A long post with lots of questions.


Old Pentax film shooter has some questions.

Given the following: I've got an LX and a KX and a lot of old K series
lenses. The images are sharp and colorful, by and large. I generally
use a tripod and pay good attention to light; I carry a small Sunpack
for fill flash as needed to balance out natural light. That's how I
learned photography (still have the 4X5 Speed Graphic, in fact), and it
would seem that that's where I'm coming from, as it were.

I got into a Canon system by chance. An Elan 7, 20/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8,
and a 100-400 zoom. So when it was time to try digital, I got a 40D
with a kit lens, and added a 100/2.8 macro. It seems like Canon has a
lot of tech-flash going for it, what with the megapixel count and such.
But the images just don't have the richness that the old Pentax images
have, and that's true of both film (Fuji negative) and digital. When I
look at the Canon images by themselves, they seem fine, but not when in
comparison. Does anyone else see this, or am I seeing things?

It also seems like Canon is plasticky, like the new Pentax offerings.
In both cases, the really good stuff is way too expensive and the more
reasonably priced "consumer" lenses are just... well, humdrum and dull
in comparison. Or is that just my imagination?

But there's more to the story: Not long ago I got a Nikon F from a
camera store that was closing shop, for which I paid $62.00. I was
intrigued, so I came up with an assortment of non-AI lenses, and
eventually an Apollo F with excellent meter/finder and then a very
pretty black F2S. The one thing I found out right away was that those
cameras really are 1) heavy tanks, that 2) feel like what a camera
should be, and that make it easy to do shutter speed, aperture setting,
and focusing all without fumbling or looking (large enough controls,
etc).

And the negs showed real color and the images had some 'pop', if you
like. (Informative: I scan negs with a Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400
first version, using Vuescan as controlling software. The settings
remain the same except for film parameters, all of which is Fuji Superia
100 in any case. Thus I have a standard system for comparison.) The
'look' was a bit different from that of the Pentax, which seemed somehow
'rounder' and less... flashy, I guess.

By comparison, the Canon images seem somehow kind of wan, certainly
lacking the richness of the Pentax products and lacking the snap of the
Nikon negs. Now this is not a hugely obvious difference, but one that
one becomes aware of in the focused and attentive comparisons. It's
quite possible that the Canon lenses I have are comparative 'dogs'.
Don't know. Anyone have some insights here?

Anyway, eventually I got a F3HP/MD4 with a 25-50/4.0 and 50-135/3.5
zoom, and with a 50/1.2 standard lens. I got an 80-200/4.5 and found
that it was too early to have had the Nikon multi-layered coating, so
then got an 80-200/4.0. These lenses do provide some real color
richness, and the F3HP is every bit as much of a joy to use as the LX.

Which has pointed me in the direction of Nikon, specifically the D700.
I have been given to understand that the D700 works quite happily with
all the MF AIS lenses, which are still relatively plentiful and
inexpensive. See, it's not the autofocus I want, it's the freedom from
the limitations of the film cassette cost and processing. I'm quite
happy to focus all by myself, and make use of aperture priority
automation when shooting moving things.

I can use the (AIS) lenses I have and not have to acquire a whole new
system, which means I can shoot film when it matters and digital when it
doesn't with the same optics. If not, what am I missing here?

And the film 'F's have given me to understand that Nikon is about real
solid industrial strength equipment. I gather that the D3(x) is the
same as well, and that the D700 is no featherweight itself. Unlike the
Canon pro-am gear which seems... well, problematic, I guess. It appears
that the biggest inequality is the Canon 5DII when compared to the Nikon
Dx00 (D700 in this case). One breaks much more easily than the other, I
gather. At least that's what is said; any comments?

But there's another issue that concerns me, and that is the contrast
range of the digital media versus the film media. I can pack the
equivalent of 7 zones into a color negative, but apparently the average
(Canon?) sensor can only handle 5 at best. What that means, as we all
know, is that, all too often, choices must be made between shadows and
highlights. I don't like that and have a problem accepting that.
Anyone else?

I'm looking at the D700's 12 megapixel sensor and wondering if that
means the pixels are bigger, and if so, whether that means that they
have a greater range of sensitivity. I may well have this wrong, but it
was my impression that CCD sensors excelled at such sensitivity where
CMOS sensors did not. CCD sensors are vulnerable to bloom to an extent
that CMOS sensors are not, which probably means that CMOS pixels are
easier to pack more closely together, I would think. Have I got that
right?

I think I recall being given to understand that a 12 megapixel camera
could yield images capable of being made into very large prints - poster
or even mural size. Is that true, and if so, why would it not be still
true today? Just what sort of real value does a 20+ megapixel have,
especially in that regard?

I guess the essence of that line of questioning is how megapixel count
compares with pixel sensitivity to contrast range. Comments? Or am I
out in left field with the whole business?

Lots of questions, but then I'm an old fart that's way behind the curve
in all this. I would really appreciate all substantive responses; that
said, responses from trolls ("Idiot!!", and the like) are mildly amusing
the first time, after which they would be summarily ignored.

I think I read here some comment that contained the following sound
bite: The Canonization of Nikon. Anything to that?

Thanks for reading.

Longfellow

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A long post with lots of questions.
    ... which means I can shoot film when it matters and digital when it ... film, and newer autofocus lenses work on the old film cameras too, just ... won't work on the old cameras. ... Because the images are so clean you can ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: PING: ALL YOU FILM LUDDITES !
    ... I can use Nikon lenses ... That Canon 80-1.2 is ... examples that don't involve full size images, ... I've heard mentioned the best test is two people trying to get the best out of the same lens (full frame or cropped film to cropped sensor) with whatever tools are at their disposal. ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)
  • Re: Pentax *ist lens advice
    ... So I just purchased a Pentax *ist DL from Amazon ($100 rebate at the ... purchased and/or have bids on three used 35mm Pentax AF lenses off eBay ... I've heard that the *ist DL takes any Pentax AF-mount lens and can ... I use the same lenses on my DS that I used on film. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: Pentax *ist lens advice
    ... So I just purchased a Pentax *ist DL from Amazon ($100 rebate at the ... purchased and/or have bids on three used 35mm Pentax AF lenses off eBay ... I've heard that the *ist DL takes any Pentax AF-mount lens and can ... I use the same lenses on my DS that I used on film. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: Challenge for Nikon and Canon shooters
    ... lenses are forward compatible with a DSLR at some point. ... After graduation he expects to work digital, but the curriculum starts out film based. ... I'm a Pentax shooter, and have learned to deal with the fact that Pentax is a minor brand with very little after-market/third-party support. ... Nikon F3 was the workhorse photojournalism camera for years. ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)
Loading