A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

below $1000 film vs digital



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old June 4th 04, 10:13 AM
Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

In article ,
Michael Benveniste wrote:
But if you're more concerned about technical issues such as sharpness,
given a one-time $1000 budget for equipment, of the choices you mention
a medium format camera is today's winner.


Don't forget to include the cost of a good medium format film scanner
within the $999.99 budget. Or do you trust the film processor to
do this for you properly?


IMHO. YMMV.
--
Ron Nicholson rhn AT nicholson DOT com http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/
#include canonical.disclaimer // only my own opinions, etc.
  #32  
Old June 4th 04, 01:54 PM
Jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

Here's a link to the site. A translation would be welcome.

http://www.i-love-epson.co.jp/produc...200/f32001.htm

Cheers,
Jeff Tokayer.

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Jeff" wrote:

David J. Littleboy wrote:

I'm quite sure it would. At A4, 645 Reala + 2450 looked very good. I'd
expect superb 11x14s from 645 and the 4870.


David,
What is your take on the newly announced F-3200? It seems to me like an
HP S20 on steroids.
I wonder if it will exceed the 4870 "real" resolution.



I've not heard of the F-3200.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



  #33  
Old June 4th 04, 02:33 PM
Michael Benveniste
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


"Ronald H. Nicholson Jr." wrote in message:

Don't forget to include the cost of a good medium format film scanner
within the $999.99 budget. Or do you trust the film processor to
do this for you properly?


I would trust my pro lab for scans made from a professional quality
flatbed or drum scanner. That's one of the reasons I asked about
recurring costs first thing. It's also why I made that comment about
digital editing.

But here's an odd historical fact. People once produced top quality
prints from film before scanners ever existed (*gasp*)! And you
can still do so today.

My home "digital darkroom" is modest, consisting of a Canon 4000
35mm/APS scanner, a 3-year old computer, an Epson 2200 printer, and
Paint Shop Slow 8. With that gear, I can produce the occasional
print that's pleasing to the non-critical eye, but I make no claims
to professional quality output.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.


  #34  
Old June 4th 04, 03:27 PM
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


"Jeff" wrote:
Here's a link to the site. A translation would be welcome.


Japanese isn't that hard to learn: I found it _much_ easier than either
Latin or German. (Really.)

http://www.i-love-epson.co.jp/produc...200/f32001.htm


It looks like there's no ICE, but it'll handle 4x5 or MF up to 6x18 at 3200
dpi. It works either stand-alone or connected to a PC/Mac. It'll scan prints
up to 4x6.

It looks like it's Epson's offset CCD (actual CCD resolution is 1600 dpi,
but it's got two offset 1/2 a pixle pitch) so effective res will be more
like 1600 dpi than 3200 dpi.

The lack of ICE and the uninspired resolution mean that one is better off
with the 4870.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



  #35  
Old June 4th 04, 03:39 PM
Sander Vesik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm bagal wrote:
Here is a scenario Nick:

email from publisher: we have been let down by witheld copyright on image
and needs shots of montains with snow. Can you get some to us by 9pm
tonight?

1 - search through a couple of thousand prints, find a few that are
suitable, get the original plus negs to publisher using courier express

2 - search the database, find pics, send images in appropriate format by
email.

which, if any, wins in the 21st century?


If you send a scan alnongside in teh first case, it will win. Because
occasionaly they will want to rescan. IN which case, if they don't have
the negs, you might not get any more email from them.


das B


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++
  #36  
Old June 4th 04, 04:40 PM
Jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital



David J. Littleboy wrote:

"Jeff" wrote:

Here's a link to the site. A translation would be welcome.



Japanese isn't that hard to learn: I found it _much_ easier than either
Latin or German. (Really.)


I was exposed to Hungarian all my life (by my mother), but it wasn't my
choice. I am fluent in Spanish and semi-fluent in Hebrew.
I'm sure I could learn Japanese, but at this point in my life it would
be futile.



http://www.i-love-epson.co.jp/produc...200/f32001.htm



It looks like there's no ICE, but it'll handle 4x5 or MF up to 6x18 at 3200
dpi. It works either stand-alone or connected to a PC/Mac. It'll scan prints
up to 4x6.


This page talks about dust removal (when I Babelfish it).
http://www.i-love-epson.co.jp/produc...200/f32005.htm

I like the film holder layout better than the 4870's. It allows for 4
645's or 2 6x9's to be scanned at once.


It looks like it's Epson's offset CCD (actual CCD resolution is 1600 dpi,
but it's got two offset 1/2 a pixle pitch) so effective res will be more
like 1600 dpi than 3200 dpi.


I wonder if this HyperCCD is an improvement over the CCD used in their
flatbed scanners.

Cheers,
Jeff.

  #37  
Old June 4th 04, 05:03 PM
Mike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital



The wise choice IMHO is digital Why bother with a darkroom? Besides
that, a computer always comes in handy even if it is just for posting to
rec.photo.digital From an ecological point of view re-usable memory cards
are far more eco-friendly than rolls and rolls of film, paper, developres
fisers, fixatives, ...


