• The development of any software program, including, but not limited to, training a machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI) system, is prohibited using the contents and materials on this website.

Random Thoughts... [Photographic Edition]

I can't comment on most of these cameras, but from my experience with the D7000/Z9 I can say that an FTZ II on any Z camera is unlikely to be worse than the same lens on a Nikon DSLR. I had some amazing results with my 200-500mm FX and still use my 18-300mm FX, the only noticeable issue is they keep the lens 'awake' more than a DSLR, so may cause premature wear on the VR system.
 
First of all, I apologize for a late reply, I've been both ill and busy for the past couple of days.

Redliner said:
Yeah, I recently learned about the Ricoh GR cameras and they really seem interesting as a "no-frills, just got out and shoot" kind of camera.
I am quite pleased to see more cameras like that coming out, like the Fujifilm X1000VI, even if they're a bit on the expensive side (let's not mention the Leica Q3).
Click to expand...
I concur. But I wish there were slightly cheaper alternatives, even if I understand why they hold their value so well. Check out prices of used GRs on mpb.com or some similar site, and you'll see that they are barely, if at all, cheaper than new ones. I mean, there aren't too many large-sensor cameras with a good lens and compact size.

All of that being said, I can't stop dreaming about a GR, a Fujifilm X70 or X100 series, a Leica X1/X2, or even a Nikon Coolpix A (which was, according to my research, sold basically nowhere, as I can't find almost any for sale). Yeah, I know there's Sigma's compact cameras, but I've heard Foveon takes skill and patience. So far the best alternative I have to those APS-C sized compact cameras that I lust after is my Olympus Mju I (now I even have two, heh), but that's a film camera with automatic exposure, and as such, it's a very different experience.

Matt2000 said:
I can't comment on most of these cameras, but from my experience with the D7000/Z9 I can say that an FTZ II on any Z camera is unlikely to be worse than the same lens on a Nikon DSLR. I had some amazing results with my 200-500mm FX and still use my 18-300mm FX, the only noticeable issue is they keep the lens 'awake' more than a DSLR, so may cause premature wear on the VR system.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the input. Maybe the FTZ adapter that my friend bought is faulty, or it could be that she's expecting too much from it. Either way, I'm not discarding the FTZ route just yet. But I am starting to think the Z6 is worth the extra money, even if the XQD cards are kinda putting me off; they are formidably expensive, and so are the readers.
 
Tram said:
Thanks for the input. Maybe the FTZ adapter that my friend bought is faulty, or it could be that she's expecting too much from it. Either way, I'm not discarding the FTZ route just yet. But I am starting to think the Z6 is worth the extra money, even if the XQD cards are kinda putting me off; they are formidably expensive, and so are the readers.
Click to expand...

CFExpress B cards have come way down in price, you can get a 512GB Sandisk Pro from BH for $140 and it's a very solid card, works great in my D850. A CFE reader on Amazon is $20.
 
Well, in Europe, a CFExpress B card is easily double the price (unless you're talking about some sort of a deal, such as Black Friday), and so are the readers. Yes, those are prices with VAT included, but still, it goes on to show the price difference between the US and EU.

The intention of this post is not to say that we in Europe have it (necessarily) worse, but to show that comparing prices between the US and EU can be tricky.
 
B&H ships to Croatia, with shipping/duties/taxes it's 190EUR for the 512GB. That's only ~40% more than the USD price and still a decent deal compared to your Amazon link.

15EUR for a reader is reasonable. Don't give up on it quite yet!
 
Last edited:
Turns out that slide film that has been expired for over 20 years isn't great. Who knew?
Those are a few of the 32 that came out of 36.
17.jpg
27.jpg
28.jpg
23_01.jpg


With that said, I bet some fiddling in an image editor should give me decent images.
 
