Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
  

Archive 2004 · DSLR vs Film+Scanner combo
  
 
Nill Toulme
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · DSLR vs Film+Scanner combo


My 2: Don't do it. Most of the reasons have been well articulated in this thread. But the single one that's most compelling to me is what you alluded to above, i.e., that going with film would cause you to "go easy on the trigger." The thing that's been most liberating to me about shooting digital, and has caused (or allowed) me to learn more about photography in the past three years of shooting digital than in the previous 35 years shooting film, is that I don't have to go easy on the trigger. I'm free literally to shoot as much as I want of whatever I want with no thought whatsoever to the cost of film and processing, much less to the time spent in scanning (and I've been there, done that). Digital is the way.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net



Oct 15, 2004 at 04:08 PM
danks
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · DSLR vs Film+Scanner combo


Strange this should come up today. I have not turned my scanner on in ages but today I am scanning away in recognition of two things:

1/ I will NEVER project my slides again other than by computer and
2/ My scanner will someday die.

I would like to get ALL my stuff scanned, at a resolution that makes for enjoyable PJ on a home theatre projector at an image width of 1280 pixels BEFORE #2 comes to pass.

When completed this project, I will be able to pack the slides away for safekeeping, in all likelihood to never be viewed again. Then, discard the bulky trays and trash the old slide projector. My "gems" are scanned at 4000 dpi for archiving but most of the old stuff is just memories that do not require those file sizes.

I agree with DavipP too, digital is just plain better in every way AFAIAC. I find it hard to say even one good thing about film compared to digital.

For me . . . film is deader than a doornail.

And, you bet I find scanning tedious!



Oct 15, 2004 at 04:41 PM
grega
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · DSLR vs Film+Scanner combo


When I went digital I started learning 20x faster than I did with film. For me it is just priceless to be able to experiment and instantly see the result.
The only thing that could make me buy film cam again is BW and medium format. Just for fun.



Oct 15, 2004 at 04:42 PM
Pondria
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · DSLR vs Film+Scanner combo


DavidP wrote:
You haven't seen the new 8" x 10" CMOS sensor that Canon's put out for large format cameras?

Imagine what that sucker would cost.


The diagonal of 8x10 is 12.8". Did you forget that the wafer diameter is only 12" ?



Oct 16, 2004 at 06:20 AM
Pondria
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · DSLR vs Film+Scanner combo


DavidP wrote:
You haven't seen the new 8" x 10" CMOS sensor that Canon's put out for large format cameras?

Imagine what that sucker would cost.


The diagonal of 8x10 is 12.8". Did you forget that the wafer diameter is only 12" ?



Oct 16, 2004 at 06:20 AM
jonwienke
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · DSLR vs Film+Scanner combo


An arm, a leg, a pound of flesh nearest the heart, and your first-born child.


Oct 16, 2004 at 06:53 AM
bogatyr
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · DSLR vs Film+Scanner combo


It is my experience that the film/scanner combination is underestimated. With proper scanning and use of good scanners like the the newer Nikon LS-50 or LS-5000 you can get results that are better than what can be obtained from 6 mp digital SLR's. With the EOS 1D II it is a very close race, with perhaps the 1D Mk II a little better, and certainly if one takes into account high ISO (above 400) performance. No film can compete with the 1D II at ISO 800 and above.

But for ISO 100-200 I find that film delivers excellent quality, and its only downside is the added cost associated with film and processing.

Here are some examples of what I get from my Nikon FM2, Nikkor manual lenses, and a Nikon LS-50 scanner:

http://www.coldsiberia.org/vrmland6/aarjaeng_08_2004_mariatraktor_800.jpg

http://www.coldsiberia.org/vrmland6/aarjaeng_bus_station_ls-50_800.jpg

http://www.coldsiberia.org/vrmland6/aarjaeng_old_volvo_800.jpg

http://www.coldsiberia.org/vrmland6/aarjaeng_waterpump_ls-50_lighter_700.jpg

http://www.coldsiberia.org/public/audi_bakfra_Image_ls-50_4000ppi_900.jpg

All these images were captured with Fuji Superia 200 print film. I find that print/negative film consistently gives better and sharper results than slide film, and use print film almost exclusively.

