The Official Head-Case Photography Thread.

[Iron_Dreamer]

The S90/95 is about the best size/image-quality compromise out there that I know of for an EDC camera. The bigger "advanced" P&S cameras generally don't add anything but more controls and zoom range, yet get the size into the GF1/NEX5 w/pancake lens range, which offer tremendously better IQ, but are more baggable than pocketable. If you don't mind going with a small bag, those two will offer much better photographic opportunities. But if it's a pocket cam you want, the S90/95 have the market cornered.

[morphsci]

Thanks all. Really looking for pocketable as I have the D200 or D50 when I need flash or more flexibility with lenses. I basically want something I can throw in my pocket or murse and be good to go. Seems like the s95 is more of a consensus than anything other than the JH13 err JH16 ....

[n_maher]

given that i paid out the ass for them, id like to disagree. but you may very well be correct.

You = wrong

The 421a is just a 5998, the only difference that some have found is that the 421a may have been the pick of the litter of 5998s, i.e. less likely to be noisy or microphonic. But from a structural perspective they are built the same as far as I know.

[n_maher]

Thanks all. Really looking for pocketable as I have the D200 or D50 when I need flash or more flexibility with lenses. I basically want something I can throw in my pocket or murse and be good to go. Seems like the s95 is more of a consensus than anything other than the JH13 err JH16 ....

You might check with Asr to see if he still has his which I think was listed FS here last week (or so).

[crappyjones123]

You = wrong

The 421a is just a 5998, the only difference that some have found is that the 421a may have been the pick of the litter of 5998s, i.e. less likely to be noisy or microphonic. But from a structural perspective they are built the same as far as I know.

it is probably my brain trying to justify the cost of the tube but they sound nicer than the tung sol 5998 i have heard. no comment on the highs but mids and bass are moar, dare i say, liquidy. the tungsol sounds pale.

[Asr]

You might check with Asr to see if he still has his which I think was listed FS here last week (or so).

Still have it. I'm indeed looking to sell my S90, if you want it Jim.

The recent discussion is of interest to me as I'm looking for a bigger camera (but not too big), one with physical buttons to change WB, ISO, aperture, etc. The menu-based access of the S90 slows me down too much and I decided I couldn't put up with it anymore.

[crappyjones123]

got a little carried away with lightroom. guess i really want to watch tron...

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

the original.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Salt Peanuts]

^ Nice. I'd try to get the green spot out as it's to distracting, IMO.

[Iron_Dreamer]

The recent discussion is of interest to me as I'm looking for a bigger camera (but not too big), one with physical buttons to change WB, ISO, aperture, etc. The menu-based access of the S90 slows me down too much and I decided I couldn't put up with it anymore.

Well, you have options in the G11/G12, LX3/LX5, Samsung TL500 and Nikon P7000. The Samsung and two Canons keep the same sensor as the S90/95. The Samsung retains and actually improves the S90's f/2.0 wide-angle aperture to f/1.8, and has a movable screen like the G12 (AMOLED to boot). The Nikon has a slower, but longer lens than the others, and AF speed was pretty impressive for a compact when I tried it in a store. The Panasonics have their cool multi-aspect-ratio sensor, and like the Samsung have a fast 24mm equivalent lens, although all three take a traditional lens cap rather than an automatic one as a result.

Personally, I'd be tempted by the optics of the Samsung, but the zoom range is a bit limited. Depending on what you use your compact for, that might not matter much.

[Jon L]

Does anyone still shoot film? I'm not sure exactly why, but I bid and won Canon EOS-3 with power grip and am scrambling to learn quickly about film choices (portrait, general-purpose, vs. nature) and battery choices. Unfortunately, these parts (factory grip, battery for power grip) are not exactly cheap, and apparently there is no such thing as a good *rechargeable* 2CR5 Li battery.

Went with Canon in order to use my Canon lenses bought for DSLR.

Then there's the whole issue of where to develop, scan, and make hard prints...

[Salt Peanuts]

Paging Dr. Knuckles, paging Dr. Knuckles.

Incidentally, that's the same camera my wife used for a while (though she hadn't touched it in years when we recently sold it on eBay).

[Knuckledragger]

Hi there.

Here are the major points:

1. In skilled hands, film yields better results than digital in every situation except for extreme low light levels.

2. Fuji makes the best (color) film stock. In fact, they are the last company standing who are serious about film.

3. Fuji's slide film is better than their print film.

4. The best Fuji slide film is the mighty Velvia 50.

5. Velvia 50 is not an good learning tool. It's ISO 50 and very unforgiving about under- or over-exposure. It has narrow "shoulders."

6. It is essential to find a good lab to develop your slide film. Most places don't do it, and even fewer do it right.

7. For black and white, Kodak Tri-X is the way to go.

8. You will either need to learn to develop and print B&W film yourself, for find a specialist lab to do it for you.

9. Developing and printing B&W film is an art, not a science.

10. Whatever film stock you go with, you will eventually want to invest in a good film scanner. Very few places to make decent film scans, and those that do charge plenty.

11. Kodak Gold is worst film stock in the history of humanity. Never use it, no matter how cheap it is.

[Iron_Dreamer]

I haven't shot much film, but when I have it has been Velvia 50. And exactly as Knucks described, it is both very sensitive to exposure and damn wonderful (at least for nature stuff) when properly exposed.

[Jon L]

11. Kodak Gold is worst film stock in the history of humanity. Never use it, no matter how cheap it is.

Thanks for the pointers. It's funny you say that about Kodak Gold since I just read a bunch of people saying it's great (Kodak Gold 200, 400).

I've also heard Velvia is too warm/orange for skin tones, and my needs are mostly people shots with occasional nature shots, so I need to order some film that's good with skin tones (prefer slightly warm but vivid colors) but doesn't Suck with landscapes.. Less pricey would be a bonus.

