On the other hand, I've been carefully studying film bodies. Not 35mm, either. I'd like a medium format rangefinger. A Mamiya 6 or 7 would do nicely. Such things do not come cheaply.

There's also the Fujica 690 and 670 series rangefinders which come in interchangeable and fixed lens versions. You'll need a separate light meter unless you're using the 100mm AE lens but that shouldn't be a problem if you're used to using manual controls on a camera. Long discontinued, unfortunately, so you'll have to buy them on the used market. I thought about buying one earlier this year but ran into the same problem you did; the cost of all the other stuff required to support the camera is absurd and I'm neither skilled nor committed enough to use it. The results are awesome though, one of my friends uses the G690 as his main camera and the prints he makes for exhibits and clients are simply outstanding.

sent out my last roll of kodachrome today

stupid post office closed yesterday. hopefully, itll get to dwaynes on time

Hope you sent it out express.

If all else fails there's Rocky Mountain Film Labs which handles all sorts of odd films including the Kodachrome K-14 process. It'll cost you though and it takes a while for the film to get back to you.

On the way lower end than the rest of you guys, I got a Nikon 50mm/1.8 for xmas and am busy relearning manual focus since it'll mostly be on the D40 (it would AF on our D90 but in practice it's going to spend most of its life on the D40 which doesn't have the little in-body focus motor). I used to be fairly OK at focusing on an old-school SLR with proper groundglass etc., but I'm finding it pretty hard on this little DSLR despite the little "yeah that's in focus, trust me" green light in the corner of the viewfinder.

On the way lower end than the rest of you guys, I got a Nikon 50mm/1.8 for xmas and am busy relearning manual focus since it'll mostly be on the D40 (it would AF on our D90 but in practice it's going to spend most of its life on the D40 which doesn't have the little in-body focus motor). I used to be fairly OK at focusing on an old-school SLR with proper groundglass etc., but I'm finding it pretty hard on this little DSLR despite the little "yeah that's in focus, trust me" green light in the corner of the viewfinder.

Does the D40 have the LCD magnified view button like Canon T2i? When I had the manual Zeiss 35 mm F/2 lens, the Canon viewfinder was practically useless for precise manual focus, and I HAD to use the magnified LCD view to get precise focus, which was a real pain, balancing that heavy Zeiss with one hand, while pressing buttons on the back to use the magnified view, then finally holding still to press the shutter. One of the reasons I didn't keep the Zeiss, especially after I found out how much $$$ good focusing screens cost.

Does the D40 have the LCD magnified view button like Canon T2i? When I had the manual Zeiss 35 mm F/2 lens, the Canon viewfinder was practically useless for precise manual focus, and I HAD to use the magnified LCD view to get precise focus, which was a real pain, balancing that heavy Zeiss with one hand, while pressing buttons on the back to use the magnified view, then finally holding still to press the shutter. One of the reasons I didn't keep the Zeiss, especially after I found out how much $$$ good focusing screens cost.

Fairly sure it doesn't have any form of "live view" at all, but this is an interesting idea and I'll check to be sure. Thanks for the suggestion.

Some snap shots of the little Sony with the S95. I am not entirely sure at this point that either EVIL is much better than the S95.

Keep us posted how you like the NEX5 and EP2. While I was really disappointed with the direction Panasonic took in regards to GF2, I still may pick up a GF1 w/ the 20mm pancake if the price continue to come down.

Another camera to consider is the Samsung NX100, it's about the same size as the E-P2 but has a larger APS-C sized sensor. Lens selection is unfortunately rather limited, but if they have what you need then I think the NX system is way better than either the micro 4/3 or NEX systems. The Samsung absolutely kills them when it comes to ease of use, you have direct button & control ring settings for all the important stuff like exposure, ISO, colour balance, flash mode and shutter speed, no going through menus at all. The manual mode is fucking genius, one control wheel sets the shutter speed and the other sets the aperture, the LCD displays a needle type light meter with a histogram so you can see how good the exposure is.

Hope you sent it out express.

yup. no guarantee that its gonna get out there in time though.

Spent my last day in Dallas at the Dallas World Aquarium. Very nice place. Lots of animals and even some Mayan fire dancers.

More great zoo images, Jeff. Tell me again why we didn't go to Lowry Park Zoo while you were at TamJam? Oh, wait, I remember ... CCB, Mons Venus, Bern's, La Teresita, Square One, Ella's Soul Food Sunday, etc, etc.

Love your enthusiastic posts and images .... keep it up. One of these days, I'll put up how much I like the Sony Nex 5, especially when coupled with some old school Nikkor lenses.

Happy shooting, all.

yup. no guarantee that its gonna get out there in time though.

According to their website, it needed to be in their lab by noon today, so assuming you sent it out before the final pickup for express mail (usually around 5-6pm) on the 28th, you should be okay.

Canon EOS-1V HS, EOS-3, and T2i (aka "Mine is Bigger Than Yours")

Beautiful cameras!

