Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,956   Posts: 1,522,941   Online: 1210
      
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 82
  1. #11
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,908
    Images
    6
    You're right. Those poor digital commercial photographers that have to constantly have to "upgrade" their gear. Those photographers are probably working so they could get the next greatest thing. What a trap. Always trying to get more MPs. I work with a food photographer and he's had cameras that are decades old. His partner have told me that his clients want high end digital capture. Shooting that way is very capital intensive.

  2. #12
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,908
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by hpulley View Post
    Haha, memories. At least we started out with a square format LOL. I still have it too:


    Kodak Instamatic by Harry Pulley, on Flickr
    Thanks for bringing back beautiful memories. Still have some flash cubes?

  3. #13
    hpulley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,214
    Images
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    Thanks for bringing back beautiful memories. Still have some flash cubes?
    No more flash cubes here... haven't broken down and cut my own 126 format film yet for nostalgia either. The rotating flash cubes were quite ingenious weren't they? I think you can still get some on eBay.

    Ironically the much older cameras with PC sockets are much easier to light, they sync great with their leaf shutters. If I had a dead flash cube around I wonder what voltage is put out, could you run it to a PC cord flash without frying something? Someone must have done this already...
    Harry Pulley - Visit the BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE FORUM

    Happiness is...

  4. #14
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,553
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by hpulley View Post
    If I had a dead flash cube around I wonder what voltage is put out, could you run it to a PC cord flash without frying something? Someone must have done this already...
    You need a battery, a resistor and a capacitor to fire a flash bulb reliably. The battery charges the capacitor up via the flash bulb and the resistor. The resistor limits the current so it doesn't set off the flash.

    The camera's sync contacts are then arranged to discharge the capacitor directly into the bulb to fire it.

    The capacitor is used as it has a low internal resistance and can provide a short pulse of high current. If a simpler circuit was used with just a battery, its higher internal resistance would lead to a lower current and unreliability due to variances in the time it takes to fire the bulb.


    Steve.

  5. #15
    hpulley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,214
    Images
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    You need a battery, a resistor and a capacitor to fire a flash bulb reliably. The battery charges the capacitor up via the flash bulb and the resistor. The resistor limits the current so it doesn't set off the flash.

    The camera's sync contacts are then arranged to discharge the capacitor directly into the bulb to fire it.

    The capacitor is used as it has a low internal resistance and can provide a short pulse of high current. If a simpler circuit was used with just a battery, its higher internal resistance would lead to a lower current and unreliability due to variances in the time it takes to fire the bulb.


    Steve.
    Thanks. We're totally off topic here so perhaps a mod should split this off...

    I don't recall the Instamatic taking a battery but I'll check it again tonight; was it in the flashcube?
    Harry Pulley - Visit the BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE FORUM

    Happiness is...

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    North America just north of that sharp right turn North America makes on the Atlantic coast.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    602
    I have got to see this video, stupid work firewall.

    Way off topic now, Instimatics like that one use Magicubes, they ignite without power, there is a little tab on the camera that pokes into the flash cube to make it go off. higher end Instimatics do use a battery, but it is for metering, not flash.
    "Would you like it if someone that painted in oils told you that you were not making portraits because you were using a camera?"
    "Shouldn't it be more about the joy of producing and viewing the photo than what you paid for the camera?"

    Me

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    There were cubes that held (two?) flat cell batteries that could be inserted between instamatic camera and flash cube. That's what i used back then.

  8. #18
    Worker 11811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,620
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    Sure but digital medium format is not even close to worth what you get for the price.

    It's basically a scam. You get the equivalent of a 6x4.5 sensor for some god-awful price usually in 20-30k+ range.

    Said rip-off price buys 1000s and 1000s of rolls of 120 film - all of which can be used from 645 to 6x9. And none of it suffers from the pitfalls of digital image recording.

    The core issue is that people want everything now, now, now and they'll gladly invest in ridiculous technology just to avoid waiting a day.

    Patience is no linger a virtuous aspect of our society - it's all about the "give it to me now" effect.
    Said scam is precisely the reason I didn't buy a digicam.

    I looked at new cameras and found the cheapest price for even a half-decent Digital SLR was $750 to $1,000. That was for the entry level models. For a "good" one, you'll be paying $2,000 and up.

    Then I looked in my closet and found my old Pentax. I added up the cost of getting back into shooting film and it was a no-brainer. For a couple-few hundred bucks I could have my camera cleaned, buy film, chemistry and supplies and produce photos as good as or better than any digicam. For a couple hundred more, a cheap flatbed scanner can be had which will produce images that are better than I would ever need to have.

    I would NEVER pay the price of a new car to buy a MF digicam. I'd rather have the new car!
    Randy S.

    In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni.

    -----

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/randystankey/

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Floor-it-duh
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,103
    Images
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    Sure but digital medium format is not even close to worth what you get for the price.

    It's basically a scam. You get the equivalent of a 6x4.5 sensor for some god-awful price usually in 20-30k+ range.

    Said rip-off price buys 1000s and 1000s of rolls of 120 film - all of which can be used from 645 to 6x9. And none of it suffers from the pitfalls of digital image recording.

    The core issue is that people want everything now, now, now and they'll gladly invest in ridiculous technology just to avoid waiting a day.

    Patience is no linger a virtuous aspect of our society - it's all about the "give it to me now" effect.
    that......I have 4 35mm SLR's and one DSLR.....guess which one takes the best pictures.....

  10. #20
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,908
    Images
    6
    I've heard digital will save on film, processing make shooting faster blah, blah blah. I do think digital has it's place, but I wonder if some pros are just put on this tread mill of shooting just to make their camera payments? I think there's a race to recoup money before the camera depreciates next to nothing. Once the camera has been paid off, the vicious circles starts again. Will clients see pros that shoot film as backwards? Or Clients are sophisticate to hire a photographer based on the work?

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin