Is a card reader really necessary?

[Clix Pix]

I use my iPhone camera from time to time when I just want to shoot something quickly that I see when out-and-about and don't have another camera with me, or when I want to experiment with a set up and tinker with it before getting out the real gear. Yes, it's definitely possible to be creative with an iPhone, but there are still limitations. When I do shoot with the iPhone, I use Air Drop to immediately ship the image(s) over to the computer, where I then edit them and either share them or just stash them in my Pictures folder.

It's not a big deal to pull the memory card from the "real" camera and step over to the computer workstation, where I keep the card reader always plugged in, and pop the card into the reader, download the images into the computer, and then take a quick look to make sure all is well. After that at some point I return the memory card to the camera and immediately format it again so that it will be ready for the next time. Sometimes I'll switch to a different memory card, especially if I am planning to be out shooting for an extensive period of time and want more storage capacity available in the card. I'm not interested in having a "real" camera with a lot of built-in memory and a way of sending all the images to the computer, as I shoot way too many images for that to be practical. Out in the field for a day-long shooting expedition it definitely would not be as convenient as having a supply of memory cards at hand to swap in-and-out of the camera as needed. Filled cards would be set aside and then later their contents put into the computer for review and editing.

Having done the darkroom thing and having nice memories of it I still don't think I'd want to return to that in this day and age. I love digital shooting and although I'm not keen on post-processing it is still nice to be able to work on one's images in daylight and see what one is doing -- and also not to have to deal with any smelly chemicals and such. I had a couple of shirts that I reserved specifically for darkroom use, as over time they accumulated stains which simply did not come out.

Shooting with a film camera again would be fun, though, and challenging! The tool which offers the most opportunity for slowing down and really working out what one is going to shoot and how is a field camera -- Large Format. The process of hauling the tripod and the camera and the loaded film holders and the Polaroid back out to wherever one is going to shoot is enough to slow one down right from the get-go! LOL! Setting up the shot and then taking it is definitely an instructive process and again is slowed somewhat by first using the Polaroid back to get a quick estimation of how everything will look and then actually putting the film holder on the camera and making the exposure......and then packing it all up and moving on to the next potential subject.....

All serious photographers should have the opportunity to spend some time shooting with a Large Format camera. It's definitely a worthwhile experience!

 

[OldMacs4Me]

Having done the darkroom thing and having nice memories of it I still don't think I'd want to return to that in this day and age. I love digital shooting and although I'm not keen on post-processing it is still nice to be able to work on one's images in daylight and see what one is doing -- and also not to have to deal with any smelly chemicals and such. I had a couple of shirts that I reserved specifically for darkroom use, as over time they accumulated stains which simply did not come out.

Wandering way off topic here, but I think the topic has somewhat exhausted itself.

Made my living in the darkroom for a number of years. Good ventilation is critical! Digitally I can do more in a minute or two to get the most out of an image, than I could over several hours in the darkroom. If I had some place local to purchase and process film, I'd love to haul out the old 4x5 sometimes, but that is pretty much pipe dream territory at this point. Even then I would just scan the neg and do everything else digitally.

While there is no question that small sensors have their limits, I find it remarkable what they can do. The sensor size is 4.8x6.4mm in most of these cameras and I believe even smaller on the iPhones. Some of you will recall the Kodak™ disk cameras. These had a neg size of about 8x11mm, yet really could not produce an acceptable print any bigger than 3.5x4 inches. Yet all of the P&S and waterproof cameras I have owned will consistently allow 5x7 prints, usually will do decent 8x10s, and given the right subject an 11x14 here and there is still possible. Given the very tiny sensor I find that achievement quite remarkable.

 

[bunnspecial]

I've spent my fair share of time in the darkroom, but as of now have no space for one since I moved last year. I hope soon!

It's oddly relaxing for me. I can easily spend an hour getting one print "right" but it's such a great feeling when you do.

