rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Chris, I still have an arsenal of similar cameras to what you mention. My photographs are produced equally across the among FX digital, 35mm, 120, and 4x5. All get used nearly equally.
--Bob

richardsaccount

There is a few years old video on You Tube featuring the Leica art photographer Ralph Gibson. One question that was asked, was he going to go digital?. His reply was that he would still be using film.
He said "all we hear is resolution, resolution. What about content?". Of course he is photographing with Leica digital M cameras now.

anotherview Loc: California

Do you have your "snaps" scanned to digitize them for a publisher?

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

I doubt many large format film camera users will agree with that. Especially those who are familiar with 8x10 sheet film and above.

cactuspic Loc: Dallas, TX

The one thing I don’t understand is why some photographers think that their equipment needs govern what other photographers (who have different goals) need. For example, I strive to have my focus stacked macros to have across the room visual impact. But I also want a totally different experience for my viewers when they get very close and see the intricacy of nature’s amazing details. I understand about normal viewing distance and circles of confusion. For my work, I want the detail that would be lost at “normal” viewing distances to emerge when they get closer. The finess of the captured detail increases with higher megapixel.

The trope that I would be better off working on my photographic skills is annoying. It is not based on any review of my work or understanding of how hard I work to improve.

I am not trying to proselytize. If you don’t need it, don’t buy it. But different photographers may have different equipment needs. One size does not fit all. While many Hogs understand this concept, there are a number who think their experience is universal.(edited for typo)

CWGordon

I have had all those cameras mentioned. My first was a pre-WWll Zeiss Ikon 21/4 $3 yard sale camera. My first significant upgrade was to a similar Zeiss camera. It was a bit newer and I had to pay the exorbitant price of $5 for it. It had coatings on the lens. A big upgrade. I sold it a year later for $125, so it was one of only a few that turned out to be a good investment. I worked my way through old Argus, Kodak, and other cameras now forgotten. All took a decent picture. Even my Minox “spy” camera did what it was supposed to do. Along the way, I learned and improved along with my equipment improvements and upgrades. I loved my Hasselblad, but couldn’t afford the lenses. Next was a Canon F1. A marvelous mechanical piece I still have. I covered sports with it. Imagine focusing football running backs and wide receivers without autofocus. How did we do it? A covered a Washington Capitals game from the penalty box. Sticks, pucks, and players were flying around, but I had to focus. No protective glass around the penalty box back then. Gymnastics in dark gymnasiums, weddings in quiet churches with annoyed even angry priests because of the noise. Theatre and dance groups in varying light. All of these things required learning. As I progressed I ended up teaching photography. I needed to learn more and more. I had a Nikon D80, D200, 300, 610, 700, 2 800’s, a D5, and now 2 D850’s. Do I need every megapixel. Yes, of course I do. I have seen my mirror image in the Iris of a deer or other reflective surfaces. I have taken photos with the D5 at its’ ultimate ISO. They weren’t bad. I do mostly wildlife photography now and would love even more pixels. Yes, sometimes too many pixels ruin a shot. They can show things a slightly lower pixel sensor would not show and you don’t want shown. Everything has a pro and con. Remember the older b+w cameras made beer cans in a stream look like a rock. Now digital shows you the brand of beer and where it was brewed! I know I have seen 20 x 30 posters shot at 7 or 10 megapixels that were great. However, I like seeing clearly the flies buzzing around a lions face. Each improvement is impressive and while not always needed, is nice to have. I love my digital cameras and have seen changes that amaze me. What the future holds is unfathomable. I enjoy being on the ride. I hope all of you appreciate the incredible advances that have been made. I have always said what impresses me most is not the advances in the many thousand dollar cameras, but what you now can get in cameras under a hundred dollars. The point and shoot stuff out today makes excellent images and can focus on faces or smiles, can remove red-eye, etc. It is a marvelous age in which we live.

mniblick

One of the first things I noticed when I upgraded from a 720 p TV to a 4K TV was just how many actors had really bad skin. It was distracting for a while.

Will you shoot portraits in 100 megapixels and then take the images to Photoshop and blur them so that they will be acceptable?

CWGordon

Get me a 100 mp camera and I’ll let ya know.

Bob Locher Loc: Southwest Oregon

Your points are certainly valid. But you forgot to mention the huge gains in ISO, not to mention the benefits of image stabilization, in the lens or in the camera or both. The benefits of post processing on a computer beat darkroom wizardry by a million miles. We live in a golden age of capabilities that continue to improve.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

Yes. They are scanned for publishing. No post processing, other than the scanning process.

CaliforniaDreamer

I photograph lots of wildlife and a few extra pixels let me do crops on the photos that my lens is not long enough and I can't get close enough. Do I need 100, probably not. And the large pixel count makes camera movement even more critical. Always trade offs.

AntonioReyna Loc: Los Angeles, California

Good historical review. I have a Canon 6DII and it supplies all the resolution that I need. I mostly shoot events and people. When you shoot models and in post-processing have to remove hair from their lips that I couldn't see when I took the picture, that is enough resolution. I am, however, going to add the RP to my arsenal as it is small, quiet and is a mirrorless that will take all Canon lenses, EF and EFs.

AntonioReyna Loc: Los Angeles, California

I see where MAD magazine, and Alfred E. Neumann, are coming to an end. So sad as that was my favorite magazine growing up.

Paul J. Svetlik Loc: Colorado

Hey Bigmike1,

good to see, that you also enjoyed the SLR KW Praktina IIa.
I still happen to own two working bodies with the most of the accessories - bellows, screens, viewfinders, motors, macro tubes and a line of lenses.
What an incredibly advanced camera system, in that time!

Since then, we have experienced several photographic system changes, but none of them lasting so long.
Long live Praktina IIa.

AntonioReyna Loc: Los Angeles, California

There were so many good SLRs made and other notables, such as the Kodak Retina IIIC, a foldout miracle which I had in college. Also had a Mamiya C330, great tlr which rivaled any Rolliflex.