Hi,

Just to say, the last poster is correct, digital is used by magazines and other reproduction houses because it suits their workflow and is more convenient.

..G....you are correct that the superior prints given by Cibachrome (and other similar processes) are not cheap and you do need a true professional printer, not any d&p lab or amateur lab and a professional printers time does not come cheap, but then should it? the best is not usually cheap.

If the 'earth from the air' touring exhibition does the rounds again, do check it out, it truly shows the ability of slow 35mm tranny film like no other,

Cheers Steve.

Hi G,

A truly professional printer using Cibachrome or the equivalent CAN produce the best colour photographic prints you will see, far exceeding the quality of prints from any colour neg film. It is just that most prints from transparencies are produced by inexperienced printers using poor methods and poor materials, quite often with inter-negs, which just produce rubbish results (as you may expect)

The 'earth from the air' UK touring exhibition used 35mm colour tranny film (Fuji Velvia) and 5 foot by 4 foot prints....they were truly exceptional and proved the point.

I really do not understand why so many people are unaware of the print quality available from transparencies, the processes involved have been widely available and promoted for years, just ask any Ilford rep.

Cheers Steve.

Hi,

I think this just shows how many people just do not know what they are doing. So many of these alleged 'testers' would not be let anywhere near a professional photo studio..ever. There are too many idiots and incompetants putting absolute rubbish on the internet and yet gullible and less experienced amateur photographers are being suckered into believing all sorts of nonsense.

You need to know all the details of every step taken to produce the final comparison images and G has spotted the weak link in this particular chain. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link!!!

Even well regarded testers like the Leica guy Erwin Puts show decided changes of mind and inconsistency when you read the tests done in different publications....

Cheers all....shoot slow trany film...still murders digital.

Hi all...

I have seen a lot of these so called comparisons and this on the face of it may be interesting...however it is just futile and a waste of time...

Firstly the film has been scanned...so is in effect now a digital image itself, so hardly a comparison of analogue technology V digital, so the whole thing becomes pointless straight away. Film was never meant to be scanned.

Secondly, making any worthwhile comparisons on a PC monitor is also futile since thay are basically rubbish in terms of image quality.

But worst of all....why does virtually everyone just judge so called 'quality' just on damn sharpness???....there are so many more aspects of quality in a photographic image, contrast, micro-contrast, colour reproduction etc etc

The only true way to judge is have a TOTALLY analogue print (ie darkroom produced) against a totally digital print and view them side by side under true daylight.

Cheers from Grumpy...

Hi,

"Obviously I must be missing something here....

If the pentax 'K' mount was large enough for the full 35mm frame, and it was, then why would it be too small for a digital sensor the same size....??"

The digital sensors give problems that film does not. Sensors have depth; the individual sensors are in little pits, whereas film effectively has no depth, so when light rays exiting the rear of the lens strike the edges of digital sensors at an oblique angle you get light fall-off (vignetting) or edge darkening. It does exist with film, but is far worse with digital sensors and most pronounced with wide angle lenses.

The smaller the lens mount of a camera system you have gives the camera maker more problems in getting around this problem. I think you will find, this is why it has taken Nikon so long to release their full frame camera.

cheers Steve.

Hi,

"Will you be able to tell what are the problems with the current throat size if used on full frame? I'm a bit confused"

I think various people have tried to say that the Pentax K mount is simply too small to accomodate a successful installation of a full frame digital sensor and I was simply pointing out that Contax/Kyocera have already proved that the assumption is wrong. I believe the problems with the Contax N digital were not actually anything to do with the restrictions of the size of the mount at all, but issues with the battery power consumption and other related issues, some to do with quality issues of the sensor itself. Also technology has moved on greatly since that camera was introduced.

cheers Steve.

Hi,

"I see no reason for this debate about the physical size of the sensor"

Just to say that many thousands of people disagree with this point of view. That is why Canon sell so many full frame cameras. They have distinct advantages over smaller sensor cameras (as well as some downsides)

Not only from an image quality point of view, which is well documented (and why so many 5D's are sold) but also because of other reasons..from my own point of view, I want to use ultra wide prime lenses and really the only option here is a full frame camera. I do not want zooms, which is what I am lumbered with if I have an APS sensor camera.

The other consideration which is not so often mentioned is the viewfinder. I really hate the small poky viewfinders of smaller formats. I want a larger viewfinder and the only way to do this properly is increase the format size...hence full frame.

I would also mention that a full frame DSLR has already been made with the same throat size as the Pentax K mount. This was the Contax N digital...and over time the Contax users have overcome it's problems and produced brilliant images from it.

cheers Steve.

Hi,

Re Grey imports and Pentax UK honouring the warranty:

My understanding is that any grey or unofficial import will not have any warranty that is valid in the UK and so Pentax UK would be under no legal obligation of any sort to touch any grey imports..hence the risk in buying grey imports...as with most 'cheap' deals, something usually has to give somewhere.

Cheers Steve.

Hi all,

If you really do have the lenses which give you the results you need/want then who cares a fig If they are a good investment or not?

The real reason there are two, (or three sensor 'divides' If you also include four thirds), is because they both have clear down sides of one sort or another. There is still technical problems with both and until someone makes one or the other 'without inherent' down sides then the two way split will continue.

Cheers....grumpy Steve.

Hi,

I would be very wary of all backpacks, they look great and are good to 'wear', however I had a supposed good quality Tamrac one. The first time I used it in rain, was a 5 minute shower in Wales....all the gear in the top of the backpack was literally covered in water..the zips at the top had allowed water penetration very badly. Suggest you ask any sellers to guarantee WATERPROOF not weather or shower RESISTANT.

I now use a relatively unknown to the UK shoulder bag from the USA by Domke.

Cheers Steve (UK)