Digital camara

Rick Denney · Post by **Rick Denney** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:51 am

MartyNeilan wrote:Ditto what Chuck said. If the lense is the size of your fingernail, it is probably a good one to avoid - no electronics can compensate for that. The mid to high level Kodaks have some pretty good optics in them.

Marty, beware of generalizations based on something like lens size. Digital point-n-shoots usually have a sensor about 5x8mm (or smaller), which means the focal length of a "normal" lens is about 9.5mm. Even a fast 10mm lens is going to be the size of a fingernail. Also, a small lens means that it isn't that fast in terms of its maximum aperture, and slower lenses usually provide more sharpness for the dollar.

To Chuck: Most point-n-shoot lenses from name brands are pretty much as good as the sensors allow them to be. It doesn't take much of a lens to explore the limits of a 5x8 sensor, however high the pixel density.

To MA: Okay, I just removed all I typed because I noticed you already made a choice. And you made a good choice for your purposes.

Rick "observing that the amount of light falling on each pixel has more to do with the quality of the outcome than the number of pixels" Denney

Rick Denney · Post by **Rick Denney** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:13 am

ThomasDodd wrote:All the little box shapes bug me. I'd love to get something with changable lenses, Pentax *ist D (since I have Petax lenses), Canon EOS, or Nikon D50. Better still a medium format with digital back! LIke the 645 AFD with ZD back.
A digital back for my C330, twin reflex would be nice as well.

35mm is good for 8x12" with good technique. After that, the limited information in the negative starts to show, but limiting it to 4x5 seems a little extreme. The digicams with 24x36 sensors (VERY expensive though Canon's 5D is driving down the price) will bump that up to about 11x17. My Canon 10D will make fine 8x10's that I would put on a par with the best I could produce using 35mm.

Hold out for the Pentax 645 Digital, if you want a medium format digital camera. At a projected price of $7500, it is thousands cheaper than the Mamiya. And the lenses are better and cheaper than the Mamiya lenses. The 18MP sensor is made by Kodak and is a usefully large 36x43 format.

I used C-series Mamiya TLR's for commercial work for years, but have finally retired them because of unrepairable faults. I now use Pentax 645's.

I would LOVE to have a large digital sensor device for my view camera, something in the range of 50x80mm. I think that's dreaming only a little less (especially considering the requirement for lottery winnings) than dreaming for a digital back for the C330.

I just got back a set of proofs from a family portrait session where I used both the 10D and the Pentax 645 with the studio lights. Even with 4x5 proofs, the larger format glows in the dark compared to similarly sized prints from the Canon. Format is still king.

Rick "who'll need those lottery winnings for the Pentax digital camera, too" Denney

Chuck(G) · Post by **Chuck(G)** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 3:20 am

...well, if you're after a medium format camera, there's always this:

http://www.foundphotography.com/PhotoTh ... mat_p.html

ThomasDodd · Post by **ThomasDodd** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:30 am

Rick Denney wrote:
ThomasDodd wrote:All the little box shapes bug me. I'd love to get something with changable lenses, Pentax *ist D (since I have Petax lenses), Canon EOS, or Nikon D50. Better still a medium format with digital back! LIke the 645 AFD with ZD back.
A digital back for my C330, twin reflex would be nice as well.
35mm is good for 8x12" with good technique. After that, the limited information in the negative starts to show, but limiting it to 4x5 seems a little extreme.

Never seen an 8x10print from a 35mm that I liked. My point was more tha an 800x600 sensor will give 4x5 prints and that's what most people endup doing with 35mm. (1hr shops tend to only do 4x6 prints)

1600x1200 will print 8x10 about as well as 35mm does. Remembe most beope re using ASA 400 film in thier 35mm cameras, or faster. Sure get a good ASA100, and you can do 8x10 portraits with a 35mm camera. ASA200 and I'll do 5x7 prints, but not 8x10.

I used C-series Mamiya TLR's for commercial work for years, but have finally retired them because of unrepairable faults. I now use Pentax 645's.

Got any klenses you might wish to sell cheap? The one I have has a parallax error, and I don't remeber how Dad set it up to work. He had tape on the screen to recenter the view. Oh, and it a studio portrait lens.

I would LOVE to have a large digital sensor device for my view camera, something in the range of 50x80mm. I think that's dreaming only a little less (especially considering the requirement for lottery winnings) than dreaming for a digital back for the C330.

Well, they made Poloroid backs for theC series:). My best be would be play with an old digi-cam with a decent sensor, but a broken lens. Make my on back. Probably would be easier for the 645 though.

I just got back a set of proofs from a family portrait session where I used both the 10D and the Pentax 645 with the studio lights. Even with 4x5 proofs, the larger format glows in the dark compared to similarly sized prints from the Canon. Format is still king.

I'll say. That's why I kept the C330. Mom sold the Rolliflex (120/220 TLR, looked like the C330!) though.

If I had a decent lab near by I'd get a lot more use for the C330. Currently I have to order film online, and send it out for processing/proofs, then again for prints. No one here can handle it. I really miss 11x14 prints too. I need lights, so I can do some portraits, and get some 16x20 prints.