For the camera buffs.
 

Konica - Minolta quitting camera business.
http://www.theregister.com/2006/01/1...ts_camera_biz/

For the camera buffs.
 

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:30:14 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:01:57 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Konica - Minolta quitting camera business.
http://www.theregister.com/2006/01/1...ts_camera_biz/

interesting. with olympus getting out of the low end digital business
- point and shoot - and concentrating on the high end - dslr -, nikon
stops producing film cameras and canon thinking likewise, its going to
be an interesting year in the camera area.

PC Magazine recently had a review of the Olympus Evolt E-500, in case
you're interested.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1897608,00.asp
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******

For the camera buffs.
 

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 22:01:56 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:20:51 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:30:14 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:01:57 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Konica - Minolta quitting camera business.
http://www.theregister.com/2006/01/1...ts_camera_biz/

interesting. with olympus getting out of the low end digital business
- point and shoot - and concentrating on the high end - dslr -, nikon
stops producing film cameras and canon thinking likewise, its going to
be an interesting year in the camera area.

PC Magazine recently had a review of the Olympus Evolt E-500, in case
you're interested.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1897608,00.asp

just another nikon geek bashing olympus.

I didn't read it. Was it bad?

Oh. Well. Sorry about that.
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******

For the camera buffs.
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:01:57 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Konica - Minolta quitting camera business.
http://www.theregister.com/2006/01/1...ts_camera_biz/

interesting. with olympus getting out of the low end digital business
- point and shoot - and concentrating on the high end - dslr -, nikon
stops producing film cameras and canon thinking likewise, its going to
be an interesting year in the camera area.

Who uses film cameras any more?

For the camera buffs.
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Dan J.S. wrote:
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:01:57 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Konica - Minolta quitting camera business.
http://www.theregister.com/2006/01/1...ts_camera_biz/
interesting. with olympus getting out of the low end digital business
- point and shoot - and concentrating on the high end - dslr -, nikon
stops producing film cameras and canon thinking likewise, its going to
be an interesting year in the camera area.

Who uses film cameras any more?

Professional photographers.

I am not sure which ones. National Geographic photographers now use mostly
digital - even my sister's wedding, all professional photographers did
digital - one or two still did film.

For the camera buffs.
 

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 11:06:16 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dan J.S. wrote:
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:01:57 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Konica - Minolta quitting camera business.
http://www.theregister.com/2006/01/1...ts_camera_biz/
interesting. with olympus getting out of the low end digital business
- point and shoot - and concentrating on the high end - dslr -, nikon
stops producing film cameras and canon thinking likewise, its going to
be an interesting year in the camera area.

Who uses film cameras any more?



Professional photographers.

There are several professional photographers in the Torpedo Factory in
Alexandria. They sell prints up to about 4ft x 6ft. The ones I talked to
use digital cameras and very large Epson, for the most part, printers.
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******

For the camera buffs.
 

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 09:59:25 -0600, Dan J.S. wrote:

Who uses film cameras any more?

Me for one.
You still get better quality for a given investment that way.
This will change for sure.

And then you have all who shoot far away from the power grid.
The batteries in my 'chemical' cameras last for years and one
of them - my old SLR - even works with flat batteries if I
judge the light correctly....

BTW, I do have a digital camera too and I find it very useful
in situations when I wouldn't have bothered with photographing
in the past.

/Martin

For the camera buffs.
 

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 09:59:25 -0600, "Dan J.S." wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:01:57 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


Konica - Minolta quitting camera business.
http://www.theregister.com/2006/01/1...ts_camera_biz/

interesting. with olympus getting out of the low end digital business
- point and shoot - and concentrating on the high end - dslr -, nikon
stops producing film cameras and canon thinking likewise, its going to
be an interesting year in the camera area.

Who uses film cameras any more?


i do.

Reminds me...I've had a roll of film in my Minolta SLR since Christmas
2004. That's when I received the HP digital camera.
I should haul out my Yashica D 2.25 camera for a go-around before 120
film becomes extinct.

For the camera buffs.
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..

The National Geo photog I occasionally hire uses Nikons with polaroid
backs for setups, and 35 mm and 2-1/4 for money shots. Two of the three
Black Star photogs I hire use kodachrome almost exclusively. There are
reasons why the best shots are still taken with kodachrome or fujichrome
for magazine use.

There's a blast from the past. I know nothing about photography but back as
a teenager I bought a halfway decent camera to try to learn. I remember
trying kodachrome film for slides and was immediately impressed with the
rich, almost artificial colors.

