On 2008-11-17, Christopher Tidy wrote:
DoN. Nichols wrote:
[ ... ]
With a DSLR, by the time that point is reached, you will also be
very tempted to move to a newer one -- higher resolution, more features,
etc -- and keep your glass (lenses) and other accessories. When the
quality stabilizes at some physically-imposed limit (quantum mechanics
and such), you will probably find that the repair parts will remain
available for much longer.
But if you take two cameras for which spares are no longer readily
available, one a mechanical film camera and the other a digital camera,
the mechanical film camera will always be easier to repair when
something goes wrong.
That depends on the nature of the "something" which "went
wrong". Sometimes (in a DSLR), it is something as simple as oxidation
of the contacts which connect the battery to the camera -- or oxidation
in the connectors between subassemblies. In either case, the fix is
usually cleaning and reassembly.
A long used film camera can have problems like worn bearings in
the timing gearchain -- which requires the abilities of a watch repair
person to re-bush the mechanism.
Or -- as in one camera which I used to have -- a folding Zeiss
Ikonta 520 (620 or 120 roll film, 75mm f3.5 Tessar lens, Synchro Compur
shutter), which had a failure of a thin metal fork which transferred
operation of the shutter release lever to the actual release in the
shutter. I did not have the money at the time (about 1964 or 1965) to
get the camera repaired, and by now I strongly doubt that the parts are
available. I *might* be able to make one now -- but I could not at the
time.
For me, having the highest possible resolution is not my first priority.
If it was, I would shoot large format. But as I'm not the world's best
photographer, I want the chance to take more pictures than large format
allows. So I want good resolution (and 35 mm film resolution is pretty
good, despite many claims to the contrary) at a reasonable cost per
frame. But I also want a camera which lasts, so I choose film over digital.
O.K.
And the
repairman's task is not helped by the fact that a digital camera is so
complex that a single person cannot be familiar with the detail of how
each part functions.
Granted -- but typically repairs are like those with computers
these days -- not component replacement, but sub-assembly replacement,
so as long as the ability to trace the problem down to a given
sub-assembly is present, the ability to repair will remain within the
capabilities of a single repairman.
I think computers are way ahead of cameras in terms of ease of repair,
because standardisation is so widespread.
That depends on whose computers. For the typical desktop PC,
yes. For some brands, such as Dell, they use custom parts which are not
interchangeable with other systems.
And for computers like my Sun Blade 2000 -- some things are
interchangeable with PCs -- the PCI bus cards. But other things -- as
simple as memory DIMMs -- are custom to The Sun Blade 1000, Sun Blade
2000, and the Sun Fire 280R (which all use the same system boards), and
they are not even usable in other Suns. Certainly things like the power
supplies are very different from what you would find in a typical
Desktop PC.
And back to the PC world -- laptops, which have to fit a lot in
a very small space, tend to use very custom sub-assemblies -- ones
designed (among other things) to minimize power consumption, since the
machine is expected to live on batteries.
[ ... ]
I know of two good repairers at present, and they weren't too difficult
to find. But I think it's easier to find repairers who specialise in the
higher quality film cameras.
O.K. Of course, certain parts are no longer available for my
Nikon F cameras and it's lenses.
I've got a Nikon F2 system. I think a Nikon F2 is easier to get repaired
than an F, although you can't get spares for either from Nikon.
Unless you drop a manual focus lens, they'll pretty much last forever.
Especially the early ones with the scalloped focusing ring. Those are
wonderful. I have just the 85 mm f/1.8 in that series, but I want to
acquire more (cash permitting). The 35 mm f/1.4 will be the first on my
list.