I started out printing on Beseler 23C, but when I got into LF realized that wouldn't cut it. I picked up a beast of a Beseler 45 in there somewhere which came with carriers down to 110 size, something that's almost comical. Along the way too, my favorite local haunt had a Leica V35 with a color head come in one day and they offered me a screaming deal on it because they really didn't have the space. Unfortunately, it didn't have the 40mm Focotar, but I got the column height dialed in enough that it was close enough to only need a tweak when printing 8x10s. Optics aside, the Focomat enlargers are a treat as the projected size doesn't change with focusing like on a conventional enlarger with separate height and focus adjustments. Even having to tweak focus, it's still super fast to use.

In there, my Beseler 23 became redundant, but it was hard to get rid of it. If anyone in the Louisville area wants it, hit me up and you can have it along with the carriers. I'd probably keep the lenses, but assuming he moved the stuff Chuck on Frankfort Avenue use to have piles of boards and of course bunches of lenses(I bought the 23 and the V35 from him). It's in storage and I don't remember where in the tetris game of a storage building I put it, but I can get it for you the next time I'm in town.

 

[r.harris1]

I personally have no desire for "connectedness" in a camera, although I absolutely understand why some people would. But so much of my voice and style is wrapped up in editing, and since I shoot raw, being able to share directly from a camera wouldn't do me any good, other than sending a raw image to a computer. Which I can already do. But it's not like I could ever add some presets and an overlay layer (other than as a double exposure) in camera before sharing.

But for jpeg shooters (sports/documentary/etc. or other hobbyists) I guess that could be a desirable feature set.

Yeah, I think for me it’s more that camera manufacturers ceded ground to smartphone manufacturers without even trying to get it right early on. And there’s no great dedicated camera option for the group of shooters who would want or need to have that connectedness. You can fiddle around, but it’s kludgey.

For me it doesn’t matter and isn’t on my list of must-haves. These days I’m mostly very, very slow, manual and low volume and wouldn’t be interested in posting immediately to anywhere. And post processing on a big screen is a much enjoyed and important part of my workflow.

 

[r.harris1]

I use my iPhone camera from time to time when I just want to shoot something quickly that I see when out-and-about and don't have another camera with me, or when I want to experiment with a set up and tinker with it before getting out the real gear. Yes, it's definitely possible to be creative with an iPhone, but there are still limitations. When I do shoot with the iPhone, I use Air Drop to immediately ship the image(s) over to the computer, where I then edit them and either share them or just stash them in my Pictures folder.

It's not a big deal to pull the memory card from the "real" camera and step over to the computer workstation, where I keep the card reader always plugged in, and pop the card into the reader, download the images into the computer, and then take a quick look to make sure all is well. After that at some point I return the memory card to the camera and immediately format it again so that it will be ready for the next time. Sometimes I'll switch to a different memory card, especially if I am planning to be out shooting for an extensive period of time and want more storage capacity available in the card. I'm not interested in having a "real" camera with a lot of built-in memory and a way of sending all the images to the computer, as I shoot way too many images for that to be practical. Out in the field for a day-long shooting expedition it definitely would not be as convenient as having a supply of memory cards at hand to swap in-and-out of the camera as needed. Filled cards would be set aside and then later their contents put into the computer for review and editing.

Having done the darkroom thing and having nice memories of it I still don't think I'd want to return to that in this day and age. I love digital shooting and although I'm not keen on post-processing it is still nice to be able to work on one's images in daylight and see what one is doing -- and also not to have to deal with any smelly chemicals and such. I had a couple of shirts that I reserved specifically for darkroom use, as over time they accumulated stains which simply did not come out.

