[AGL] Mike Attack

[Michael Eisenstadt]

Ewie,

You've got the numbers right and wrong at the same time.

The Canon D5's sensor is 35.8 x 23.9 mm, the same size
as a frame of 35mm film. It has 12.7 million pixels, its
maxiumum resolution being 4368 x 2912. Multiply that
and you get 12.7 million. Then multiply 3x for the 3 primary
colors and the raw file size is 39Megs, the same in effect as
the 40Megs you mention.

Same as your camera and scanner without the muss and bother of
film and chemical darkrooms.

As for speed, this camera shoots 3 frames a second in
burst mode. The specs do not supply shutter lag time
if any. Body is made of magnesium, the lightest metal.

$2700 is Amazon's discount price for the camera new.
It will take some years before a used one will come
close enough to my money comfort zone, maybe never.
Meanwhile, i will use film in my Canon cameras,
process the slides, chose the keepers, scan them
for $1.90 a frame, correct the scan's levels in Photoshop,
and print on 8x11 inch glossy fake photography paper.

Meanwhile, looking at Polidori's indoor shots of ruined
interiors in post-Katrina New Orleans, it is hard to overlook
the blue color casts of his incompetence. He was shooting
without a flash indoors on a sunny day. Objects in the
shadow on a sunny day are of course illuminated by
the blue light of the sky. So photos not shot in direct
light, sunlight or flash, are caca: Aunt Tilly under a tree when
she comes back from the drugstore is colored blue. They
don't tell you about that on the little yellow boxes. Might
reduce sales.

Mike



> Well, Mike the Cannon D5 is a nice camera and I would like somebody to 

> give

> me one but it is 3 times the price of a Cannon Elan7 and scanner combo.

> Another problem for me with expensive cameras is the problem of them 

> getting

> stolen, I had one stolen in China but it was only a $500 loss, can't 

> afford

> the $3000 loss.  A 35mm slide scanned at 4000 DPI comes to about 40 meg, 

> the

> Cannon D5 only 12.8 meg.  I don't know if the Cannon has this problem but

> many digital cameras have a significant lag between pushing the shutter 

> and

> the actual scan making them a little difficult for capturing fast action.

> Film cameras only 1/60 sec. or less.

>

> Now if you are a real purest you can get the Hasselblad for only $31,995 

> but

> sill you will not get the resolution of a scanned 35mm slide.  But if you

> are a real resolution fanatic get the 4x5 camera - the only way to go!! 

> You

> can buy them on Ebay for around $500.

>

> The processing of color film is a bit of a problem but you can do it

> yourself or send it out.  Doing it yourself and sending it out cost about

> the same price.  Only problem is not instant gratification.  Some art 

> forms

> require a little work.

>

>

> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=6222&A=details&Q=&sku=463797&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

>

>

>

>

>

>

>            Enlarge Image

>             Print Page

>             Email to a Friend     Write Review

>

>        View List

>                          8 of 12

>

>

>

>                        Hasselblad H3D-39, 39.0 Megapixel, SLR Digital

> Camera

>

>                        Mfr# 70360530 • B&H# HAH3D39

>

>

>

>                        Our Price: $ 31,994.95

>

>

>                   Shipping Cost:

>                  Availability: In Stock

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ----- Original Message ----- 

> From: "Michael Eisenstadt" <mike.eisenstadt at gmail.com>

> To: "survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the 60s"

> <austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>

> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 4:13 AM

> Subject: Re: [AGL] Mac Attack

>

>

>> Ewie,

>>

>> May I point out that prices have come down on digital cameras.

>>

>> The Canon EOS 5D single lens reflex 35mm camera, without lenses,

>> may be bought from Amazon.com for a mere $2700. It has a 12

>> Mb array which is the same size as a standard frame of 35mm film

>> so for the first time, there is no conversion factor. Heretofore, the

>> digital 35mm cameras had arrays smaller than a frame of 35mm film

>> so a conversion factor, usually 1.3, made your wide-angle 20mm lens

>> on such a camera into a 26mm lens, a normal 50mm lens into a

>> 65mm lens and so on. 35mm lens are designed so that a 35mm

>> frame of film (less than 1" by 1.4") will capture most of the circular

>> image which the lens resolves. If the digital array is smaller than

>> 1"x1.4", in effect it captures less of the image.

>>

>> Now, finally, a digital camera with a full frame array. Goodbye

>> chemical film processing and scanning it afterwards should i

>> ever get to own one. Meanwhile, i have the 35mm film slides i want

>> to print scanned by Austin Photo Imaging on to a Kodak CD

>> for $1.90 per frame.

>>

>> With larger format, film is still with us. Consider for example

>> Robert Polidori's photos of post-Katrina New Orleans taken

>> with a 5x7 inch view camera. So large a piece of film would

>> have to be scanned on a drum scanner (expensive!).

>>

>> See pictures below.

>>

>> Mike

>>

>> ----- Original Message ----- 

>> From: "Bill Irwin" <billi at aloha.net>

>> To: "survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the 60s"

>> <austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>

>> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 8:17 PM

>> Subject: Re: [AGL] Mac Attack

>>

>>

>> If you only have limited funds to spend on photography the best 

>> investment

>> is the camera and accessories rather that the computer.  Any computer 

>> that

>> can run Photoshop will do just fine,  memory is the most important 

>> thing -

>> get 2-4 gigs at least.  If resolution is important, and it generally is 

>> if

>> you are going to make prints, then the most economical way to go is an

>> automatic film camera such as the Cannon Elan7 ( generally less than 

>> $300)

>> and a film scanner that can scan 4000 DPI, this will get you very near to

>> film grain.  A comparable digital camera will cost you over $25,000.

>> Computers don't make photographs, photographers do,  you can make a damn

>> good photo with no computer at all.  If you like hype get the Mac, either

>> one will do a good job.

>>

>> If we are going to do reviews of home appliances shouldn't we expand a 

>> bit

>> and cover other appliances?  My toaster is better than your toaster and 

>> my

>> toast tastes better than your toast.  My vacuum cleaner really sucks 

>> also.

>> Ewie

>>   ----- Original Message ----- 

>>   From: bakhirun bakhirun

>>   To: survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the 60s

>>   Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 12:33 PM

>>   Subject: [AGL] Mac Attack

>>

>>

>>   I am trying to remember the quote from Spanish. It goes something like

>> "...lo que sabe el burro de matematika..." (but it is probably dirtier).

>>

>>   I too have a rather long history of rasslin' with personal computers.

>> Artist friends in Montreal first baptized me with a creaky Mac 512 in

> 1986.

>> I well remember the mental agonies required, at the age of 45, in having

> to

>> learn to follow every tiny rule and neat keystroke. Then I moved in with

> an

>> old pal in New York and used her MultiMate, on DOS. When I came to

> Indonesia

>> and started working as a copywriter I had to use WP5.1 because everybody

>> else was. Bye-bye Maccy at that point.

>>

>>   But I am basically a visual expressionist and the lure of the wild has

>> always hovered at the (event) horizon. I took a look at the iMac 24. 

>> Jeez,

>> it looks like a home theatre. And all the reviews, even from the non-Mac

>> crowd, are replete with wows.

>>

>>   So I'm going for it. As we used to say at the Campus Guild, "Faint 

>> heart

>> never screwed the cook."

>>

>>   Thankee

>>

>>   BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

>>

>>

>