Random Camera Idea

[Ann]

>>>>I don't have to send my slide film hundreds of miles (maybe thousands today) and wait a week or so to get the results.
>>>>>

Actually, anyone with a Patterson or Jobo tank, and a dark closet in which to load it, can develop colour film in the kitchen sink.
An ordinary bucket provides a water-jacket to maintain temperature.

I know .  .  . because I have done it!

 

[David H. Hartman]

Actually, anyone with a Patterson or Jobo tank, and a dark closet in which to load it, can develop colour film in the kitchen sink.
An ordinary bucket provides a water-jacket to maintain temperature.

Been there done that: the results were fine but it was a PITA. I enjoy printing B&W.

I was spoiled when I could drop my Kodachrome by midnight in Hollywood and pick up my slides, in Glendale, CA by noon twelve hours later.

Dave who will never shoot color film again.

I own a Jobo if it still works?

[charlie]

Been there done that: the results were fine but it was a PITA. I enjoy printing B&W.

I was spoiled when I could drop my Kodachrome by midnight in Hollywood and pick up my slides, in Glendale, CA by noon twelve hours later.

Dave who will never shoot color film again.

I own a Jobo if it still works?

I shot color film today and I'll be dropping it off in Glendale later this week!

[Les Olson]

Let's see...

I don't need a Polaroid camera to check the lighting and composition (or a back and a loupe).

I don't have to send my slide film hundreds of miles (maybe thousands today) and wait a week or so to get the results.

Slides are like JPG(s) without the compression artifacts. What you see is what you get w/ black, unrecoverable shadows.

To get it in a computer it has to be scanned or copied with a dSLR.

True that a film camera is almost free but then you pay every time you use it. It's like a Toll Road where you stop and toss or hand over your money (if they still do that?). I haven't been on the Pennsylvania Turnpike in decades. I wasn't even old enough to drive.

I can't imagine what they were thinking, but I see Pirelli got someone else to photograph the 2018 calendar, so I don't need a Polaroid to check lighting either.  And it is true that it takes time to develop and scan film, but it's not like I would otherwise be spending that time working on a cure for cancer.  And, sure, if I had to shoot tethered so photo editors in New York could see immediately the pictures I take in Paris only digital would do, but I just don't get a lot of call for that.

And even if I did, none of those things are advantages of digital in the actual taking of a photograph, they are advantages to one kind of photography business. 

The idea that there is no per-image cost with a digital camera is wrong.  The per-image cost is the purchase price, less whatever you sell it for when you upgrade, divided by the number of images you have taken.  Of course, with digital the marginal cost of one extra image is zero and the more images you take the lower the per-image cost, while with film the per-image cost is the same however many rolls you use.  So professionals are much better off with digital. The cut-off for 35mm is roughly 200 rolls a year, assuming you do your own developing.  Since you can buy a medium format film camera for $300 and digital medium format costs $25,000, for medium format there is no plausible level of use at which film is not cheaper. 

I am bemused by the idea that when it comes to Photoshop it is sensible to have ongoing payments but no up-front payment, but when it comes to the camera a high up-front payment and no ongoing payment is much more sensible.

[David H. Hartman]

I am bemused by the idea that when it comes to Photoshop it is sensible to have ongoing payments but no up-front payment, but when it comes to the camera a high up-front payment and no ongoing payment is much more sensible.

I'm not at all bemused by the rent to *never* own Adobe subscription plan. I might go for an open end lease if the terms were favorable.

Dave who has no more to say at this time.

[Erik Lund]

Leica M-D seems to be the one you describe...

Exactly my thoughts as well,,,

[Les Olson]

Exactly my thoughts as well,,,

The M-D matches the design brief in that it does not have things that are not strictly necessary to take pictures, but what it has is the best (unless you think that lenses wider than 28mm or longer than 135mm are necessary). 

But people who want an FM-D don't have $6000 (body only) in mind.  The FM2 cost $364 at introduction in 1982, and the FM3 was $820 in 2001 - equivalent to $950 and $1150 today, so both were cheaper than a D7500.  The price is important: there is an element of wabi sabi aesthetic in the FM-D - a strong element in using film - and Leica prices do not fit.

[Roland Vink]

I don't have to send my slide film hundreds of miles (maybe thousands today) and wait a week or so to get the results.

