPG ?

Well, it proves to me that LF photography is so much cheaper than digital. Although the initial outlay may be greater and any film costs are greater than re-using a memory card, I reckon that, taking the "technology race" involved in digital photography into account, it could well mean that digital is more expensive if amortized over a number of years.

The only "upgrade" I have applied to my beautiful, wooden, simple, non-electronic camera, is to fit a Maxwell focussing screen. As for flash, if I really need it, I still have a big old Sunpak hammerhead that is well capable of working with any camera.

Moore's Law.

Guess it affects anything with chips in it

I don't think this has anything to do with 'Moore's law'....that is about the tendency of electronic devices to become cheaper. This is about the use of unneccassary technology to make earlier, and quite adequate, tools obsolete!

I've been taking a close look at DSLR's lately and can't help wondering where it will all end!......NOT with more intuitive cameras, that's for sure! I wonder if these high tec flash modes are yet more 'autofocus syndrome', ie., technology that you don't really need which doesn't really work anyway but looks great in the advert......

I'm old enough to remember using PF 1 flash bulbs in a sort of hand torch holder!!.....and, I once worked with an old photographer who was still a keen user of flash powder and considered flash bulbs in much the same light that I regard 'iTTL/DTTL etc! Mind you, he thought glass plates were much better than "silly bits of wobbly film"....and so progression, rather than progress goes!

Bobbo wrote:I'm old enough to remember using PF 1 flash bulbs in a sort of hand torch holder!!.....and, I once worked with an old photographer who was still a keen user of flash powder and considered flash bulbs in much the same light that I regard 'iTTL/DTTL etc! Mind you, he thought glass plates were much better than "silly bits of wobbly film"....and so progression, rather than progress goes!

I still use flash bulbs on occasion, and glass plates too. But I won't get near flash powder! I have a university degree in chemistry, several recipes for flash powder, and both military and civilian training in demolition. Flash powder is just too dodgy...

I remember some years ago I was living in a small flat, and wanted a TV in my "living room" (3x3m). I got really p*ssed when I found that I couldn't find one without a remote control! I had no wish to have one more thing to get lost, I wanted pushbuttons on the TV itself since I would be within arm's length anyway.

Same when my cellphone died. I couldn't find a cheap one without a camera...

You're right - it's "progression", not "progress".

Bobbo wrote:I don't think this has anything to do with 'Moore's law'....that is about the tendency of electronic devices to become cheaper.

The winking smiley should indicate that wasn't a serious suggestion, an IT gag

Bobbo wrote:I've been taking a close look at DSLR's lately and can't help wondering where it will all end!......NOT with more intuitive cameras, that's for sure!

Actually, I think the focus has changed recently ( no pun intended ). The "megapixel race" is over. The top of the line DSLR is 16.7 megapixels, and hasn't been replaced for nearly two years, unprecedented in DSLR history I think. I believe the focus is now moving towards making them more dependable ( dust removal etc ), and on other aspects, like dynamic range, should be some very interesting developments on the dynamic range front in the next few years.

Interesting times.

"......The "megapixel race" is over.."

So it would appear at the upper end of the market anyway. Of course it may just be a pause,...it will be very interesting to see what happens in the next few days as 'Photokina' approaches.

Personally, I think these 'big' DSLR's have a long way to go yet in terms of good design,...the famous British Army phrase concerning the testing of experimental anti-tank guns comes to mind when handling the Canon 1DS,..."simplicate and add lightness"...!!

Perhaps the main problem for us 'old farts' who use LF is that DSLR's are going in the opposite direction to us! All developments are driven by 'autofocus syndrome' as mentioned above. I notice that all of the 'new' 10 meg cameras have much poorer low light capability than the boring, clunky and hopelessly passe, old 6 meg models. The trouble is that "10 million" reads much better than "6 million"....

As I said; Progression ranther than 'progress'.......

Smaller photosites on the sensor means each of them start to become a lot smaller than the wavelenght of light they are trying to capture. Which means a lot of noise.
So the more megapixels per square centimeter, the crappiest it gets.

Idealy, They'd have to make the sensors bigger, however now they hit the problem that a sensor is not "flat" as film is, the sensor needs stuff in front of it to even work (microlens) and that makes them rather bad at capturing light in the borders & corners..
So the larger the sensor, the harder it is to get even illumination and sharp corners (think Canon 5D)

So yeah, they can't win at that game, they have to hit the wall at some point

Quality from digital cameras does not compare with a well scanned medium or LF neg/tran anyway. Dennis

Well "quality" as in sharpness, fine... But I still shoot a lot of B&W using sone 35mm rangefinders, and the "quality" of the images are great. Ok it's not as sharp as the super-duper DSLR, but it still a better "quality" image as far as my taste goes

buse, My point exactly - I'm in favour of film! Dennis

"...I'm in favour of film.."

So am I,...up to a point! It's a 'horses for courses' thing....

And, cost effectiveness must unfortuntely play a part. It may be generally accepted that well esposed and scanned 35mm beats any of the 'APS' DSLR's but if that means the use of premium processing and then a lot of work with a Nikon dedicated film scanner costing the best part of £3000,.....then the £500 DSLR starts to look a whole lot better for 99 percent of work.

I've never understood this; If your work is serious enough to require you to use top quality 35mm cameras and lenses on tripods combined with expensive scanner and premium processing to extract the best possible quality, then why are you not using a larger format and doing the job properly?

If, like me, you have never really been a 35mm enthusiast and only ever use it for 'quick and dirty' work then the DSLR's are VERY seductive. my research so far tells me that in most respects 35mm has had it's day compared to digital, if only for the sheer accessibility of DSLR images.

There are many sources on the web which would have us believe that the Canon F/F cameras can nearly match 4X5 sheet film. I can't quite see it myself as yet, but i'm sure it's coming.

Thats silly; I just scanned my first 4x5 yesterday. On my home flatbed scanner, and on Chinese "cheapo" film on top of that. The resolution and sheer surface totaly pulverizes any images made by the 5D.
And thats not using a modern LF lens, it's the basic 135mm Optar of the Crown graphic.

Even 6x6/6x9 using old folders beats FF DSLRs hands down.

Not SO silly,.....personally I try to keep an open mind and try to evaluate what I read/am told. The 5D is only 12meg, albeit F/F.

An intersting overview is here;

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/LF-Con.htm

Be sure to read the Alain Briot article at the bottom.

Like I said; I don't think it's quite there yet but wait a bit and see,...there's more to it than just resolution,...as i said; 'horses for courses'.

Remember, most of us require a 'hybrid' system even if we use sheet film for capture, and you need to take an overview of the complete process.