Shooting with a film camera again would be fun, though, and challenging! The tool which offers the most opportunity for slowing down and really working out what one is going to shoot and how is a field camera -- Large Format. The process of hauling the tripod and the camera and the loaded film holders and the Polaroid back out to wherever one is going to shoot is enough to slow one down right from the get-go! LOL! Setting up the shot and then taking it is definitely an instructive process and again is slowed somewhat by first using the Polaroid back to get a quick estimation of how everything will look and then actually putting the film holder on the camera and making the exposure......and then packing it all up and moving on to the next potential subject.....

All serious photographers should have the opportunity to spend some time shooting with a Large Format camera. It's definitely a worthwhile experience!

I’m very much hoping, if we get back to real normalcy, to do some large format classes this summer or fall. I can’t wait!

 

[Clix Pix]

I remember the first day of class when I saw the size of the trunk they gave us to transport the 4x5 field camera, the tripod, the film holders, etc., etc., that the school provided us for the semester, I groaned. The first couple of times I went to shoot with the field camera, I groaned. The final day of class, when we had to turn everything back in, I groaned, too -- but because by that time I didn't want to give that amazing camera up!

 

[bunnspecial]

There's nothing quite like large format.

If I'm trying to "pack light" I may only have 6 frames of film with me. Those are pretty high stakes to get it right.

What can be achieved is phenomenal, and 4x5 transparencies are a sight to behold.

It's also fun to be out in public and have someone ask you about your "old" camera while you're disappearing under the dark cloth, even though my Calumet monorail may only be 20 years old.

 

[Apple fanboy]

There's nothing quite like large format.

If I'm trying to "pack light" I may only have 6 frames of film with me. Those are pretty high stakes to get it right.

What can be achieved is phenomenal, and 4x5 transparencies are a sight to behold.

It's also fun to be out in public and have someone ask you about your "old" camera while you're disappearing under the dark cloth, even though my Calumet monorail may only be 20 years old.

6 frames? Some people don’t think that’s enough per second (and still don’t get a good shot!).
Do you get them drum scanned? Apparently that gets more of the detail than a flatbed scanner.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I remember the first day of class when I saw the size of the trunk they gave us to transport the 4x5 field camera, the tripod, the film holders, etc., etc., that the school provided us for the semester, I groaned. The first couple of times I went to shoot with the field camera, I groaned. The final day of class, when we had to turn everything back in, I groaned, too -- but because by that time I didn't want to give that amazing camera up!

Lol. Just reading this I’m thinking of how you gave up DSLR’s for mirrorless to save weight!
Do you have any images from it still?

 

[kenoh]

There's nothing quite like large format.

If I'm trying to "pack light" I may only have 6 frames of film with me. Those are pretty high stakes to get it right.

What can be achieved is phenomenal, and 4x5 transparencies are a sight to behold.

It's also fun to be out in public and have someone ask you about your "old" camera while you're disappearing under the dark cloth, even though my Calumet monorail may only be 20 years old.

Have you read the account of Ansel Adams carrying 12 wet plates up for Tunnel view in Yosemite? fascinating and tense.

 

[OldMacs4Me]

I’m very much hoping, if we get back to real normalcy, to do some large format classes this summer or fall. I can’t wait!

You'll love it I'm sure.

There's nothing quite like large format.

If I'm trying to "pack light" I may only have 6 frames of film with me. Those are pretty high stakes to get it right.

What can be achieved is phenomenal, and 4x5 transparencies are a sight to behold.

It's also fun to be out in public and have someone ask you about your "old" camera while you're disappearing under the dark cloth, even though my Calumet monorail may only be 20 years old.

Quite honestly I found the Linhof to be exceptionally portable. Just used a straight lightweight Gitza tripod with no head because the camera back rotates. One lens, cause lets face it a 120mm lens gives a decent wide angle and can be cropped quite a bit if required. If I really wanted to keep it light the 127mm Schneider Xenar that came with the camera was up to most tasks, just not nearly the coverage of the heavier 121 Super Angulon that I preferred. I carried 4 film holders which was eight sheets of film. Typically 2 color and 6 B&W. Since you know any shot can take up to half an hour or more, and nowadays set you back at least $10, you take the time to get it right.

