| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
alaios
Joined: 24 Jan 2014
Posts: 724
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:39 am Post subject: |
 |
|
alaios wrote:
very very good information and thanks for sharing... I might be a new one in the near future.. It looks tempting the feeling of a clean viewfinder.. I would try clean my minolta too and see what I get...
Regards
Alex |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DConvert
Joined: 12 Jun 2010
Posts: 921
Location: Essex UK
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DConvert wrote:
Personally I can't see the apeal of a new film camera.
Recent models are so flimsy compared to older models, without offering any noticable advantages.
With Digital cameras there's generally an improved sensor and perhaps some improved processing...
However I suspect the market for film cameras would be too small for a manufacturer to even add in improved metering/autofocus systems that they've developed for their digital range.
Then there's the problem of tin whiskers which tend to affect newer solder conections (since lead solder was banned) so the electronics in a new model could easily die in less than ten years.
As it happens the viewfinders in my film SLRs have generally a cleaner look than my digital ones, despite being at least 10 years older. Perhaps they are better looked after, used less, or just brighter due to the larger format.
If I had money to throw at a film camera I'd certainly rather get one of the better older models (a Pentax LX perhaps) and have it given a quality CLA service. It would almost certainly out last any current model! The acessories for these models may not be available new but they generally come up on the used market often enough, and in 5 years time accessories for current film cameras will probably be scarce. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Posts: 9096
Location: Houston, Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
Typically, the only vulnerable area I find in film cameras is the meter. This component seems to fail quicker than others. But there are folks out there who now specialize on fixing dead meters on certain popular older models, so even the meter issue can often be put to rest. Quality film cameras that were built back in the last century will probably last well into this century before wearing out, and even so, it will probably be some small component that has failed and which, with a bit of effort, could be replaced, thus rendering the camera back into service.
The biggest problem I see is losing the knowledge base. Face it, most of the people who know how to fix the old, mechanical cameras and shutters (for the large format folks) are also old, many well past retirement age. When these folks leave us, then what? Some of the wiser ones have documented their experiences, but too many others have not.
And of course, there's the issue with film. As the user base shrinks, it becomes more and more difficult for film companies to produce a product and make enough of a profit to stay in business. When the last one goes, then what? I hope that day is very far in the future.
_________________
Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kansalliskala
Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Posts: 5039
Location: Southern Finland countryside
Expire: 2016-12-30
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kansalliskala wrote:
| philslizzy wrote: |
| Analogue cameras existed sometime between film and digital and are not available any more. They were otherwise known as still video cameras - like this Nikon. |
how did they get the picture out of the camera?
_________________
MF: Kodak DCS SLR/c; Samsung NX10; OM-10; Canon T50
Zuiko 28/3.5, Distagon 35/2.8; Yashica ML 50/2;
Zuiko 50/1.4; S-M-C 120/2.8; Zuiko 135/3.5; 200/5;
Tamron AD1 135/2.8, Soligor 180/3.5; Tamron AD1 300/5.6
Tamron zooms: 01A, Z-210
Yashicaflex C; Київ 4 + Юпитер 8, 11; Polaroid 100; Olympus XA; Yashica T3
Museum stuff: Certo-Phot; Tele-Edixon 135; Polaris 90-190; Asahi Bellows; Ixus IIs
Projects: Agfa Isolette III (no shutter), Canon AE-1D (no sensor),
Nikon D80 (dead), The "Peace Camera"
AF: Canon, Tokina, Sigma Video: JVC GZ-MG275E |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
philslizzy
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 4744
Location: Cheshire, England
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2014 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
philslizzy wrote:
| kansalliskala wrote: |
| philslizzy wrote: |
| Analogue cameras existed sometime between film and digital and are not available any more. They were otherwise known as still video cameras - like this Nikon. |
how did they get the picture out of the camera? |
It used a special floppy disk (I'm not sure if it was removable from this model) that recorded the image as an analogue signal recorded line at a time. You viewed it through a TV and if you wanted a print, you used a video capture printer. The printer could capture images as they were streamed into it via a video camera (or this Nikon) They were compatible with 625 or 525 line tv signals. The printers used special paper and had cartridges containing ribbons of heat sensitive dye which made up the image one colour at a time.
Images could be stored on videotape for use later use and the floppy disc re-used.