Past experience tells us that the introduction of new media and techniques not necessarily renders old solutions obsolete. More often than not the old lives on side by side with the new, albeit as a niche. I am not in doubt that such will be the case with film. Film will survive even if digital dominates. However, film needs to be digitized in order for the images to be preserved for the future, since film is not archival beyond some decades. Thus, film + filmscanner is a combination to be taken seriously.



Oct 16, 2004 at 07:27 AM
Kenergy_007
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · DSLR vs Film+Scanner combo


I still keep one film body for b/w shots... I like to see grain in my b/w shots.


Oct 16, 2004 at 03:00 PM
Natron
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · DSLR vs Film+Scanner combo


I agree. People read propaganda on digitally-oriented sites that no 35mm film can beat a digital SLR and they just accept it as fact and spread it around themselves. Well, I have a middle of the road film scanner (Minolta Dimage Scan Multi II) and can say my film scans easily meet and beat my 20D's photos (especially if I scan in a 6x6 medium format frame from my Rolleiflex). They just do. That's my own personal fact. What people on testing sites and other forums find may vary.


Oct 16, 2004 at 04:38 PM
RDKirk
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · DSLR vs Film+Scanner combo


I agree completely with Terry, especially "Life is not long enough to scan film." Maybe it seems long enough if you're on the front half of a century, but as I'm sliding down the back side, I realize that scanning adds NOTHING to the process. It's merely a bridge from one technology to another.

It's a futile bridge. Stick to one technology or the other all the way through. If, to get the final product you desire, you must do so digitally, then start with a digital capture.



Oct 16, 2004 at 05:49 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 

        


jonwienke
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · DSLR vs Film+Scanner combo


You've obviously never tried a 1Ds.

Natron wrote:
I agree. People read propaganda on digitally-oriented sites that no 35mm film can beat a digital SLR and they just accept it as fact and spread it around themselves. Well, I have a middle of the road film scanner (Minolta Dimage Scan Multi II) and can say my film scans easily meet and beat my 20D's photos (especially if I scan in a 6x6 medium format frame from my Rolleiflex). They just do. That's my own personal fact. What people on testing sites and other forums find may vary.




Oct 16, 2004 at 06:34 PM
mikeCary
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · DSLR vs Film+Scanner combo


Natron wrote:
I agree. People read propaganda on digitally-oriented sites that no 35mm film can beat a digital SLR and they just accept it as fact and spread it around themselves. Well, I have a middle of the road film scanner (Minolta Dimage Scan Multi II) and can say my film scans easily meet and beat my 20D's photos (especially if I scan in a 6x6 medium format frame from my Rolleiflex). They just do. That's my own personal fact. What people on testing sites and other forums find may vary.



"That's my own personal fact" I agree; speed and operating costs aside I feel the difference between film and digital comes down to personal taste. Sometimes I'll shot the same subject with the 20D and the Pentax 645 and I'll like the 20Ds images more and other times the 645 images will win out. I do like the fact that the low cost per image of digital allows me to experiment alot more.

Well need to run to the store and pick up some Reala-100 and UC-100



Oct 16, 2004 at 07:18 PM
Natron
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · DSLR vs Film+Scanner combo


jonwienke wrote:
You've obviously never tried a 1Ds.



I'm a computer tech. I live alone and pay rent and insurance and bills. I can NOT afford an $8000 camera. When you can buy a manual-focus film camera for around $100, process B&W film yourself at home for cents per roll and end up with pleasing shots that satisfy you and look great, there's no reason to wonder if you need to sell your car and take out a large loan to buy a 1Ds. I know some digital cameras beat film. I know not all film is the same. I know not all scanners are the same. I know film is more expensive to use even though it's cheaper up front, etc etc etc. I understand it all. I wouldn't even want a 1Ds given a chance between getting the cash for it or getting the camera because it's too huge for me. Huge. My Canonet can fit in the palm of one hand and weighs a mere ounces. There's something very big to be said about comfortable size and weight when you aren't a pro or working in a studio.

I don't use my manual-focus film camera for sports and I don't use my digital in situations where I can toss the extremely-sturdy and reliable FE2 into a backpack, have it thrown around as airline luggage, take it where camera gear may get stolen, take it hiking in the middle of a 5 degree winter day, etc.