Mildly better than a Canon Prima Zoom I found at a flea market. Found the thing with a roll of some Kodak 200 ASA film loaded in it (Gold, IIRC). It said '1' on it frame counter, so I figured hey, maybe someone bought it, loaded the roll of film into it, and abandoned it for whatever reason. Went to Ljubljana, I think it was precisely 24 shots that I took with it, so my theory seemed just about right. A couple of days later I went to the photo lab, just to see all the photos looked like this:

1722529893898.png


(Vertical pic because I'm on vacation, and this is the only one from that roll that I had on my phone.)

After that, I said 'no more shooting expired film', and about a month or two later, found some rolls of Kodak Max 400 that expired in 2005, and for which I can only guess how they were stored. And I'm still planning to shoot it, even if developing + scanning the film costs like €9 per roll.

For your shots, I'd see if playing around in some photo editor of your choice could save them. If you are willing to take time to play with that, of course.
 
The rolls were free, so I only spent time and 12€ for developing and scanning.
Worth a try.
And yes, I think they're to salvage in Darktable.
 
So I might've bought a Canon EOS 5, sight unseen, overnight from Japan, with a 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM lens. The camera seems to be in pretty good condition, the lens has some moisture and fungi, even if at the first sight it looks almost immaculate.

IMG_5763.jpeg


I put a roll of that Kodak Max 400 that came with the underwater cameras I posted on the previous page in, set the ISO to 100 manually, took some shots (to be honest, I fully expected the photos to turn out like in my previous post, so I went through the roll quite quickly), and was surprised to see that they look okay:

000036350003_2A.jpg


But one thing that I'm noticing now is the black line on the right edge of some of the pictures, and I'm trying to figure out if that's the scanner in the lab I took it to, the camera loading film incorrectly, me not putting the film in the camera correctly, or something worse, like a light leak. Any ideas what that could be?
 
I just traded my Konica Hexar AF for a Mamiya 645 Pro, this thing is a goddamn beast!

I’m still shooting my first roll with it, an expired roll of Ilford XP2 400 ISO. It wasn’t supposed to be expired, but that’s what I get for ordering overnighting it from Amazon the night before I get the camera.

I’ve just picked up a roll of Kodak Portra 400 and Tri-X 400, we’ll see what it looks like when I finish shooting them :)
View attachment IMG_0508.jpegView attachment IMG_0509.jpeg
 
Heh.
I've been thinking of going medium format as well.
I'll watch your experience closely.
 
Heh.
I've been thinking of going medium format as well.
I'll watch your experience closely.
 
I'm a pretty slow shooter so it'll probably take a few weeks before I finish a roll / get anything back to be honest :D
Although I guess only having 16 shots on a roll will help with that problem.
 
Is there a camera that you can first get a digital preview (to verify it's not crap), that you can then confirm is good and have it recorded to film?
 
While I am inclined to say that this is technically not possible, there is always a low-volume odditty that did what you described.
Also, I don't see the point. If you already have it captured by the sensor, why record it on film? If you want the "film look", just print it after adding the film look in post processing or buy a Fujifilm and use the film emulations. I would if I could afford them, if I am being honest. They look great.
With that said, get an SLR and your preview is in the viewfinder. :p
 
93Flareside said:
Is there a camera that you can first get a digital preview (to verify it's not crap), that you can then confirm is good and have it recorded to film?
Click to expand...

Take a look at this:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8wca_ua0GQ
It's probably not 100% what you envisioned, but it's the closest thing that came to my mind.

Also, I kinda don't get what so special about Fujifilm's film simulations. I get that they look cool (had to Google them actually), I get that the film look is 'hip' at the moment, but isn't that film simulation it a bit cliché, like the Instagram filters? Then again, I shoot RAW, so I guess I'm not the targeted demographics. If I want that film look on digital pictures, I can probably find Lightroom presets online.

Oh, BTW, not being able to see what you get immediately kinda is the magic of shooting film. That anticipation is a good part of the fun!
 
And you just proved my point...
But anyway: the whole point of the simulations is convenience.
It's a fixed-lens camera. Their target demographic wants something simple and easy to use, so I am not surprised they are a huge hit. They are very pleasant to use and the simulations work well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top