|
|
Re: which digital to choose?
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:58:35 GMT, "Jeremy" wrote:
>
>"John" wrote in message
>news:nel111hr4tu25rot93jptef6d48c5elppf@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:14:45 -0500, "dr bob" wrote:
>>
>> >Not to dampen your spirits, but I still use a Pentax Spotmatic 45 years
>old
>> >and still operating perfectly.
>>
>> Geez that's nearly as old as my Linhof though only about half
>> as old as my Kodak. Anyone know of a way to date a Speed Graphic ?
>
>If every purchaser were like us, the camera manufacturers would have gone
>out of business decades ago.
Dunno. I think Zone VI probably made about $1000 on my 4X5 and
I'm pretty sure that Linhof has a higher margin.
>The manufacturers NEED to sell the sizzle, rather than the steak, if they
>are to keep sales up.
Again, it depends on the clients that they're selling too and
the margins. What you're observing is typical in 35mm but not so in
the larger formats. Unfortunately the 645 format became very
competitive and Bronica finally bit the dust after 12 years of pretty
serious floundering and Mamiya introducing a AF POS that I'd gladly
take an ETRSi over any day of the century.
>Big deal!
Yep. As if in-camera metering is even necessary. I use a
Gossen Luna Star F2 and a Minolta Spotmeter F. Perhaps that's why the
mercury cell in my Nikkormat FTN is still working after all these
years ?
>But it seemed back then that EVERYBODY who owned a Pentax wanted to upgrade
>to the latest whizbang body.
Have to admit, I loved the LX. Simply the very best 35mm
camera system ever built.
>Look at digital today: Every time the manufacturers add another MegaPixel
>to the cameras' sensors, there are tons of people that feel the need to
>"upgrade."
Typical of computer hardware I'm afraid.
>Look, I like progress as much as the next guy, but this upgrade migration
>thing can make a guy go broke! We pay big dollars for what is usually
>marginal increases in performance or functionality. Perhaps pros can
>justify this, but we amateurs have other mundane things to do with our
>money--like pay home mortgages.
And taxes. And gas. And medical bills.
>If I were going to get into photography all over again, I'd buy a good, used
>Rolleiflex. I'd pay to have it CLAed and I'd get another 50 years out of
>it.
I think I'd stick with the FM3A or the D-3HP. Both are well
built and offer a broad range of optics. Both have the features I need
though the F-3HP doesn't have a very high flash sync.
>I've accumulated FIFTEEN prime lenses, and I find that 85-90% of my
>landscape work is done on the normal lens--yes, the lowly normal
>lens--because it does not introduce apparent perspective distortion to the
>image.
I have 5 lenses for my Nikon's. 28/2.8, 50/1.4, 100/2.5,
135/2.8 and a 70~210/2.8~4.0. Each is extremely sharp and the 135/2.8
is remarkable.
>Even when I shoot with my digicam, I zoom the lens to an approximately 50mm
>focal length (equivalent). Carrying a bag of other lenses around did
>nothing for me. Too bad it took me 25 years to realize that.
Well it kept you in shape ! But it's not so good for the back.
I have a Tamrac 747 bag that I'm hoping to sell someday. I used to
carry two complete systems with me when I went for
wildlife/backpacking photography. Thing must have weighed 80 pounds
when loaded !
>A decent photographer can produce good results almost in spite of the
>equipment that he is using. The equipment part is of relatively little
>importance.
I can't completely agree. It starts with the subject,
lighting, composition then the camera and film. It all goes into the
mix.
Regards,
John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Please remove the "_" when replying via email
|
|