 

[bunnspecial]

You'll love it I'm sure.


Quite honestly I found the Linhof to be exceptionally portable. Just used a straight lightweight Gitza tripod with no head because the camera back rotates. One lens, cause lets face it a 120mm lens gives a decent wide angle and can be cropped quite a bit if required. If I really wanted to keep it light the 127mm Schneider Xenar that came with the camera was up to most tasks, just not nearly the coverage of the heavier 121 Super Angulon that I preferred. I carried 4 film holders which was eight sheets of film. Typically 2 color and 6 B&W. Since you know any shot can take up to half an hour or more, and nowadays set you back at least $10, you take the time to get it right.

Like a lot of people, I started with a Speed Graphic, bought a wooden field camera(Burke and James, with impossible to find lens boards) and then the Calumet. I sold them all but the Calumet.

Lens wise, I have a 150mm Fuji and a 75mm Nikkor now. The latter is a favorite, but almost too wide at times. I do have a 210mm Kodak in a Graphic board, but the shutter is dead so I haven't had any motivation to put it on a Calumet board. I've been meaning to look for a 127mm-ish.

LF is the reason I've kept my Tiltall around, as it's sturdy enough for 4x5 but light enough to not be too much of a burden to carry.

I need to get back into it, but I just can't do a darkroom now and I've only ever developed my own in 4x5. I even buckled down and learned to do E6, but I'd like to get a Jobo or equivalent before doing it again. I did it with hand agitation-I just filled the bathtub with water the correct temperature, left my bottles and everything in there long enough to get to temp, and did all the agitation, etc with the tank in the tub also. Crude, but it worked. The full E6 process by hand at 40.5º C takes about 45 minutes, but the first developer is the main time and temperature critical step. By the time I got to the last step(using an old style Photoflo/formaldehyde rinse) the temperature would be down to 35ºC or so, but that was fine. The big thing is that it all dropped in temperature together, so I didn't have to worry about reticulating.

One of the things that really hit me is that E6 emulsion is super fragile. Modern B&W films are really tough stuff. I found that E6 could "smudge" a bit even even using my fingers to squeegee it. I've tried to force Tri-X to reticulate, and it takes some pretty wild temperature swings(say 50ºC on down to ice water) to get it to do it. I suspect E6 would with even a few degrees of sudden change.

 

[Clix Pix]

Lol. Just reading this I’m thinking of how you gave up DSLR’s for mirrorless to save weight!
Do you have any images from it still?

I do, but they're all 8x10 B&W prints. I should pull out the box where I have them stored and scan a few......

As for the giving up of DSLRs in favor of mirrorless to save weight, well..... That didn't exactly work out as anticipated, did it? Never thought I'd be getting back into buying and using long, heavy lenses again! While my current 100-400mm and 200-600mm lenses may be a little lighter than my previous "Arnie" (Nikon 300mm f/2.8) and "Bertha" (Nikon 200mm f/2), definitely not by much! LOL!

 

[bunnspecial]

Truth be told, outside of normal-ish primes and slower mid-range zooms, the weight of a DSLR body becomes less significant as part of the camera+lens system.

When you get into wide angle territory, lenses can be smaller and lighter than their SLR counterpart since you don't have to deal with the large backfocus distance of a typical 35mm mount(the F mount is the longest of the common ones, and I think it's 45mm). A 14mm lens, for example, needs a pretty extreme retrofocus design to work, which makes it big and heavy(see the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8, which I love but don't use as often as I should because it's so heavy) With that said, this isn't film where you can have the rear element a millimeter from the focal plane. The microlenses on the sensor are still somewhat light angle sensitive, and you can get pretty extreme fall-off if you gt the rear element too close.

In all my rambling, my point being that if you're sticking-say-a 70-200mm f/2.8 or 300mm f/2.8 on the front, the size and weight of say a Z7 vs. a D850 isn't that significant.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Truth be told, outside of normal-ish primes and slower mid-range zooms, the weight of a DSLR body becomes less significant as part of the camera+lens system.

