APS V 35 mm

hartalana RemoveThis @aol.comjunkless (HartAlanA) wrote in message news:<20040324113616.21883.00000011 RemoveThis @mb-m22.aol.com>...
 > Hi Dennis
 >
 > Pleased that you still into APS.
 >
Hi Alan -

Yes - I'm still sold on APS and am sorry that it's appeal has been
undermined by the unfortunate timing of digital,and by the misselling
of digital photography to so many people for whom it's not a good buy:
I wonder how many digital buyers realise the importance of 'digital
darkroom'editing?

That - plus the refusal of so many 35mm devotees to accept that APS
can deliver excellent results.

Perhaps APS has also been sold short by the poor quality of processing
by so many 'mass market'labs and lack of support by the better ones. I
use Colorscan 90(in Birmingham) and they never fail to impress.

Like you, I do have a digital camera (Canon G2)which has it's place
and I am keeping a foothold in 35mm with a recently purchased Ricoh
GR1.

Regards -

Denis<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: APS V 35 mm 

I like APS too, but there are some problems that have diminished the usefulness of APS bodies and film area is
not one of them. Deviating from 24x36 was OK, just as long as the required focal length stayed the same. If
they had used 21x37 of film area (less area in fact than a 35mm exposure) to make a 4"x7" print, that would have
kept the focal length the same and consumers would have been able to integrate their APS bodies into their
existing lens systems. Telephoto lenses don't work well with wider prints. The whole idea of using a wider
print is to get more coverage. You can't get more coverage with lenses which inherantly have a focal length too
long for the format. The only camera manufacturer to design a separate lens system for APS was Minolta. It
still baffles me how Minolta was unable to use the Vectis system to support their DLSRs. Maybe they'll give it
another go with their new DSLR camera line. Another problem with APS is that it stinks as a vertical format.
The best vertical format is 645. 24x36 was designed for rangefinder cameras with their inherant parallax
problems. If APS had had a better vertical format it would have been a hit with press photographers. APS was a
fantastic idea, but like most innovations its first iteration was flawed. If Kodak or whoever could develop a
"jumbo" APS which would be compatible with existing 35mm lens systems, I believe it could be a hit. Many people
I talk to are disappointed with digital; and film bodies still give more bang for the buck (value for you money)
than digital SLRs.

Denis Boisclair wrote:

 > hartalana DeleteThis @aol.comjunkless (HartAlanA) wrote in message news:<20040324113616.21883.00000011 DeleteThis @mb-m22.aol.com>...
  > > Hi Dennis
  > >
  > > Pleased that you still into APS.
  > >
 > Hi Alan -
 >
 > Yes - I'm still sold on APS and am sorry that it's appeal has been
 > undermined by the unfortunate timing of digital,and by the misselling
 > of digital photography to so many people for whom it's not a good buy:
 > I wonder how many digital buyers realise the importance of 'digital
 > darkroom'editing?
 >
 > That - plus the refusal of so many 35mm devotees to accept that APS
 > can deliver excellent results.
 >
 > Perhaps APS has also been sold short by the poor quality of processing
 > by so many 'mass market'labs and lack of support by the better ones. I
 > use Colorscan 90(in Birmingham) and they never fail to impress.
 >
 > Like you, I do have a digital camera (Canon G2)which has it's place
 > and I am keeping a foothold in 35mm with a recently purchased Ricoh
 > GR1.
 >
 > Regards -
 >
 > Denis<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: APS V 35 mm