Eisboch

For the camera buffs.
 

Eisboch wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..

The National Geo photog I occasionally hire uses Nikons with polaroid
backs for setups, and 35 mm and 2-1/4 for money shots. Two of the three
Black Star photogs I hire use kodachrome almost exclusively. There are
reasons why the best shots are still taken with kodachrome or fujichrome
for magazine use.


There's a blast from the past. I know nothing about photography but back as
a teenager I bought a halfway decent camera to try to learn. I remember
trying kodachrome film for slides and was immediately impressed with the
rich, almost artificial colors.

Eisboch


Yeah. For crisp daylight outdoor shots...ASA 25 was the way to go.
For all else it was ASA 64.

For the camera buffs.
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:20:51 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:30:14 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:01:57 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Konica - Minolta quitting camera business.
http://www.theregister.com/2006/01/1...ts_camera_biz/

interesting. with olympus getting out of the low end digital business
- point and shoot - and concentrating on the high end - dslr -, nikon
stops producing film cameras and canon thinking likewise, its going to
be an interesting year in the camera area.

PC Magazine recently had a review of the Olympus Evolt E-500, in case
you're interested.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1897608,00.asp

just another nikon geek bashing olympus.

My complaint with Olympus is the warranty coverage. Bad Switch, 1 month out
of warrantee I sent in. Flaky switch. They would repair for $10 less than
a new camera and give a warranty of 3 months vs. 1 year on a new one.

For the camera buffs.
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
The National Geo photog I occasionally hire uses Nikons with polaroid
backs for setups, and 35 mm and 2-1/4 for money shots. Two of the three
Black Star photogs I hire use kodachrome almost exclusively. There are
reasons why the best shots are still taken with kodachrome or fujichrome
for magazine use.

There's a blast from the past. I know nothing about photography but back
as a teenager I bought a halfway decent camera to try to learn. I
remember trying kodachrome film for slides and was immediately impressed
with the rich, almost artificial colors.

Eisboch


The problem with digital "photos" is that it is hard for a graphics artist
to see precisely what the picture really has, because the monitors
available today won't resolve them. That's not the case with a 'chrome and
a loupe.

Friend that does photography for most of the Silicon Valley annual reports.
Has not used film is at least 3 years. But almost all his digital cameras
all use at least 100+ mbyte per shot. All the commercial stuff cameras
connect to a PC.

For the camera buffs.
 

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 09:59:25 -0600, "Dan J.S." wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:01:57 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Konica - Minolta quitting camera business.
http://www.theregister.com/2006/01/1...ts_camera_biz/

interesting. with olympus getting out of the low end digital business
- point and shoot - and concentrating on the high end - dslr -, nikon
stops producing film cameras and canon thinking likewise, its going to
be an interesting year in the camera area.

Who uses film cameras any more?

i do.

In the 1980's I was a supplier to the Konica film processing centers. Was
interesting to see how much film they processed a day. Those small kiosk's
in parking lots where you dropped off your film were picked up and sent to
the "factory". Huge piles of bags of film, processed each day and night. I
guess with the immense decrease in film usage, time to exit. Kodak almost
went toes up, because they misjudged the digital market, and have recovered
extremely well. Overall, tere has to be a decrease in photo paper usage per
person. You now only print the pictures you like, not the 36 on the roll
and hope some are what you wanted. Wife reviews the pics on the digital and
will retake what whe does not like, and erase the bad ones.

For the camera buffs.
 

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 06:32:19 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
snip
i dont know this for a fact, but one of my best friends is a rather
high end photographer who does fashion and hes plugged into the whole
digital thing with nikon. hes told me a couple of times that nikon is
working on something that will make film cameras totally and
completely, and finally, obsolete.

Even on a shooting mission in the middle of Greenland or the forests
of Belize?

/Martin

For the camera buffs.
 

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..

The National Geo photog I occasionally hire uses Nikons with polaroid
backs for setups, and 35 mm and 2-1/4 for money shots. Two of the three
Black Star photogs I hire use kodachrome almost exclusively. There are
reasons why the best shots are still taken with kodachrome or fujichrome
for magazine use.


There's a blast from the past. I know nothing about photography but back
as a teenager I bought a halfway decent camera to try to learn. I
remember trying kodachrome film for slides and was immediately impressed
with the rich, almost artificial colors.

Eisboch
Yeah. For crisp daylight outdoor shots...ASA 25 was the way to go.
For all else it was ASA 64.