I never even said the 1Ds is inferior to film. I said many believe no film can beat a DSLR. I didn't say ALL DSLRs. It just seems the general idea that no film can beat any DSLR... E1 or D60 or D1 or 1D, etc. That's just plain false.



Oct 16, 2004 at 08:13 PM
Nill Toulme
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · DSLR vs Film+Scanner combo


Natron wrote:
I never even said the 1Ds is inferior to film. I said many believe no film can beat a DSLR. I didn't say ALL DSLRs. It just seems the general idea that no film can beat any DSLR... E1 or D60 or D1 or 1D, etc. That's just plain false.


This is a funny discussion. Wasn't it only some months ago that everybody was arguing over whether *any* DSLR could match film? We live in interesting times.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net



Oct 16, 2004 at 08:51 PM
Mthorpe_Davies
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · DSLR vs Film+Scanner combo


bogatyr wrote:
http://www.coldsiberia.org/vrmland6/aarjaeng_08_2004_mariatraktor_800.jpg

http://www.coldsiberia.org/vrmland6/aarjaeng_bus_station_ls-50_800.jpg

http://www.coldsiberia.org/vrmland6/aarjaeng_old_volvo_800.jpg

http://www.coldsiberia.org/vrmland6/aarjaeng_waterpump_ls-50_lighter_700.jpg

http://www.coldsiberia.org/public/audi_bakfra_Image_ls-50_4000ppi_900.jpg



Photo 2 just screams Norway, couldn't be anywhere else that I've ever been.



Oct 16, 2004 at 09:03 PM
mickr7an
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · DSLR vs Film+Scanner combo


Personally digital has come such a long way that I can't see your dilemma as a consideration anymore. Unless you have a strong desire and a specific need for film, there is nothing to weight up. If the cost is the same then it has to be digital, without question.


Oct 17, 2004 at 12:45 AM
Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · DSLR vs Film+Scanner combo


Damn bogatyr, your scans are good! I can't help but notice you disabled auto sharpen in the NikonScan software and sharpened intelligently in PS. Well done. Most folks sharpen the hell outta their film scans and end up with too much grain. Plus the color is very Velvia like. Here's a scan of a Sensia silde from my Canon FS4000US using Sliverfast (Nikon 8008S Nikkor 180 2.8 ED):



Oct 17, 2004 at 01:12 AM
rico
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · DSLR vs Film+Scanner combo


mickr7an wrote:
Personally digital has come such a long way that I can't see your dilemma as a consideration anymore. Unless you have a strong desire and a specific need for film, there is nothing to weight up. If the cost is the same then it has to be digital, without question.


There is something to weigh up... the camera! While the latest DSLRs can match or (for a price) exceed a 35mm film camera in matters of image detail, they cannot compete for compactness:
http://patternassociates.com/rico/contax/misc/t3.jpg
This model sports a full-frame sensor with decent ISO 800 capability and spectacular 35/2.8 lens. A digi P&S can compete on size, but not high ISO or selective DOF.

Those pesky analog trade-offs still exist.

Gochugogi, I have to agree with you: those scans by bogatyr have the touch of a master.



Oct 17, 2004 at 01:15 AM
RDKirk
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · DSLR vs Film+Scanner combo


Natron wrote:
I agree. People read propaganda on digitally-oriented sites that no 35mm film can beat a digital SLR and they just accept it as fact and spread it around themselves. Well, I have a middle of the road film scanner (Minolta Dimage Scan Multi II) and can say my film scans easily meet and beat my 20D's photos (especially if I scan in a 6x6 medium format frame from my Rolleiflex). They just do. That's my own personal fact. What people on testing sites and other forums find may vary.


I notice you moved the discussion from scanned 35mm to scanned 6x6. The original question was regarding scanned 35mm.



Oct 17, 2004 at 01:56 AM
RDKirk
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · DSLR vs Film+Scanner combo


>>"That's my own personal fact" I agree; speed and operating costs aside I feel the difference between film and digital comes down to personal taste. Sometimes I'll shot the same subject with the 20D and the Pentax 645 and I'll like the 20Ds images more and other times the 645 images will win out. I do like the fact that the low cost per image of digital allows me to experiment alot more.
<<

You're comparing a 20D with scanned 6x4.5, which was not the original question. The original question asked for a comparison of the 20D with 35mm.



Oct 17, 2004 at 01:58 AM
1      
2
       3       end






FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password