Upload & Sell: Off
I haven't used the DSLR technique myself, but it seems like it only makes sense if both of the following are true:
- you already have a good portion of the necessary equipment available, including a light box, a studio light source, a short focal length macro lens, a decent film holder (the homemade film holders I've seen people using often don't look like they'll keep the film flat enough, plus you need separate holders for each film size), and of course a 20+MP FF DSLR (I'd say you probably will only be able to beat an Epson with a 30+MP DSLR). Compare that against an Epson v500, which is $145 (and is very close to a v750, assuming you're not wet mounting)
- You have a large amount of scans to do at a time, rather than a few scans spaced out each month. While the DSLR approach would be much faster once you've got everything set up for a run, I imagine it would take more attention at the start of a session to make sure everything is aligned well, lighting temperature is correct, etc. - unless you really had a FF DSLR lying around that was just dedicated to this process. Because you're shooting in an open environment, I'd also imagine you'd have to be more vigilant about dust as you go along. For these reasons, I think this approach makes more sense for 35mm film, or maybe 645, where you have a good number of images per roll. It also makes sense for people who are trying to scan a large archive of old negatives. It doesn't seem that efficient for someone like me, who shoots 1 or 2 rolls of 6x7 or 6x6 a month.