Now that I am thinking about it, it wasn't "Kodachrome" that I was so
impressed with. I think Kodachrome was pretty much the standard film, in
different ASAs, wasn't it?
The film I was thinking about was "Ektachrome". It seemed to be much more
vibrant, colorwise. I still have boxes of slides that I took, back when I
was trying this stuff. One still cracks me up - I was laying prone on the
ground taking a close up shot of a couple of geese when one of them lowered
it's head and charged me. I couldn't get out of the way fast enough and all
you see in the slide is a giant beak about to devour the camera.

Eisboch

For the camera buffs.
 

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 06:32:19 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 02:35:09 GMT, Fred Dehl
wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in
m:

There are
reasons why the best shots are still taken with kodachrome or fujichrome
for magazine use.

Kodachrome and Fujichrome are very different beasts. Fuji films use the
E-6 process (E for Ektachrome). Kodachrome uses K-14. Here's a brief
description of K-14:

The key to the Kodachrome's archival stability is that the color dyes
(unlike Ektachrome and other E-6 Process films) are not placed in the film
emulsion during manufacturing. Kodachrome is basically a black-and-white
film with three light sensitive layers, each of which is "filtered" to
record magenta, cyan, or yellow "light". During film processing, the
correct color dyes are introduced into the respective layers to produce
the full-color positive image. This is a much more complicated operation
(the original K-11 Process required 28 different steps) than processing
color films in which color dyes are already within each of the emulsion
layers. But, the Kodachrome approach provides far greater color stability.

E-6 can be processed in a half-hour, but K-14 slides are said to have a
life expectancy of 200 years. Plus, nothing - let me repeat: NOTHING -
compares to a KM (Kodachrome 25) image.

its only a matter of time before km gets the boot like other films.
with some of the new light sensors and newer/faster memory cards, plus
the onboard memory improvements it won't be long before film is
totally and irrevocably fini.

i dont know this for a fact, but one of my best friends is a rather
high end photographer who does fashion and hes plugged into the whole
digital thing with nikon. hes told me a couple of times that nikon is
working on something that will make film cameras totally and
completely, and finally, obsolete.

Pssst. It's a secret. Tell no one. Nikon's already done it.









It's called the D200. With this beautiful lens:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm

And the 28-70mm of course.
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******

For the camera buffs.
 

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 09:09:03 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 06:32:19 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 02:35:09 GMT, Fred Dehl
wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in
:

There are
reasons why the best shots are still taken with kodachrome or fujichrome
for magazine use.
Kodachrome and Fujichrome are very different beasts. Fuji films use the
E-6 process (E for Ektachrome). Kodachrome uses K-14. Here's a brief
description of K-14:

The key to the Kodachrome's archival stability is that the color dyes
(unlike Ektachrome and other E-6 Process films) are not placed in the film
emulsion during manufacturing. Kodachrome is basically a black-and-white
film with three light sensitive layers, each of which is "filtered" to
record magenta, cyan, or yellow "light". During film processing, the
correct color dyes are introduced into the respective layers to produce
the full-color positive image. This is a much more complicated operation
(the original K-11 Process required 28 different steps) than processing
color films in which color dyes are already within each of the emulsion
layers. But, the Kodachrome approach provides far greater color stability.

E-6 can be processed in a half-hour, but K-14 slides are said to have a
life expectancy of 200 years. Plus, nothing - let me repeat: NOTHING -
compares to a KM (Kodachrome 25) image.
its only a matter of time before km gets the boot like other films.
with some of the new light sensors and newer/faster memory cards, plus
the onboard memory improvements it won't be long before film is
totally and irrevocably fini.

i dont know this for a fact, but one of my best friends is a rather
high end photographer who does fashion and hes plugged into the whole
digital thing with nikon. hes told me a couple of times that nikon is
working on something that will make film cameras totally and
completely, and finally, obsolete.

Pssst. It's a secret. Tell no one. Nikon's already done it.









It's called the D200. With this beautiful lens:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm

And the 28-70mm of course.
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******


Except for the fact that it has the same damned sensor-lens problem as
the D70.

What problem are you having, Harry?
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******

For the camera buffs.
 

Eisboch wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
om...


The National Geo photog I occasionally hire uses Nikons with polaroid
backs for setups, and 35 mm and 2-1/4 for money shots. Two of the three
Black Star photogs I hire use kodachrome almost exclusively. There are
reasons why the best shots are still taken with kodachrome or fujichrome
for magazine use.


