David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
Here's Provia 100F in 6x7 womping all over the Canon 5D in detail
capture. I had thought that Provia 100F, being not as snappy as the
Velvias or as killer fine grain as TMX100, might not be all that much
better than 12MP digital. But it is.
http://www.pbase.com/image/102380922/original
The bad news is that I haven't figured out how to persuade the Epson V700
to
capture enough more detail than the 5D to be able to justify shooting
film.
Sigh. (The Nikon 8000 is old and dying, and probably won't be
resurrectable,
so I need an alternative.)
How does it look w/o upsampling the 5D?
http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/57362779/original
The 5D does make a nice 12x18" print. When the Moire isn't too bad, that is.
(Which is the vast majority of the time.)
The usual comparison is to crop from the film area and the digital camera
using a lens that matches the FOV of the film camera.
Uh, that's what I did: 65mm on 6x7 is essentially the same as 35mm on 24x36,
You're close enough with the 35mm v 65mm lenses.
Oh. You sounded as though you were arguing. They're really quite close 65mm
against 70mm is only a hair wider than 35mm against 36mm. I prefer looking
at just the horizontal for comparing formats with different aspect ratios.
Someone who thinks the diagonal is a more meaningful comparison would prefer
comparing the 65mm on 6x7 with a 32mm lens on 24x36. Which would make
digital look even worse.
Where I was going with that is really the upsampling. No need, and I
thought that had exaggerated the moire. Looking at the rest of the 5D
image, there were probably other "fair" places for comparison where I
suspect the 5D would have matched the 6x7 close enough.
Nikon 9000 is fine.
But it costs US$3,000 over here. 
Tax-in I paid about $2,400 in Montreal ... (Given Nikon's inane warranty
and support and the Nikon reputation for less than stellar reliability
in scanners, I didn't take the chance of buying at at B&H (about $1950
at the time).
(I'm really going to want the new Fuji 6x7 folder if it actually appears in
the stores, and that plus the Mamiya 7 with the 43/4.5 (a lens I don't
currently own) would make a nice, easily luggable kit. But that's three
seriously expensive toys at the same time. The claim that MF is getting
cheaper does not seem to apply to the MF that I actually want.)
What kind of price is guess-imated for the folder?
Doh! I'm waiting for the FF Sony... which is guessed to be in the $3000
- $4000 range...
How many frames did you scan on the 8000 and over how long?
Quite a few; I shot a lot of 645 over the 4 years I was doing that, but the
5D showed up immediately after the Mamiya 7, so it's had a rest the last
couple of years. I think it has collected too much dust and crud just
sitting around. It's 7 or so years old now.
I really need to put mine under a dust cover...
It may also be that it just doesn't like Velvia 100F; it seems less unhappy
with Provia. I accidentally started film photography with Provia, and I keep
coming back to it. And it keeps surprising.
Provia has delighted and bitten me many times... Velvia has usually
delighted all the time (other than a recent 'doh' that I undershot by a
stop... sigh).
There's still hope for the V700, though: one tiny crop scan I did nailed a
snipped of Velvia 100F even better than the 8000. But I haven't been able to
repeat that. (Flatbed scanners, even when the resolution is good, have
registration problems (the R, G, and B channels for each pixel are each
exposed after moving the film; Nikon exposes each channel and then moves the
film) resulting in color fringing. Oops.)
I believe that's improved with the 9000 and the use of LED's instead of
fluorescent. I may be mistaken.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource:
http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems:
http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz:
http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.