Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/08/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]To each his own, I guess. I snagged a D70, and so far, I use it for some flash stuff and longer lenses. Learning about multi- flash possibilities with the Nikon flash system is nice due to quick turn around of digital. But I don't find that I use my Bessa or M6 any less. I don't really enjoy shooting with the D70 all that much. The VF kinda sucks. Small and dark. Makes manual focusing pretty tough, especially with the 1.5 crop and trying to use a 35mm like a 50, a 50 like a 75mm and so on. Auto focus precision and visual confirmation suffers similarly. This is discussed at great length over on PN, and the "solution" is a nice $3K+ digi slr body with a good finder but a short technology half life. I like to shoot B&W, and enjoy the look I get with specific films and developers. With digital, the color channels alternatives to simple desaturation are darn time consuming, and then you still get oddly smooth images akin to TMAX 100 on steroids or something :-) For me, some Neopan 400, HC-110 and 20 minutes or so is quicker and more satisfying. Finally, an M6 and a few lenses is a relatively tiny, lite weight kit that I can carry around with me wherever I go. This is what got me into RF gear in the first place - not wanting to lug around an SLR and big lenses. For portable long lens duty, I will sometimes carry an FM3a and my Nikkor 135/2.8 or 105/2.5 - also relatively portable as far as SLR gear goes. So B&W film, great VF, precise manual focus, good optics and all in a super portable kit - for me, the M6 gets the shooting time and my D70 is mostly a learning tool. This isn't really a film vs. digital issue. I imagine that digital options will eventually emerge that fully satisfies the same ergonomic and aesthetic satisfaction I get from RF/Leica gear and film. Or at least, I hope so! Scott Robert Clark wrote: > Frank: > Too bad for Pizzonia....he was on track for a podium today. With Ralf > coming back, that's probably his last one. Fascinating race, > though..JPM made some good moves.... I have some decisions to make > regarding my imaging system. I need a scanner and greater computing > power. My wife has the apple g4 and I use it from time to time but > it's nothing like the g5 we have in our graphic arts dept at work. > Now that I have the D70, I hardly ever use the M6....and I'm thinking > about selling the system for a new computer plus a scanner. I like > the M but I just don't use it anymore. > > All the best, > Robert > > Frank Dernie wrote: > >> Hi Robert , >> a B&W 6x6 scan is about 70 Mb and a colour around 250 Mb, unless >> scanned at 16 bit, then they are >500Mb...... >> Ralf is certainly not driving at Spa but will drive at a test at >> Monza just before the Grand Prix and will return there if all goes well. >> cheers >> Frank >> >> >> On 25 Aug, 2004, at 19:26, Robert Clark wrote: >> >>> Frank: >>> On average, what is a typical size for a scanned MF image in color? >>> And B/W? I was at a friend's house last Friday and saw some >>> absolutely wonderful MF images from a Hasselblad. Since I now have >>> the N70, I'm not using the M6 at all...but the image quality of a MF >>> looks pretty appealing. >>> >>> BTW...how's Ralf? Will he be back this year? >>> >>> Robert Clark >>> Lancaster, PA >>> >>> Frank Dernie wrote: >>> >>>> I think my EOS10D is actually lighter than my R8, thought some of >>>> the lenses are lighter some are heavier. I do find the prints from >>>> the 10D, printed formerly on an Epson, now a Canon, printer >>>> comparable to prints from scanned negatives from my R8, maybe a >>>> touch worst than scanned slides and a touch better than scanned >>>> print film. I don't like the ergonomics of the Canon nearly as much >>>> as the R8 and the R8 viewfinder is in another class. OTOH not >>>> having to wait for the end of the film is a great benefit for >>>> amateurs such as myself so I only use film for MF, here the prints >>>> from scanned negatives are much better than the EOS 10D or 35mm >>>> Leica scans. >>>> cheers >>>> Frank >>>> >>>> On 25 Aug, 2004, at 18:29, Douglas Herr wrote: >>>> >>>>> FRANK DERNIE <frank.dernie@btinternet.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I wonder whether 120 or 35mm film will be the more >>>>>> popular in the future. I would expect 35mm to be less >>>>>> interesting because it is so easily comparable in size >>>>>> weight and quality to digital. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Interesting question - but until the size and weight of digital >>>>> cameras giving output comparable to a high-end 35mm film camera >>>>> shrinks considerably I don't see the size or weight as comparable. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Doug Herr >>>>> Birdman of Sacramento >>>>> http://www.wildlightphoto.com >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Leica Users Group. >>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information