There's a blast from the past. I know nothing about photography but back
as a teenager I bought a halfway decent camera to try to learn. I
remember trying kodachrome film for slides and was immediately impressed
with the rich, almost artificial colors.

Eisboch

Yeah. For crisp daylight outdoor shots...ASA 25 was the way to go.
For all else it was ASA 64.


Now that I am thinking about it, it wasn't "Kodachrome" that I was so
impressed with. I think Kodachrome was pretty much the standard film, in
different ASAs, wasn't it?
The film I was thinking about was "Ektachrome". It seemed to be much more
vibrant, colorwise. I still have boxes of slides that I took, back when I
was trying this stuff. One still cracks me up - I was laying prone on the
ground taking a close up shot of a couple of geese when one of them lowered
it's head and charged me. I couldn't get out of the way fast enough and all
you see in the slide is a giant beak about to devour the camera.

Eisboch


I believe Ektachrome was the one you could develop at home...or at least
in local processing labs.
Kodachrome had to be sent to a central plant in Toronto.

For the camera buffs.
 

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 09:29:16 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 09:09:03 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 06:32:19 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 02:35:09 GMT, Fred Dehl
wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in
:

There are
reasons why the best shots are still taken with kodachrome or fujichrome
for magazine use.
Kodachrome and Fujichrome are very different beasts. Fuji films use the
E-6 process (E for Ektachrome). Kodachrome uses K-14. Here's a brief
description of K-14:

The key to the Kodachrome's archival stability is that the color dyes
(unlike Ektachrome and other E-6 Process films) are not placed in the film
emulsion during manufacturing. Kodachrome is basically a black-and-white
film with three light sensitive layers, each of which is "filtered" to
record magenta, cyan, or yellow "light". During film processing, the
correct color dyes are introduced into the respective layers to produce
the full-color positive image. This is a much more complicated operation
(the original K-11 Process required 28 different steps) than processing
color films in which color dyes are already within each of the emulsion
layers. But, the Kodachrome approach provides far greater color stability.

E-6 can be processed in a half-hour, but K-14 slides are said to have a
life expectancy of 200 years. Plus, nothing - let me repeat: NOTHING -
compares to a KM (Kodachrome 25) image.
its only a matter of time before km gets the boot like other films.
with some of the new light sensors and newer/faster memory cards, plus
the onboard memory improvements it won't be long before film is
totally and irrevocably fini.

i dont know this for a fact, but one of my best friends is a rather
high end photographer who does fashion and hes plugged into the whole
digital thing with nikon. hes told me a couple of times that nikon is
working on something that will make film cameras totally and
completely, and finally, obsolete.
Pssst. It's a secret. Tell no one. Nikon's already done it.









It's called the D200. With this beautiful lens:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm

And the 28-70mm of course.
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******

Except for the fact that it has the same damned sensor-lens problem as
the D70.

What problem are you having, Harry?
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******


It doesn't have a full-frame CMOS sensor. If it did, I would have bought
one last week.

You really need that, huh? Personally, I don't consider it a problem.
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******

For the camera buffs.
 

Now that I am thinking about it, it wasn't "Kodachrome" that I was so
impressed with. I think Kodachrome was pretty much the standard film, in
different ASAs, wasn't it?
The film I was thinking about was "Ektachrome". It seemed to be much more
vibrant, colorwise. I still have boxes of slides that I took, back when I
was trying this stuff. One still cracks me up - I was laying prone on the
ground taking a close up shot of a couple of geese when one of them
lowered it's head and charged me. I couldn't get out of the way fast
enough and all you see in the slide is a giant beak about to devour the
camera.


Kodachrome = prints (negatives)
Ektachrome = transparencies (slides)

Kodachrome favored the reds and yellows and Ektachrome favored the greens
and blues.

For the camera buffs.
 

"RG" wrote in message news:vxSAf.1129$MJ.572@fed1read07...

Now that I am thinking about it, it wasn't "Kodachrome" that I was so
impressed with. I think Kodachrome was pretty much the standard film, in
different ASAs, wasn't it?
The film I was thinking about was "Ektachrome". It seemed to be much
more vibrant, colorwise. I still have boxes of slides that I took, back
when I was trying this stuff. One still cracks me up - I was laying
prone on the ground taking a close up shot of a couple of geese when one
of them lowered it's head and charged me. I couldn't get out of the way
fast enough and all you see in the slide is a giant beak about to devour
the camera.


