Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
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.
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.
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.
Still, I am surprised that more people haven't jumped onto the film
scanner bandwagon. Considering all the eBay and KEH sales of film gear,
I wonder what the new owners of all that legacy equipment are doing with
it? Is anyone still shooting color negative film and taking it to the
drugstore for developing and printing?
No, the scanner was not a particularly good one, but for scanning prints,
that isn't essential. But between the cost of film, and prints, and the
laborious aspect of scanning them, digital is a winner.
I misread your original post. You were scanning PRINTS? No wonder you were
disappointed.
|