Prev: Leica; "4/3rds quality just not there."
Next: Canvas prints done by Photo Thieves
From: John Navas on 25 May 2010 23:36
On Tue, 25 May 2010 20:19:09 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com>
wrote in
<6be66152-5923-4560-a26e-dbfa521a21c2(a)v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>:

>Also, if as a
>photographer you can't estimate exposure of a scene to within a stop,
>you are no photographer.

Nonsense.
--
Best regards,
John

Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: Floyd L. Davidson on 25 May 2010 23:38
Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 25, 2:36�pm, fl...(a)apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>> Rich <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On May 25, 3:54�am, bugbear <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>> >> RichA wrote:
>> >> >http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Leica_film_camera_beats_dig...
>>
>> >> 'These low temperatures cause everything to shrink - autofocus lenses become too tight and have to be focused manually and aperture leafs often jam.
>>
>> >> This applies to any camera with aperture leafs and autofocus.
>> >> His comment about batteries also applies to any camera with a battery.
>>
>> >> So his comments appear directly applicable to any such camera
>> >> e.g. Canon EOS 1, not known for being digital.
>>
>> >> � � BugBear
>>
>> >But you can shoot manual cameras anytime, no power needed. �All you
>> >need to do is estimate exposure, film latitude being pretty good these
>> >days.
>>
>> Ha ha, that's hilarious. �Film latitude isn't that good,
>> and in particular if you shoot slides.
>
>Why shoot slides when negative film is so good today? Also, if as a
>photographer you can't estimate exposure of a scene to within a stop,
>you are no photographer.

Negative film is "so good" today??? Maybe if you aren't
much at photography, but I'll take a digital camera any
day. And I actually do prefer to get a *lot* closer
than 1 stop, plus your claim about being able to estimate
within a stop is bullshit. Ansel Adams used a light meter,
and so do I.

>> Regardless, the no power needed is not the significance
>> of the cited article. �The fellow was claiming that film
>> is better at -40 degrees. �Let me tell you a secret:
>> winding film at -40 is quite often a fatal action. �You
>> *loose* everything unless you have a dark bag with you
>> to remove the film from the camera.
>
>He apparently managed.

How would we know? He certainly wasn't telling us what
actually did happen! Did he rip the sprockets out of
half his film? Or (and this is a lot more likely) he
only did that a few times and realized that shooting
film at -40 isn't something he wanted to do. And in
reality he may never have actually seen -40, as opposed
to tossing that temperature in just to make people think
he was a pretty tough dude! (People don't make treks to
the North Pole in January when it actually does get down
to -40, they wait a couple months later when there is
more light and warmer temperatures.)

Whatever, anyone who thinks a film camera is a better
way to go in the Arctic, just hasn't been in the Arctic
long enough to be making decisions about equipment.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: bugbear on 26 May 2010 05:00
Rich wrote:
> On May 25, 3:54 am, bugbear <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>> RichA wrote:
>>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Leica_film_camera_beats_dig...
>> 'These low temperatures cause everything to shrink - autofocus lenses become too tight and have to be focused manually and aperture leafs often jam.
>>
>> This applies to any camera with aperture leafs and autofocus.
>> His comment about batteries also applies to any camera with a battery.
>>
>> So his comments appear directly applicable to any such camera
>> e.g. Canon EOS 1, not known for being digital.
>>
>> BugBear
>
> But you can shoot manual cameras anytime, no power needed.

Absolutely. But now you're talking about manual versus automatic,
which is rather my point.

You do understand why I mentioned the EOS 1 (film) camera,
don't you?

BugBear
From: bugbear on 26 May 2010 05:01
Michael Black wrote:

> What about the mechanical parts? If they are lubricated, the lubrication
> may freeze, and the camera won't work.

One of the possible "preps" for super cold is to remove
all lubricant, for exactly that reason.

Some mechanisms don't work at their BEST with no lubricant,
but they work BETTER than they would glued together with frozen lubricant!

BugBear
From: Floyd L. Davidson on 26 May 2010 06:46
bugbear <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>Michael Black wrote:
>
>> What about the mechanical parts? If they are lubricated, the lubrication
>> may freeze, and the camera won't work.
>
>One of the possible "preps" for super cold is to remove
>all lubricant, for exactly that reason.

That was indeed the way it was done... *decades* ago, but
not today. We have synthetic oils that are still functional
at -60F.

>Some mechanisms don't work at their BEST with no lubricant,
>but they work BETTER than they would glued together with frozen lubricant!

That hasn't really been a problem for maybe 3 decades now.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Leica; "4/3rds quality just not there."
Next: Canvas prints done by Photo Thieves