Kodachrome = prints (negatives)
Ektachrome = transparencies (slides)

Kodachrome favored the reds and yellows and Ektachrome favored the greens
and blues.

KodaCOLOR = Prints
KodaCHROME = transparencies

For the camera buffs.
 

"Bishoop" wrote in message
...



Kodachrome = prints (negatives)
Ektachrome = transparencies (slides)

Kodachrome favored the reds and yellows and Ektachrome favored the greens
and blues.

KodaCOLOR = Prints
KodaCHROME = transparencies


Thanks. Now it's all coming back.

Eisboch

For the camera buffs.
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Bishoop" wrote in message
...



Kodachrome = prints (negatives)
Ektachrome = transparencies (slides)

Kodachrome favored the reds and yellows and Ektachrome favored the
greens and blues.

KodaCOLOR = Prints
KodaCHROME = transparencies


Thanks. Now it's all coming back.


Yeah, me too. Jeez, it's been a while.

For the camera buffs.
 

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 14:47:16 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 09:29:16 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 09:09:03 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 06:32:19 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 02:35:09 GMT, Fred Dehl
wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in
:

There are
reasons why the best shots are still taken with kodachrome or fujichrome
for magazine use.
Kodachrome and Fujichrome are very different beasts. Fuji films use the
E-6 process (E for Ektachrome). Kodachrome uses K-14. Here's a brief
description of K-14:

The key to the Kodachrome's archival stability is that the color dyes
(unlike Ektachrome and other E-6 Process films) are not placed in the film
emulsion during manufacturing. Kodachrome is basically a black-and-white
film with three light sensitive layers, each of which is "filtered" to
record magenta, cyan, or yellow "light". During film processing, the
correct color dyes are introduced into the respective layers to produce
the full-color positive image. This is a much more complicated operation
(the original K-11 Process required 28 different steps) than processing
color films in which color dyes are already within each of the emulsion
layers. But, the Kodachrome approach provides far greater color stability.

E-6 can be processed in a half-hour, but K-14 slides are said to have a
life expectancy of 200 years. Plus, nothing - let me repeat: NOTHING -
compares to a KM (Kodachrome 25) image.
its only a matter of time before km gets the boot like other films.
with some of the new light sensors and newer/faster memory cards, plus
the onboard memory improvements it won't be long before film is
totally and irrevocably fini.

i dont know this for a fact, but one of my best friends is a rather
high end photographer who does fashion and hes plugged into the whole
digital thing with nikon. hes told me a couple of times that nikon is
working on something that will make film cameras totally and
completely, and finally, obsolete.
Pssst. It's a secret. Tell no one. Nikon's already done it.









It's called the D200. With this beautiful lens:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm

And the 28-70mm of course.
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******
Except for the fact that it has the same damned sensor-lens problem as
the D70.
What problem are you having, Harry?
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******

It doesn't have a full-frame CMOS sensor. If it did, I would have bought
one last week.

You really need that, huh? Personally, I don't consider it a problem.
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******



I wouldn't spend the money on a replacement for my D70 without it.

has someone suggested you do that?
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******

For the camera buffs.
 

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 12:25:52 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 11:04:45 +0100, Martin Schöön
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 06:32:19 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
snip
i dont know this for a fact, but one of my best friends is a rather
high end photographer who does fashion and hes plugged into the whole
digital thing with nikon. hes told me a couple of times that nikon is
working on something that will make film cameras totally and
completely, and finally, obsolete.

Even on a shooting mission in the middle of Greenland or the forests
of Belize?

even there...

How?
I can't really fathom how a digital camera can keep working with
flat batteries. OK, I know about miniature fuel cells and microsized
gas turbines but nothing that offers you months of useful power.

/Martin

For the camera buffs.
 

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:08:53 +0000, Commodore Joe Redcloud wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:52:01 +0100, Martin Schöön
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 12:25:52 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 11:04:45 +0100, Martin Schöön
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 06:32:19 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
snip
i dont know this for a fact, but one of my best friends is a rather
high end photographer who does fashion and hes plugged into the whole
digital thing with nikon. hes told me a couple of times that nikon is
working on something that will make film cameras totally and
completely, and finally, obsolete.

Even on a shooting mission in the middle of Greenland or the forests
of Belize?

even there...

How?
I can't really fathom how a digital camera can keep working with
flat batteries. OK, I know about miniature fuel cells and microsized
gas turbines but nothing that offers you months of useful power.

/Martin

Solar? Wind? Large external battery packs? Generator?

