View Single Post
  #34  
Old May 24th 07, 05:16 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,uk.rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.misc,alt.photography,rec.photo.equipment.misc
David Dyer-Bennet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,814
Default Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera

jeremy wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message

I have scanned hundreds of my old film pictures, and not ONE of them looks
as good as any of my digital camera's pictures. Scanning is a very poor
substitute for the 'real thing'. For me, the appeal of digital is the
reduced cost, and hassle, over film. I doubt I will ever remove my film
camera from the drawer for any purpose than nostalgia in the future.



Were you using a decent film scanner, one with ICE3? I am surprised to see
your comment, as I've been pleased with my scanned film images.


I've scanned lots of my old photos, first on a Nikon LS-2000 and more
recently on a Coolscan 5000 ED. I'm reasonably happy with my scans, but
pixel for pixel they are *far* inferior to the images one gets from
digital cameras. Since there are more pixels *there*, good images can
definitely be the result.

Digital cameras, at least in theory, filter out much high-end information.
I'd prefer good film scans, taken on excellent film cameras and lenses, over
inexpensive digital camera images.


Your "at least in theory" and "I'd" (contraction for "I would") both
suggest to me that you haven't done much comparing digital captures to
film scans. If not, you'll be kinda surprised when you start.

Of course, if you are placing film cost as a high-priority item, then
digital cameras offer an advantage. I am a relatively low-volume shooter,
for whom film cost is not a major factor. For a guy that shoots an average
of a roll per week, buying a high-end digital camera seems to be an
unnecessary expense--especially since I already have all the film bodies and
lenses I could ever want.


50 rolls a year (Yeah, I know there are 52 weeks, but I'm a lazy math
geek) at $20/roll for film and processing (processing much less if you
let a one-hour lab do the processing, but if quality is the issue then
that seems a foolish choice) pays for a D200 in less than two years,
*and* saves you hours of time scanning.

None of which is to say that digital is the right move for you. If I
knew you and watched you work and saw the results I might have an
opinion -- but your own opinion is the one that matters.