This was quite an advanced camera in its day, the ones I used to sell didn't have internal storage, you caught the image on a video recorder and the print was the only permanent record that you had,
I used to sell this type of camera in the 90's. Quite a lot of expensive hardware was needed. Technically they were very advanced but the image quality was poor.
These were true analogue cameras. Film is not the opposite to Digital, analogue is the opposite. Film is not analogue.
_________________
Hero in the 'messin-with-cameras-for-the-hell-of-it department'. Official. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duckrider
Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Posts: 437
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2014 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
duckrider wrote:
Hey hoh; Your'e right!
There was this Sony Mavica, the first analogue camera!
I'd have the translation leak: There are THREE types of cameras at all: film-, plate- and chemical process based since Talbot's times, analogue as Mavica & Nikon QV C 1000 and digital since Steve Sasson's first real digital camera!
In an uncorrect manner we use "analogue" today for film- chemical based process. That's not correct at all:
Silverhalogenide crystals are exposed = 1 or not not = 0, that's digital from the beginning of photography on...
_________________
T*homas
(from the origin land of Zeiss, an obligation  )
Zeiss ZF 3.5/18, 2.8/25, 2.0/35, 2/50macro, 1.4/50, 1.4/85, 2/100macro
Nikon Df, F2AS, F2A, F3/T, FM
ALPA 11Si, Angulon 2,8/35 ; Xenar 1,9/50 ; Tele-Tessar 4/200
Leica R3 SAFARI Safari Lenses 2.8/28 ; 2/50 ; 4/180
Rolleiflex SL 350 , Zeiss 2,8/16 ; 4/18 ; 2,8/25 ; 2,8/35 ; 1,4/35 ; 1,8/50 ; 2,8/85 ; 1,4/85 ; 4/135 ; 4/200
Leica M9-P, Leica M4-2, Tri-Elmar "Wate", Distagon 2,8/21, Biogon 2,8/28, Biogon 2/35, Planar 2/50, Tessar 4/85, M-Elmar 50mm, Summicron 90
Sony alpha 7r & adapters for all lenses above
Last edited by duckrider on Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:17 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PWhite214
Joined: 19 Apr 2014
Posts: 230
Location: Houston, Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2014 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PWhite214 wrote:
I have a Sony Mavica camera with a several boxes of 3.5" 1.2K floppy disks. I need to dig it out to see if it still works. There is a USB floppy drive, somewhere. As I remember, I used that camera in March 2012 visiting New Your City with my daughter and the High School Choir. I also took the Pentax K-1000. I have no idea where those photos might be.
Phil |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DConvert
Joined: 12 Jun 2010
Posts: 921
Location: Essex UK
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2014 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
DConvert wrote:
| duckrider wrote: |
In an uncorrect manner we use "analogue" today for film- chemical based process. That's not correct at all:
Silverhalogenide crystals are exposed = 1 or not not = 0, that's digital from the beginning of photography on...
|
Each silver atom in the silver halide can react to light giving over 10^20 shades of grey for each gram or silver hailde.
The crystals are quite large in faster film (easily visible) and can very definitely have multiple shades of grey!
I rather think thats closer to analogue than acheivable via video recording! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kansalliskala
Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Posts: 5039
Location: Southern Finland countryside
Expire: 2016-12-30
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2014 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
kansalliskala wrote:
does a human being see digitally or analogically? 
_________________
MF: Kodak DCS SLR/c; Samsung NX10; OM-10; Canon T50
Zuiko 28/3.5, Distagon 35/2.8; Yashica ML 50/2;
Zuiko 50/1.4; S-M-C 120/2.8; Zuiko 135/3.5; 200/5;
Tamron AD1 135/2.8, Soligor 180/3.5; Tamron AD1 300/5.6
Tamron zooms: 01A, Z-210
Yashicaflex C; Київ 4 + Юпитер 8, 11; Polaroid 100; Olympus XA; Yashica T3
Museum stuff: Certo-Phot; Tele-Edixon 135; Polaris 90-190; Asahi Bellows; Ixus IIs
Projects: Agfa Isolette III (no shutter), Canon AE-1D (no sensor),
Nikon D80 (dead), The "Peace Camera"
AF: Canon, Tokina, Sigma Video: JVC GZ-MG275E |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