What about reading about that guy that walked through the thickest
jungles of Africa? His story was published a year or two ago
in National Geographic's magazine. I don't remember the name
of the guy but look for something called "Megatransec" or some
such. It is clear from the pictures that there isn't much light
and no wind at the forest floor and hauling extra large
batteries or a generator... well, you try it first.

ways. It's also a lot easier to carry an entire darkroom
with you where ever you go.

Why do you have to do that? I bring my rolls of film home
for development.

/Martin

For the camera buffs.
 

Calif Bill wrote:
Konica - Minolta quitting camera business.
http://www.theregister.com/2006/01/1...ts_camera_biz/

Nikon is changing,too. Sam
As a result of the new strategy Nikon will discontinue production of
all lenses for large format cameras and enlarging lenses with sales of
these products ceasing as soon as they run out of stock. This also
applies to most of our film camera bodies, interchangeable manual focus
lenses and related accessories. Although Nikon anticipates that the
products will still be in retail distribution up to Summer 2006.

For the camera buffs.
 

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 00:28:05 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:52:01 +0100, Martin Schöön
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 12:25:52 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 11:04:45 +0100, Martin Schöön
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 06:32:19 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
snip
i dont know this for a fact, but one of my best friends is a rather
high end photographer who does fashion and hes plugged into the whole
digital thing with nikon. hes told me a couple of times that nikon is
working on something that will make film cameras totally and
completely, and finally, obsolete.

Even on a shooting mission in the middle of Greenland or the forests
of Belize?

even there...

How?
I can't really fathom how a digital camera can keep working with
flat batteries. OK, I know about miniature fuel cells and microsized
gas turbines but nothing that offers you months of useful power.

dunno. all i know is what he said when we were chatting about
cameras.

he could be full of it for all i know, but i doubt it.

Belt mounted rechargeable battery packs have been around for a long time.
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******

For the camera buffs.
 

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:18:33 +0000, Commodore Joe Redcloud wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:29:54 +0100, Martin Schöön
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:08:53 +0000, Commodore Joe Redcloud wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:52:01 +0100, Martin Schöön
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 12:25:52 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 11:04:45 +0100, Martin Schöön
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 06:32:19 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
snip
i dont know this for a fact, but one of my best friends is a rather
high end photographer who does fashion and hes plugged into the whole
digital thing with nikon. hes told me a couple of times that nikon is
working on something that will make film cameras totally and
completely, and finally, obsolete.

Even on a shooting mission in the middle of Greenland or the forests
of Belize?

even there...

How?
I can't really fathom how a digital camera can keep working with
flat batteries. OK, I know about miniature fuel cells and microsized
gas turbines but nothing that offers you months of useful power.

/Martin

Solar? Wind? Large external battery packs? Generator?

What about reading about that guy that walked through the thickest
jungles of Africa? His story was published a year or two ago
in National Geographic's magazine. I don't remember the name
of the guy but look for something called "Megatransec" or some
such. It is clear from the pictures that there isn't much light
and no wind at the forest floor and hauling extra large
batteries or a generator... well, you try it first.

ways. It's also a lot easier to carry an entire darkroom
with you where ever you go.

Why do you have to do that? I bring my rolls of film home
for development.

/Martin

So, Nikon should run their company based on one person's
extremely bizarre circumstances and needs?

No, but then I didn't make any such claim, or did I?

I have news for you. Film is rapidly headed for extinction.

Possible but that was not really what we were discussing.
Right?
Well, I didn't anyway.

There will always be
some places where it is an advantage,

It seems I got through to you at last.

but that is overwhelmed by all the
disadvantages compared to digital. I still have my Linhof 4x5, and I can
still get film for it. That doesn't change the fact that it is a
dinosaur.

My laptop has a better darkroom than your house, and it's portable. When
you get home and develop your film from the wilds of the darkest jungles
and they have problems you will have a long trip back to take more
shots. You will also spend a LOT more money and time for no advantage in
the final product.

Well, after all it seems I didn't get through to you. In very
simple English: There are place where any type of electrical equipment,
including digital cameras, are useless as soon as the batteries
are flat. People that go to those places are not much of a gadget
buying market so their needs will not be catered for by anyone who
is in it for the money.

You really haven't thought this through very well.

It is clear from your reaction that your problem is that I
actually did.

/Martin

For the camera buffs.
 

Well, after all it seems I didn't get through to you. In very
simple English: There are place where any type of electrical equipment,
including digital cameras, are useless as soon as the batteries
are flat. People that go to those places are not much of a gadget
buying market so their needs will not be catered for by anyone who
is in it for the money.