[jinp6301]

6. It is essential to find a good lab to develop your slide film. Most places don't do it, and even fewer do it right.

what do you think of slide film mailers to fuji? that's what ive been using mostly for velvia

[Asr]

Thx for the info Pete, don't know what I'd do withot you! I ordered a Lumix G2 recently but canceled the order after I found out abot the LX5 which looks tempting. Will chk out the tohers tho.

[Knuckledragger]

what do you think of slide film mailers to fuji? that's what ive been using mostly for velvia

I have not used them, as there is a decent lab near me. That said, I know several photographers who use mail order service to have their slide film developed and have had great sucess.

Thanks for the pointers. It's funny you say that about Kodak Gold since I just read a bunch of people saying it's great (Kodak Gold 200, 400).

To put it delicately, these people are smoking the minty fresh crack. The Kodak Gold series has the worst color I have ever seen for a modern print film.

I've also heard Velvia is too warm/orange for skin tones, and my needs are mostly people shots with occasional nature shots, so I need to order some film that's good with skin tones (prefer slightly warm but vivid colors) but doesn't Suck with landscapes.. Less pricey would be a bonus.

Quite the opposite is true. Velvia 50 (and its two cousins, 100 and 100F) are quite a cool film, and tuned for daylight. Skin tones are quite pale with it. It is true, V50 is not the best for portrait photography unless one is looking for a specific artistic look or is really good with the use of warming filters. I have not shot many other slide films besides V50. I have made use of Fuji's Sensia line (particularly the ISO 200 iteration) and liked it.

As for price, it's all relative. A 36 roll of Velvia 50 is $12-13 around here. Superia is even more expensive ($15+). Processing fees for slide film is more expensive than print film as well. Kodak does make some decent color print films, like the Ultra Color 100UC, but they're at least $10 for 36 exposures. The moral here is that film is expensive. 35mm is still a bargain compared to what medium and large format photographers must cough up. My friend Eddy pays $2 per frame for Tri-X in 4x5" sheets. His friend shoots 8x10" and pays $4-5 per frame for the cheapest film he can buy. He said Velvia (the now-discontinued original, not the new Velvia 50) was $18 for one 8x10" sheet, and twice that to have it developed.

The advantages of film is that the bodies are cheap on the used market, don't get obsolete, and of course when it comes out right, film beats digital hands down for image quality.

Lastly, one of the great joys of slide film is cross processing it. As it turns out, Fuji slide film stock is very hearty and holds up well to rigors of cross processing. This is especially true for Velvia 50.

[Jon L]

I The Kodak Gold series has the worst color I have ever seen for a modern print film.

Quite the opposite is true. Velvia 50 (and its two cousins, 100 and 100F) are quite a cool film, and tuned for daylight. Skin tones are quite pale with it. It is true, V50 is not the best for portrait photography unless one is looking for a specific artistic look or is really good with the use of warming filters. I have not shot many other slide films besides V50. I have made use of Fuji's Sensia line (particularly the ISO 200 iteration) and liked it.

You are talking about "gold" or "royal gold (now called High definision)" or both?

I'm quite surprised you say that about Velvia 50, since I must have read dozens of people say the skin turns reddish. Guess I'll have to try some.

This still leaves me with no choice for a good general purpose print film, mostly people shots (I don't enjoy overly soft rendering, though), with occasional nature/landscape... Going to order soon, possibly Kodak Portra 160 VC, Fuji Reala 100, Fuji Superia 400 (for indoors).

[Knuckledragger]

I will say that my use of Velvia 50 with human subjects is pretty limited. At nearly $3/frame when all is said and done, I don't shoot it casually. What I suspect is that if people are using light sources besides daylight, it's quite possible that Velvia 50 renders skin tones in a reddish manner. I really like black & white film for portraiture. Kodak BW400CN works in a pinch, and can be developed anywhere. It is no substitute for Tri-X, however.

[VPI]

I find all of this discussion of films very interesting as I never got the chance to get involved with film photography. I guess if I did I would have to hire Knuckles to be my sensei as he seems to have this down.

I picked up another copy of the Sigma 85 f1.4 to try out, hopefully it is better than my first copy.

[Jon L]

I picked up another copy of the Sigma 85 f1.4 to try out, hopefully it is better than my first copy.

I just tried out Sigma 50 F1.4, and it was pretty nice, but I couldn't get over how much bigger and heavier it was over my Canon 50mm F1.4. I've also been reading all these stories about Sigma quality control issues, so I just picked up a Canon 85mm F1.8, which will go rather nicely with my new film camera for portraits

[VPI]

Yeah I am mostly just trying out the Sigma to see if I can live with it instead of spending double for the Canon 85 f1.2. I have heard good things about the Canon 85 f1.8 but have never actually tried one out.

[laxx]

I want to sell my 85 1.8 to get a 100 2.8 macro. You can try mine if you'd like. =]

[Jon L]

Yeah I am mostly just trying out the Sigma to see if I can live with it instead of spending double for the Canon 85 f1.2. I have heard good things about the Canon 85 f1.8 but have never actually tried one out.

I sure hope I won't be talking about getting a $2000 L prime a couple years from now

I must say though that Sigma and Tokina are doing some serious work recently, with me personally feeling better about Tokina's QC. I just wish they would make some Canon lenses faster than F2.8.. For now, I'm sticking with Canon 35, 50, and 85 mm primes with Tokina 11-16 wide angle. I obviously still need a telephoto zoom, and I pray for Canon 70-200 mm F2.8 L but will likely end up with 70-200 F4 L

[Jon L]

Good lord, that Sigma 85 mm with the hood extension is on the *large* side..