[GTRacer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mightyacorn /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think that is to advance the film, but I get your point. I've wanted a stripped down full frame camera for a while now.

It advances the film and cocks the shutter, well at least on my F3 HP.

 

[mightyacorn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OverlordXenu /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'll probably switch to digital for 35mm when Kodachrome is discontinued and a full-frame body is under $2,000 and as good as the 5D Mk. II.

Kodachrome is discontinued.

So what camera, scanner & film do you use?

 

[OverlordXenu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mightyacorn /img/forum/go_quote.gif Kodachrome is discontinued. So what camera, scanner & film do you use?

Uhhh...No it isn't. I just got some more a couple of weeks ago, from BH photo video. Kodak recently stopped production of the 25 and 200 speed Kodachrome, but PKR64 remains.

I use a Nikon F100 with a 35mm f/2 AF lens most of the time (its resolving power escapes me at the moment), I get my film scanned for free at a local pro lab (those same 6mp scans I was talking about) because I'm friends with someone who works there, although if I had to choose a film scanner RIGHT NOW I would get Nikon's highest end for 35mm and medium format, and an Epson V750 for sheet film. What emulsions do I use? Oh, many...It depends on my subject matter. I shoot Technical Pan (sadly discontinued), Rollei ATP (a new emulsion, pretty much the same as TP), Kodachrome 25, 40, and 64 speed, Fomapan R100, Ilford Delta 100, HP5+ 400, Kodak T-Max 100 and Tri-x, Fuji Astia, Provia, Velvia 50. I can't think of any others ATM, I'd have to go look in my freezer.

I think I may sell my F100 outfit and get a Voigtlander R4A and 21mm f/4. Rangefinder lenses always have more resolving power because rangefinders lack a mirror and the lenses can be closer.

 

[Towert7]

OverlordXenu, if you ever get one of your pictures (assuming they are color pictures) from the F100 scanned in to digital and resize it, I'd be interested to see them. I'm curious to see what level of sharpness you're getting.

 

[Dimitris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayduke /img/forum/go_quote.gif "manual Dslr"? By definition, wouldn't a DSLR be electronic? Only a few of the lower end Nikon DSLRs don't have a "real" mechanical shutter. They all have an M mode. What exactly are you waiting for Nikon to do?

I meant a digital variation of my F3hp.

FF with old camera ergonomics, no need for fancy metering, AF etc etc and $1500 new.

 

[OverlordXenu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif OverlordXenu, if you ever get one of your pictures (assuming they are color pictures) from the F100 scanned in to digital and resize it, I'd be interested to see them. I'm curious to see what level of sharpness you're getting.

As of right now, the only stuff I have scanned in was shot with an incredibly ****ty (soft and slow) lens. The 24-120VR. I did get some of them enlarged to 8x10, though, and I like them. They were the cheap-o 6mp scans.

I think I may be able to get access to a high-quality scanner, though. I'm not sure. (I think the local high school has a nice one, and I have younger brothers.)

 

[Edwood]

It's a good thing that I don't like Canon's DSLR body's ergonomics. THe new 5D MKII has me really tempted since it's HD video recording is quite awesome from the footage shown so far. Will have to see raw footage from other people to see for sure.

-Ed

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's a good thing that I don't like Canon's DSLR body's ergonomics. THe new 5D MKII has me really tempted since it's HD video recording is quite awesome from the footage shown so far. Will have to see raw footage from other people to see for sure. -Ed

From the link in the other thread? Yea, that was impressive!
If we are honest though, that made use of 27,000$ worth of lenses, and a very talented director of photography. I don't think results anywhere near that should be expected right out of the camera without a solid background in cinematography. I'll also note how there was NO audio from the camera. That's saying something, but that's to be expected.

In the end, it is possible of taking very nice movies (excluding audio), which is very impressive! I don't know how long it will take nikon to put out a product that can compete with it.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OverlordXenu /img/forum/go_quote.gif As of right now, the only stuff I have scanned in was shot with an incredibly ****ty (soft and slow) lens. The 24-120VR. I did get some of them enlarged to 8x10, though, and I like them. They were the cheap-o 6mp scans. I think I may be able to get access to a high-quality scanner, though. I'm not sure. (I think the local high school has a nice one, and I have younger brothers.)

Oh that's ok. No need to go out of your way. I was just wondering if you had already scanned some in.

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif From the link in the other thread? Yea, that was impressive! If we are honest though, that made use of 27,000$ worth of lenses, and a very talented director of photography. I don't think results anywhere near that should be expected right out of the camera without a solid background in cinematography. I'll also note how there was NO audio from the camera. That's saying something, but that's to be expected. In the end, it is possible of taking very nice movies (excluding audio), which is very impressive! I don't know how long it will take nikon to put out a product that can compete with it.

Apparently the 5D is going to have an adapter for stereo audio, although unless it has a very good preamp (doubtful). Otherwise, I'd rather use a portable recorder separately.

Yeah, the person behind the equipment is far more important. I'm sure that guy could make a stunning video with a bunch of Flip cameras.

-Ed

 

[Hayduke]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't think results anywhere near that should be expected right out of the camera without a solid background in cinematography.

Can't the same be said for stills?

I predict a lot of photographers will start exploring video and a lot of videographers will be taking more photos.

It's a win-win for all of us

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayduke /img/forum/go_quote.gif Can't the same be said for stills?

I actually do say the same thing for stills.

Coming from photography, I have picked up a few tricks when it comes to lighting, but I'm sure it would still take me a year or two to get halfway decent results using the video feature in a DSLR.

 

[Hayduke]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I actually do say the same thing for stills. Coming from photography, I have picked up a few tricks when it comes to lighting, but I'm sure it would still take me a year or two to get halfway decent results using the video feature in a DSLR.

Don't get me wrong, you're right about the amount of other equipment and expertise that went into that movie. I bet that DSLR was the cheapest piece of gear on the sets

 

[philodox]

I'm warming up to used D200 idea more and more. Going to have to save up some cash though.

Was looking at newer lenses and came up with this short list so far:

All-rounder: Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S VR
Quality: Zeiss ZF 50mm f/1.4

Fun: Tokina 10-17mm DX f/3.5-4.5 Fisheye Zoom

Dreaming: Zeiss 100mm f/2 Macro Planar

Any comments or suggestions? Some old lenses would be great as well, but there are so many that it is kind of daunting.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif Any comments or suggestions? Some old lenses would be great as well, but there are so many that it is kind of daunting.

I wouldn't spend too much money UNTIL you start to find out what types of photography you are in to (assuming you're strapped for cash).

If you find you like landscapes, get a good wide angle.
If you like macro, get a good micro lens.
And so on.

The 18-200VR will be nice because it's cheap and gives you such a wide range. As you use it, you'll probably find out what you like taking pictures of. From there, then decide to upgrade over it for either better image quality or wider apertures.

I've got quite a few primes, but I wish I had more zooms with the same image quality as the primes. I think that was my big mistake.
I'm saving up for the 80-200 F/2.8 and 17-35mm F/2.8 since I've already got the 35-70mm F/2.8. I don't know if there's a lesson to be had here or not.

Either way though, make sure you know what type of photography you're into before laying down the big $$$ for a lens.