Where is the sense of anticipation? The nice surprise at seeing holiday pictures for the first time, maybe weeks or months after they were taken. It was always cool to finally get the slides back and have a little show, to see how they turned out. Sometimes digital is too instant, you get a better appreciation of the picture when there is a bit of space between shooting and viewing...

[OCD]

Well, shoot.  My intent was not to create an argument between digital and film.  Apples and Oranges.  The idea is that a RAW only camera would be like a film camera in the regard that the capturing of the image and the processing of the image are completely separated.  When I shoot JPEG I am capturing the image and processing the image at the same time, which for me is too many variables to keep track of (what can I say?  this may have zero impact on others, probably does, heh), and so in that sense shooting RAW is liberating.  The idea of a basic full frame RAW only camera where the only features are exposure, metering, and focus system sounds liberating to me.  I'll have a LCD screen too and wi-fi/bluetooth while I'm at it, lol.  But I think this is the same thinking Frank already had in mind with his FM-D concept, which I think would be cool...but like David said, will never happen.   Just a musing...nothing more. 

Back to reality.

[David H. Hartman]

Where is the sense of anticipation?

I don't know where I put it. There are many things I can't find these days.

I shot B&W metered with a Pentax Digital  Spotmeter  with confidence. I used a simplified Zone System. I also shot Kodachrome with confidence. I used Nikon's classic center-weighted metering. I looked at the scene.  The scale was too long. I bracketed. The middle exposure was best. The shadows were hopelessly black. I was confident the shots where headed for the dust bin before I tripped the shutter  and I was right, damn it. The B&W had the DR I craved. The Kodachrome gave me the greens of summer but only if I was wise and use a bit of rstaint.

No, I'll never shoot color/colour film again.

Dave who owns nine Nikon film SLR(s) and only needs three.

Please send FREE time! (tm)

[David H. Hartman]

OCD,

The closest you're likely come to what you want is a Nikon Df. Set it to shoot NEF only, turn off image review and use a bit if restraint. That's close isn't it?

Best,

Dave

Restraint? Don't cheat and turn on image review. 

[pluton]

In my opinion, the Df was an attempt at an FM-D, except they didn't have the electronics miniaturized to the scale that would have allowed a true FM-sized body.  Assuming that the ongoing size-shrinking of microprocessors continues, a real FM-sized DSLR may be possible in a few years.  They could do it now as mirrorless.  Maybe someday we'll have a choice of either, both at FM size.

[David H. Hartman]

+1

[Roland Vink]

In my opinion, the Df was an attempt at an FM-D, except they didn't have the electronics miniaturized to the scale that would have allowed a true FM-sized body.  Assuming that the ongoing size-shrinking of microprocessors continues, a real FM-sized DSLR may be possible in a few years.  They could do it now as mirrorless.  Maybe someday we'll have a choice of either, both at FM size.

The Df is thicker than the old film cameras because it has the rear LCD behind the sensor. The LCD could probably be made thinner today, but it will never be as slim as the FM. Without the LCD, you would only have the sensor, which is about the same depth as a sheet of film and the film pressure plate, so it would be possible to make a DSLR the size of the FM.

Removing the built-in screw-drive AF motor would reduce the size/weight further. I was a little surprised the Df had it - support for AFS makes sense since takes no space in the camera (apart from requiring a bigger battery) and would make it compatible with the latest lenses. I half expected it to not support screw-drive AF since it seemed to be designed for manual focus, and screw-drive AF lenses are not so common these days. It seems the Df was instead designed for compatibility with as many lenses as possible.

A camera without an AF motor and no LCD would be the size of the D5300 with the rear LCD removed ... how about a camera with a detachable LCD, so instead of swivelling it around like the D5300 you could unplug it completely (with more traditional controls of course...)

[David H. Hartman]

Removing the built-in screw-drive AF motor would reduce the size/weight further. I was a little surprised the Df had it...

In the interest of a smaller high quality dSLR I'd ditch the screw driver system. Most of my AF lenses are AF/AF-D but I  wouldn't complain.

The rear LCD surely adds thickness but close in size should be acceptable. Again I'd like a digital Nikon F3/F3HP. I think it's possible today. Again I don't think it will happen.

I carry a Nikon D800 with me most of the time. I usually don't have time to use it. Frank makes a point: the D850 is very useable but there is one fly in the ointment. The D850 should have easily interchangeable focus screens including K, E and B types suitable for fast lenses.

The D2H had interchangeable focus screens and reasonablely descent ones.  Why not the D850:and others?

Dave