Geez, most modern film cameras rely on batteries for metering, flash, film
advance/rewind, focus and God knows what else. Perhaps people who go to the
places you are referring to should learn to draw really, really well and
take lots of pencils with them. Of course there was a time that such
adventures were chronicled in exactly this way. I'm thinking there must be
solutions these days that would allow for the recharging of relatively
modest batteries in remote locations. A very small inverter hooked up to
one of the safari vehicles comes immediately to mind. I'm sure there must
be other solutions as well. Personally, I'd be most concerned as to how to
keep the beer cold, which presents a far greater challenge than recharging
some small capacity batteries.

For the camera buffs.
 

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:10:29 -0700, "RG" wrote:


Well, after all it seems I didn't get through to you. In very
simple English: There are place where any type of electrical equipment,
including digital cameras, are useless as soon as the batteries
are flat. People that go to those places are not much of a gadget
buying market so their needs will not be catered for by anyone who
is in it for the money.


Geez, most modern film cameras rely on batteries for metering, flash, film
advance/rewind, focus and God knows what else. Perhaps people who go to the
places you are referring to should learn to draw really, really well and
take lots of pencils with them. Of course there was a time that such
adventures were chronicled in exactly this way. I'm thinking there must be
solutions these days that would allow for the recharging of relatively
modest batteries in remote locations. A very small inverter hooked up to
one of the safari vehicles comes immediately to mind. I'm sure there must
be other solutions as well. Personally, I'd be most concerned as to how to
keep the beer cold, which presents a far greater challenge than recharging
some small capacity batteries.


In Greenland?

I can't imagine any photographer going anywhere for months at a time
without access to a generator once in a while. The battery packs most pros
wear on their belts should power a digital SLR for quite a while.

Hell, I get about 150 shots out of one charging of the D200 battery!

For the camera buffs.
 

Hell, I get about 150 shots out of one charging of the D200 battery!

That seems like a very low number to me, John. Most people are reporting
500+ shots on their D70's per charge. Do you really notice that much of a
difference in battery consumption from your D70 versus the D200?

For the camera buffs.
 

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:45:10 -0700, "RG" wrote:


Hell, I get about 150 shots out of one charging of the D200 battery!

That seems like a very low number to me, John. Most people are reporting
500+ shots on their D70's per charge. Do you really notice that much of a
difference in battery consumption from your D70 versus the D200?


To tell the truth, I was estimating. But, I don't think I ever got 500
shots out of the D70. I think a couple hundred was the most. Many were
indoors, with the flash, and on the highest jpg resolution at maximum size.
I'm guessing about 200 from the D200, max res, max size, mostly flash. That
was after the first charge. I'll try to get a better estimate, but I think
two 512MB cards is about what I got.
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******

For the camera buffs.
 

To tell the truth, I was estimating. But, I don't think I ever got 500
shots out of the D70. I think a couple hundred was the most. Many were
indoors, with the flash, and on the highest jpg resolution at maximum
size.
I'm guessing about 200 from the D200, max res, max size, mostly flash.
That
was after the first charge. I'll try to get a better estimate, but I think
two 512MB cards is about what I got.
--

Well, flash would make a huge difference. At least using the internal flash
would. Less so using an SB-600/800.

For the camera buffs.
 

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:58:16 -0700, "RG" wrote:


To tell the truth, I was estimating. But, I don't think I ever got 500
shots out of the D70. I think a couple hundred was the most. Many were
indoors, with the flash, and on the highest jpg resolution at maximum
size.
I'm guessing about 200 from the D200, max res, max size, mostly flash.
That
was after the first charge. I'll try to get a better estimate, but I think
two 512MB cards is about what I got.
--

Well, flash would make a huge difference. At least using the internal flash
would. Less so using an SB-600/800.


PS. A few more pics in abpso. Join the files first. I'm still trying to
figure out how to post several pictures at one time and have them show up
as individual complete headers. I guess posting one at a time is the only
way.
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******

For the camera buffs.
 

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:58:16 -0700, "RG" wrote:


To tell the truth, I was estimating. But, I don't think I ever got 500
shots out of the D70. I think a couple hundred was the most. Many were
indoors, with the flash, and on the highest jpg resolution at maximum
size.
I'm guessing about 200 from the D200, max res, max size, mostly flash.
That
was after the first charge. I'll try to get a better estimate, but I think
two 512MB cards is about what I got.
--

Well, flash would make a huge difference. At least using the internal flash
would. Less so using an SB-600/800.


I also tend to leave it on continuously. When visiting the grandkids over
Christmas, the first time I used the D200, almost every picture was with
the flash.
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******

For the camera buffs.
 

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:05:18 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 07:54:05 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:58:16 -0700, "RG" wrote:


To tell the truth, I was estimating. But, I don't think I ever got 500
shots out of the D70. I think a couple hundred was the most. Many were
indoors, with the flash, and on the highest jpg resolution at maximum
size.
I'm guessing about 200 from the D200, max res, max size, mostly flash.
That
was after the first charge. I'll try to get a better estimate, but I think
two 512MB cards is about what I got.
--

Well, flash would make a huge difference. At least using the internal flash
would. Less so using an SB-600/800.


PS. A few more pics in abpso. Join the files first. I'm still trying to
figure out how to post several pictures at one time and have them show up
as individual complete headers. I guess posting one at a time is the only
way.

if you are posting multiple pictures, then they will be separated,
however agent will post in order without separating.

I want to make one new post which may contain several pictures. Agent is
now combining all the files into one big file, then splitting it into
chunks based on the maximum number of lines I've set (to meet the ISP
requirement), then it posts a separate header for each 'chunk'. The
separate headers must then be joined to be viewed.

How can I make one post with several pictures, each of which shows up
complete with its own file name under a separate header?

BTW, it's snowing outside. Weird weather.
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******

For the camera buffs.
 

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:58:16 -0700, "RG" wrote:

To tell the truth, I was estimating. But, I don't think I ever got 500
shots out of the D70. I think a couple hundred was the most. Many were
indoors, with the flash, and on the highest jpg resolution at maximum
size.
I'm guessing about 200 from the D200, max res, max size, mostly flash.
That
was after the first charge. I'll try to get a better estimate, but I think
two 512MB cards is about what I got.
--
Well, flash would make a huge difference. At least using the internal flash
would. Less so using an SB-600/800.


PS. A few more pics in abpso. Join the files first. I'm still trying to
figure out how to post several pictures at one time and have them show up
as individual complete headers. I guess posting one at a time is the only
way.
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******
JohnH or anyone else,
I tried to join them in Thunderbird, but could not figure out how.

I had to open them in OE. Does TB have the ability to join multi part
attachments?

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************

Q. What's the difference between a brown-noser and a ****-head?
A. Depth perception.
************************************************** *************

For the camera buffs.
 

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 09:02:56 -0500, Reggie Smithers
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:58:16 -0700, "RG" wrote:

To tell the truth, I was estimating. But, I don't think I ever got 500
shots out of the D70. I think a couple hundred was the most. Many were
indoors, with the flash, and on the highest jpg resolution at maximum
size.
I'm guessing about 200 from the D200, max res, max size, mostly flash.
That
was after the first charge. I'll try to get a better estimate, but I think
two 512MB cards is about what I got.
--
Well, flash would make a huge difference. At least using the internal flash
would. Less so using an SB-600/800.


PS. A few more pics in abpso. Join the files first. I'm still trying to
figure out how to post several pictures at one time and have them show up
as individual complete headers. I guess posting one at a time is the only
way.
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******
JohnH or anyone else,
I tried to join them in Thunderbird, but could not figure out how.

I had to open them in OE. Does TB have the ability to join multi part
attachments?

In Agent, you would select them all, right click and click 'join sections'.
Don't know about TB.
--
John H

***********************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
***********************************

For the camera buffs.
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Reggie Smithers wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:58:16 -0700, "RG" wrote:

To tell the truth, I was estimating. But, I don't think I ever got 500
shots out of the D70. I think a couple hundred was the most. Many were
indoors, with the flash, and on the highest jpg resolution at
maximum size.
I'm guessing about 200 from the D200, max res, max size, mostly
flash. That
was after the first charge. I'll try to get a better estimate, but
I think
two 512MB cards is about what I got.
--
Well, flash would make a huge difference. At least using the
internal flash would. Less so using an SB-600/800.
PS. A few more pics in abpso. Join the files first. I'm still trying to
figure out how to post several pictures at one time and have them
show up
as individual complete headers. I guess posting one at a time is the
only
way.
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******
JohnH or anyone else,
I tried to join them in Thunderbird, but could not figure out how.

I had to open them in OE. Does TB have the ability to join multi part
attachments?



View.
Display Attachments Inline.
Thanks.

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************