Death of kodachrome is making big news:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/us/30film.html

BBC has the story too.

A 1600 ISO sooc shot from the Sony.

Canon S95 snapshots from eating and drinking last night, Downtown L.A.

Seven Grand Bar

Bottega Louie Restaurant/Bar

So I am liking the s95 a lot. A question for those in the know. Is the Franiec grip a worthwhile addition to the s95's useability?

I love mine, I had it on my S90 and it felt weird without it on my S95.

OK. So I just got back my first film roll of film in more than 10 years, developed and scanned by Target. Several things struck me.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used that nice Fuji Reala 100 film as my first roll, since most sunset/dusk shots came out hopelessly blurry and muted. My digital camera takes these scenes no problem, albeit at high ISO. ISO 100 film just doesn't do dusk; I hope to try ISO 400 film next for these sunset/dusk conditions.

Scenes in daylight came out pretty well, though the scans don't seem to have advantage over shots taken with digital camera. In not-so-perfect lighting, digital seems to yield sharper, cleaner images.

Thirdly, I really miss having the large 3" LCD screen with histogram right there. I also miss the instantaneous preview of the photo I just took. I guess this is why digital is winning big time.

Lastly, I wonder if I need to go with slide films, sent out for developing, etc, in order to gain edge over digital. Or is that the limitation of 35mm, and does film really need to be medium-format in right lighting to significantly outshine digital? Or does none of it matter unless large prints are involved?

OK. So I just got back my first film roll of film in more than 10 years, developed and scanned by Target. Several things struck me.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used that nice Fuji Reala 100 film as my first roll, since most sunset/dusk shots came out hopelessly blurry and muted. My digital camera takes these scenes no problem, albeit at high ISO. ISO 100 film just doesn't do dusk; I hope to try ISO 400 film next for these sunset/dusk conditions.

Reala is a fairly muted film in terms of colour, it's made for portraits more than anything else. It softens contrast and reduces saturation to give good natural skin tones in most lighting conditions. If you're aiming for vivid looking sunset pictures with bright saturated colours, you'll have to use another film such as Velvia.

Scenes in daylight came out pretty well, though the scans don't seem to have advantage over shots taken with digital camera. In not-so-perfect lighting, digital seems to yield sharper, cleaner images.

Generally speaking, digital has the edge in low light conditions once shutter speeds get below 1/15 to 1/30 or so depending on the subject and how steady your hands are. Then there's the joy of mixed lighting, digital automatically adjusts its white balance to fluorescent, mercury lights, incandescents and so forth, plus most things in between. Films are balanced for daylight for the most part, for other lighting conditions you'll need filters to make the colour balance look right.

Lastly, I wonder if I need to go with slide films, sent out for developing, etc, in order to gain edge over digital. Or is that the limitation of 35mm, and does film really need to be medium-format in right lighting to significantly outshine digital? Or does none of it matter unless large prints are involved?

This, I think depends on what you're looking for in your photos and what you define as "better". Kinda like audio in a way, depending on where your priorities are you may prefer CDs or LPs, it's the same idea with film & digital cameras.

"This, I think depends on what you're looking for in your photos and what you define as "better". Kinda like audio in a way, depending on where your priorities are you may prefer CDs or LPs, it's the same idea with film & digital cameras."

I guess I always knew that. After all, most of the "Wow" film photo's I've seen have been medium or large-format film; I tried 35mm film to see if it will be "good enough," but I have a feeling that one needs to go all out, along with the expenses involved. Anyway, it was rather weird for me to shoot film, where the ISO is actually set by the film (unless pushing or pulling), without having instantaneous view like digital, and not knowing until the film is developed.

I actually didn't get any prints developed, and the Target guy said he can develop prints from either the film negatives or digital files and that they both "look the same" to him... Any recommendations for where to get good prints (from negatives?)?

A few thoughts:

Color print film is fun, but a bit of a gamble. Frame for frame, it's not going to consistently best a modern digital camera. If you're serious about color film photography, you'll end up shooting slide film and having it processed by professionals. Proper scanning of side or print film is just as important as the developing. In the past, I encountered rolls where the prints looked great and the scans were awful. The answer is to buy a scanner and do it yourself. Professional labs will do competent scans of slide film, but not cheaply.

Black and white print film is a totally different universe. There is an awful lot of latitude in exposure, and a lifetime of creative control in the print. I think it was Ansel Adams who said "The exposure is the score, the print is the performance" but it might have been someone else (Knuckles has not had his coffee yet.)

Lastly, if prints from scans look the same as from negatives, than the guy doing it is a hack.

A few thoughts:

The answer is to buy a scanner and do it yourself. Professional labs will do competent scans of slide film, but not cheaply.

It looks like the Target scan was done at 256 dpi with file size 1500 x 1000 pixels. What is a "good scan" and particular scanners (not pro-expensive)?

For E6, pro labs will develop and scan for you, but if you only have the slides, can one scan the slides on your home scanner? (need some sort of holder/apparatus?)