Re: slightly OT - lenses and closeup

From: Catherine Rogers <crogers@mpx.com.au>
Subject: Re: slightly OT - lenses and closeup
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:29:03 -0800

> Are you saying then that some of the new digital technology has been
> carried over to analogue camera manufacture?

I think you misunderstood me. 35mm cameras are stuck with its own
image size and closeup capability is constrained by same physical size
specs. Digital is different story because different image size (the
size of the image sensor) requires different range of focal length of
the lens, which allows increased closeup focusing capability without
making the lens barrel noticeably longer. It's the image size on the
negative or on the image sensor, not the optical technology, that is
making the change in closeup focusing capability.

> And that 35mm analogue cameras are now being made with digital chips
> to create more flexible (zoom in particular) lenses able to focus
> very close up?

I think entry level to middle level 35mm gears have been aggressively
incorporating new technology from decades ago...

> Or have manufacturers decided to widen the appeal of 35mm and that
> close up focus, through an extended barrel, could have been a
> function of any lens previously?

Old 35mm camera systems usually had a bellows system and macro lenses
so that users can enjoy a great degree of freedom in macro
photography. Also, extension rings that go between the lens and the
body were often available as options to widen the closeup focusing
range of standard to medium telephoto macro lenses.

> It seemed to me from my recent excursion to a camera shop, that
> medium priced 35mm analogue cameras now have lots of bells and
> whistles previously not available, (such as facility for double
> exposure, changing point of focus in autofocus, digital readout of
> everything etc etc) which suggested to me - rightly or wrongly -
> that film camera manufacturers had stepped it up in order to compete
> with digital cameras.

Number of focusing points, etc. have been increased in past decade,
but I think multiple exposure functionality has been available for a
long time. Even in an entry level SLR like Canon EOS Rebel XS (called
EOS kiss in Japanese market and it's also called by a number in
European market) had such a functionality. Many mechanical SLRs didn't
have lever for that functionality but there was a simple trick that
worked with most cameras anyway.

It doesn't cost a lot of money to add all sorts of modes and functions
to cameras, but increasing the number of buttons, dials etc. costs
some money. Also, improving fundamental specification of the camera
like number of frames per second, maximum x-sync shutter speed,
etc. costs a lot of money. So, it's common that entry level cameras
have lots of functions but with somewhat limited operability and
clearly inferior fundamental specs compared to high end models.

> Or perhaps, as a very manual, medium format user, it's apparent that
> I haven't been to a camera store in a long time and I've missed out
> on quite a bit...

I personally don't check out camera stores... even when B&H sends me
that thick catalog a few times a year, I just make sure my favorite
enlarging papers and films are still on market and skip all that new
product pages...

--
Ryuji Suzuki
"Reality has always had too many heads." (Bob Dylan, Cold Irons Bound, 1997)