One of the things no longer available from Nikon (and the supply
from the people who bought the stock from Nikon is small and dwindling)
are the aperture rings for many of the lenses. The old Nikon F used the
half-moon clip on the aperture ring to couple to the Photomic
meter/pentaprism assembly. Newer cameras instead require special cuts
in the raised ridge at the back of the aperture ring to couple such
information into the newer cameras -- or to clear sensor levers on
cameras like the D70 which use it to check whether the aperture ring is
set to the smallest aperture (numerically largest), so the auto aperture
control can work properly with the chips in the later lenses. There are
a number of replacement aperture rings for older lenses -- but not for
the oldest, so you have to set up to machine the ridge in the proper
places to use the lenses on newer cameras -- including film cameras such
as the N-90 -- a rather nice film camera with lots of features. I have
two of them which were modified by Kodak to serve as digital cameras for
the AP (Associated Press). This is where I first learned about the
modified aperture rings.
Someday I plan to make a fixture to allow marking of aperture
rings so I can mill the rings in the proper places, so I can use my
older lenses -- including many of the fluted focus ring design.
[ ... ]
And the number of types discontinued will increase as the number
of users decreases.
I don't think film availability is going to decline a lot more. You'll
no doubt see it decline further in high street shops, but they're
overpriced sources anyway. I haven't bought any film on the high street
in a long time.
I presume that High Street is a location in London where there
are many camera stores -- as you can find in locations in New York City.
I don't think there will be a day in the foreseeable
future when good quality colour negative film in 35 mm becomes
unavailable. After all, you can still buy 110 film, and who uses that?
Perhaps you can still buy it *because* it is still there -- as
new-old-stock. Have you checked the expiration dates on the boxes of
film? :-)
[ ... ]
A very nice shot -- and the scanning is at a level which makes
the grain typically a bit larger than the pixels -- though JPEG
artifacts do show up in places like the illuminated windows, and there they
are larger than the grain.
Thanks. But I'm not sure that what you're seeing are JPEG artifacts.
With a scan of that resolution, you can see all kinds of detail which
you would never see in a regular print. I think some of the fine detail
around the edges is the result of diffraction, scattered light from the
film surface and noise due to variation in grain size. The only place
where I can see what look like JPEG artifacts is around the top of the
building in the centre of the picture. Even there, I'm not convinced as
there are edges elsewhere in the picture with higher contrast where I
can't see such artifacts. I don't suppose I'll know for sure without
looking at the negative under a microscope.
O.K. Can your computer zoom in to small areas of the image? In
a building to the right of the image there are seven illuminated windows
along the top floor which have a bluish tint. Select an area which
includes the central window, and the walls to either side, but stop
before the windows to either side. Now expand that selected area to
fill your screen. You will see pixelation of the illuminated center of
the window which appear to be larger than the surrounding grain. this
is because the JPEG algorithm is trying to minimize the number of zones
in which it needs to keep track of unique colors. Crop out a similar
area of the midway between lightest and darkest of the sky and I seem to
find smaller artifacts there -- perhaps because of more grain in that
area.
But that scan is nearly 17 megapixels. At a more usual 6 megapixel
resolution, the scan would be pretty much grainless. Here a different
picture I had scanned at 6 megapixels:
http://www.mythic-beasts.com/~cdt22/rust_large.jpg
The pixels seem to be a bit larger from a similar crop area from
that -- but nothing visible of the grain in there.
I've got an old Nikon LS-3500 scanner (35mm only, and very slow
and hot -- the reason that the later versions were called "coolscan").
That's funny. I didn't know that. Where did the name "Coolpix" come
from, I wonder?
It came from the CoolScan -- except not because of heat, but
rather because it sounded like a name to attract consumers.
Sort of like the Dodge trucks called "Ram Tough" with images of
two mountain rams crashing into each other. The original appearance of
the word "Ram" in the Dodge line of automobiles was in the days of
"muscle cars" (too large an engine with too much horsepower marketed to
people too young to have common sense). Many of these cars had a scoop
connected to the top of the air cleaner poking through the hood and
pointing towards the nose of the car. Dodge pointed it towards the
windshield, where a zone of higher pressure air builds up when the car
is in motion. This they called "ram air", and the system the
"Ramcharger" (not quite a turbocharger, but intended to sound like one).
It has been decades since Dodge made such a car, but they carried the
name over to their truck marketing division. :-)
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. |
http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---