When you get into wide angle territory, lenses can be smaller and lighter than their SLR counterpart since you don't have to deal with the large backfocus distance of a typical 35mm mount(the F mount is the longest of the common ones, and I think it's 45mm). A 14mm lens, for example, needs a pretty extreme retrofocus design to work, which makes it big and heavy(see the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8, which I love but don't use as often as I should because it's so heavy) With that said, this isn't film where you can have the rear element a millimeter from the focal plane. The microlenses on the sensor are still somewhat light angle sensitive, and you can get pretty extreme fall-off if you gt the rear element too close.

In all my rambling, my point being that if you're sticking-say-a 70-200mm f/2.8 or 300mm f/2.8 on the front, the size and weight of say a Z7 vs. a D850 isn't that significant.

I have that very same 14-24mm f2.8 lens and can’t remember the last time it had a trip out. Not helped by the fact my filters don’t fit it either due to the design.
Totally agree on the weight comment. Especially if your using an F-mount lens with the adapter. No saving at all.
I did lose 17 pounds in my set up. Bought an Apple Watch and started exercising!

 

[Clix Pix]

I remember that 14-24mm Nikon! It was a beautiful lens and made for some really nice images but, yeah, it was heavy and awkward, and since wide-angle really wasn't my thing anyway I eventually sold it to a friend because it was just sitting in the bag otherwise.

My smaller lenses are the primes: the 35mm f/1.8. the 85mm f/1.8, the 50mm f/2.8.....when one gets into zooms, that is where the weight begins to come into play, although my 135mm f/1.8 is a pretty hefty lens, too. My beloved 90mm is no lightweight, either, but is not a fat lens so that it's comfortable to hold and handle.

Yes, one reason for my objection to using adapters is that they indeed do add build and additional weight, regardless of the size of the lens that is being paired with them, and yeah, that can be awkward, depending upon the configuration and weight of the entire setup.

 

[MevetS]

I remember the first day of class when I saw the size of the trunk they gave us to transport the 4x5 field camera, the tripod, the film holders, etc., etc., that the school provided us for the semester, I groaned. The first couple of times I went to shoot with the field camera, I groaned. The final day of class, when we had to turn everything back in, I groaned, too -- but because by that time I didn't want to give that amazing camera up!

But did they give you a card reader with it?

 

[bunnspecial]

But did they give you a card reader with it?

Well...I know I have a card reader of sorts in my LF kit.

I have a spot meter that I sometimes use to read a gray card (although I'll take using an incident any day over spot off a gray card, or really spot metering in general).

 

[jtopp]

Many in this board think that a card reader is just as good as bread and butter in photography and do not take you seriously if you choose to use a USB cable instead. I am gonna argue that they are wrong. Apple does not think a card reader is entirely necessary as their latest iMac just released does not include one. Also the 2020 MacBook Pro I bought last year did not include one, not unlike my previous 2012 MacBook Pro model. So I argue that a card reader is not as necessary as those on this board think. Sure some PC makers at the moment include them, but remember that PC's are usually behind Macs so eventually they will stop shipping with card readers as well.

For most a USB cable will work just fine and will prevent you from the constant ejection of a SD card and opening the battery department or wherever the SD card is on your camera. USB is much faster than wireless and many cameras will charge while connected to your computer downloading photos/videos so why not use a USB cable instead? Thats the real question many on this board will have to answer.

I used to own a Canon 5d mark ii years ago and the USB port on the camera is rather fragile and eventually broke as I was downloading images. It was a few hundred dollars to fix and since then with any of my cameras I never use that cable to transfer pictures. I’m sure with some cameras they might have a more robust port but I’m not risking damaging my Canon r5. Just buy a card reader, many professional cameras don’t even use as cards anyway.