Hasselblad path

I am what I guess they call a serious amateur.

I have a fair amount invested in a hasselblad outfit and I have a
darkroom. I've also been recently impressed and convinced that
digital capture/output has fully arrived, at least in the 35mm format.
I've even bought a Canon digital Rebel/300D, but that's a story for a
different day.

I love the hasselblad and my hope is that eventually (2-5 years?) we
will see full frame digital scanning backs that the non-professional
can justify financially (I could tolerate $3000+ for a full frame
digital back). The canon digital rebel of today for under $1000 has
the capability of the $10,000 digital cameras of four years ago. Is
my thinking merely wishful thinking that MF backs will make any
similar progress?

That leads me into the next question about the here and now.

Are there film scanners (budget ~$2000) that will actually help me see
image quality from a MF negative (how about B&W negs) that exceeds
what I can expect from a pure digital capture from the current crop of
mid level digital SLR's (e.g. Nikon D2h or Canon 1d.

I tried searching the newsgroup on this topic, and if it has been
discussed before, I must not be using the right query and apologize.

Fred

On 8 Mar 2004 10:03:34 -0800, (Fred Mueller) wrote:

I am what I guess they call a serious amateur.

I have a fair amount invested in a hasselblad outfit and I have a
darkroom. I've also been recently impressed and convinced that
digital capture/output has fully arrived, at least in the 35mm format.
I've even bought a Canon digital Rebel/300D, but that's a story for a
different day.

I love the hasselblad and my hope is that eventually (2-5 years?) we
will see full frame digital scanning backs that the non-professional
can justify financially (I could tolerate $3000+ for a full frame
digital back). The canon digital rebel of today for under $1000 has
the capability of the $10,000 digital cameras of four years ago. Is
my thinking merely wishful thinking that MF backs will make any
similar progress?


Depends on the market, eh? I think there's a limited
market, but I could be wrong. Plus I think you're more
likely to find the scanning back for LF (4x5) rather than MF.

People expect MF to be somewhat portable, but that
expectation is not usually exended to LF.

That leads me into the next question about the here and now.

Are there film scanners (budget ~$2000) that will actually help me see
image quality from a MF negative (how about B&W negs) that exceeds
what I can expect from a pure digital capture from the current crop of
mid level digital SLR's (e.g. Nikon D2h or Canon 1d.


Lots of folks are raving about the Epson 4870, but
the real (effective) resolution isn't close to the
advertised value, from what I've seen.

For around $1800 you can get the Nikon LS-9000,
which is rated at 4000 dpi and will deliver an
*honest* 3000 dpi or so. And yes, when scanning
MF the results should easily beat the output of the
two digicams you cite. Now if the comparison were
to the Canon 1Ds, it might be a different story.

Lots of scan samples (and digicam snippets) are
posted at

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis

Maybe that will help you judge for yourself.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Now if the comparison were
to the Canon 1Ds, it might be a different story.
It's been tested.
Using a Mamiya 7 and a Nikon Coolscan 8000 it was a little better than the
1ds. More detail.
I find stunning results B&W and colour from Mamiya Rb67 negs on Coolscan
8000.
I also scan 35 and it is very good. Better than my Olympus ep20.
I used to do darkroom stuff and have done almost none for a year.
Might try it again.

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:23:26 -0000, "Gearóid Ó Laoi/Garry Lee"
wrote:

Now if the comparison were
to the Canon 1Ds, it might be a different story.
It's been tested.
Using a Mamiya 7 and a Nikon Coolscan 8000 it was a little better than the
1ds. More detail.
I find stunning results B&W and colour from Mamiya Rb67 negs on Coolscan
8000.
I also scan 35 and it is very good. Better than my Olympus ep20.
I used to do darkroom stuff and have done almost none for a year.
Might try it again.


No need to sell me on the Nikon MF film scanners,
I am very happy with my LS-8000. I really wish there
was a comparable machine for scanning 4x5.

In my case the comparison was to scanned 645
(Pentax and/or Mamiya) and the 1Ds was just
too close for comfort.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Fred Mueller writes:

Are there film scanners (budget ~$2000) that will actually help me see
image quality from a MF negative (how about B&W negs) that exceeds
what I can expect from a pure digital capture from the current crop of
mid level digital SLR's (e.g. Nikon D2h or Canon 1d.

Yes. My LS-8000ED scans of MF whip anything that any DSLR can produce.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Are there film scanners (budget ~$2000) that will actually help me see
image quality from a MF negative BRBR


My OLD (now) Nikon Super Coolscan 8000ED certainly gives me that detail from
2-1/4 negatives and transparencies. It is what keeps me using my 503CW.

Dan

"EDGY01" wrote:
Are there film scanners (budget ~$2000) that will actually help me see
image quality from a MF negative BRBR

My OLD (now) Nikon Super Coolscan 8000ED certainly gives me that detail
from
2-1/4 negatives and transparencies. It is what keeps me using my 503CW.

Seconded, for Provia and Velvia 100F. However, I haven't been all that happy
with B&W scanning. Even Tech Pan (although I didn't develop it myself) looks
scratchy. See my Tech Pan example at:

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Thanks for the response.

I have an acquaintance with the LS-8000 scanner, I will have to do a
few scans and see for myself.

If the canon 1Ds is going to give my MF a run for the money, well, you
know what I'm thinking, what am I missing here?

Fred

In article ,
(Fred Mueller) wrote:

If the canon 1Ds is going to give my MF a run for the money, well, you
know what I'm thinking, what am I missing here?

If you are happy with the 1D's output, then stay with the 1D. Leave the
'blad at home. My opinion is that it's foolish to take a digital camera on
an extended, rough camping/riding campaign. Period. There's a hundred
reasons to use film instead, but if it makes you happy there is nothing
more to say.

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 10:14:21 -0600, (jjs)
wrote:

In article ,
(Fred Mueller) wrote:

If the canon 1Ds is going to give my MF a run for the money, well, you
know what I'm thinking, what am I missing here?

If you are happy with the 1D's output, then stay with the 1D. Leave the
'blad at home. My opinion is that it's foolish to take a digital camera on
an extended, rough camping/riding campaign. Period. There's a hundred
reasons to use film instead, but if it makes you happy there is nothing
more to say.


Ten days on the Appalachian Trail in Vermont.
August 2002. Canon G2. Three CF cards. One
battery charge. 200+ shots. A few dozen he

http://gallery.backcountry.net/at-vt-2002



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com