Do you have any idea what the environmental impact is to manufacture a
single integrated circuit?? You might be surprised...

And then there is throwing all of that away every 3-4 years!


  #38  
Old June 4th 04, 05:29 PM
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital


"Jeff" wrote:

This page talks about dust removal (when I Babelfish it).
http://www.i-love-epson.co.jp/produc...200/f32005.htm


Yep. The software provides functions such as "fading restoration" and "dust
removal". I didn't see anything on hardware (i.e. IR) support for the dust
removal.

I like the film holder layout better than the 4870's. It allows for 4
645's or 2 6x9's to be scanned at once.


And the whole unit seems more compact. It does look nice.

It looks like it's Epson's offset CCD (actual CCD resolution is 1600

dpi,
but it's got two offset 1/2 a pixle pitch) so effective res will be more
like 1600 dpi than 3200 dpi.


I wonder if this HyperCCD is an improvement over the CCD used in their
flatbed scanners.


The 3200 and 4800 dpi scanner pages on that site both say the same "@-Hyper
CCD".

By the way, sorry to be sounding grumpy and jaundiced he It's been a long
two weeks.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


  #39  
Old June 4th 04, 05:44 PM
Jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital



David J. Littleboy wrote:

Yep. The software provides functions such as "fading restoration" and "dust
removal". I didn't see anything on hardware (i.e. IR) support for the dust
removal.


So it could be just a software type of dust removal. Bummer.


The 3200 and 4800 dpi scanner pages on that site both say the same "@-Hyper
CCD".


It's a wait and see situation. The only problem is that I'm getting
impatient. Seeing the output of the new crop of 5-6 mpixel DSLR's makes
me want to forget about MF altogether.


By the way, sorry to be sounding grumpy and jaundiced he It's been a long
two weeks.


No problem here. Hope the summer weather cheers you up.

I have my A1 and RF645 ready to roll. Unless the RF645 gets sold. Then
it would be digital all the way

Cheers,
Jeff.

  #40  
Old June 4th 04, 07:35 PM
Gordon Moat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default below $1000 film vs digital

Mike Henley wrote:

I have a budding collection of reasonably inexpensive but good retro
compact film cameras and I'm considering purchasing a more serious
"photographer's" one to start using soon, as i safely know now that I
do like this hobby.

I'll use a budget of no more than $999.99.

I care most about *image quality*, as this will be the only reason I'd
want to step up from my film compacts. By image quality I mean both in
its original form (film/digital) or transferred to other media
(printed/scanned).

The choices i have are either...

- A quality film SLR (very easy to get within budget, heck, even $200
is enough for the pentax zx/mz-m).
- A digital SLR (canon or nikon; new or like new from ebay).


Do a search for older Kodak DCS cameras. They made some SLR digital
bodies with either Canon or Nikon mount. When new, they were extremely
expensive, but are now often quite low priced. You might be surprised.


- an all-in-one 8mp digital, such as the canon or olympus.


Some small, most with the same Sony made imaging chip, and many with poor
ergonomics. Try one before you even think about putting some money in
that direction. Besides, if you found one you really liked, it will be
half the price next year.



How do these compare? (on the eventual *image quality* criterium only,
across media, regardless of eventual use of the image. I don't care
much about other features. Also, regardless of running costs, as I
have all I'd need to run a digital camera, from computer and
peripherals including memory chips, and film isn't expensive to run
after all when all things considered, it'd cost me ~$5 per 35mm film
total, purchased and developed, which isn't a lot considering it cost
me a few times that in day expenses when i went to a scenic spot
nearby to take pictures.)


If you already have the computer, you might look at getting a scanner.
Some flat scanners do a fair job with film, and are within your budget.
Lower end film scanners for 35 mm might also fit your budget. I should
also warn you that scanning is a skill that takes experience, and rarely
do the default settings produce the best results.



Additionally, within that same budget, i'm also considering a Medium
format camera, such as a 645 rangefinder (on *image quality* criterium
only. Film isn't much more expensive than 35mm, and weight and size no
issue as none of above will fit in a belt-pouch anyway).


I like David Litteboy's suggestion about the Fuji rangefinder. Really
nice image results, very compact and easy to carry. The 645 film size
matches nicely with 8" by 10" prints, unlike 35 mm which is more like 8"
by 12" for full frame.

Since you mentioned EBAY above, you might try looking for the Bronica
RF645. They don't come up too often on EBAY, but I have seen a few go for
just under your budget, and with the 65 mm lens. Really nice ergonomics,
and still fairly compact. Slightly heavier than the Fuji, since it is a
mostly metal construction. Probably one of the best rangefinders I have
ever used, from an ergonomics point of view.

How would it
compare to the above, especially to digital SLR? Even more, how would
it compare to state-of-the-art digital such as that $8000 canon, or
the 14mp new Kodak, because if it is favorably comparable it may mean
it'll be better for me than affordable digital for some many years to
come.


Bigger is quite often better, though technique can still factor into the
equation. I noticed your other post asking about lpmm comparisons.
Basically, the latest digital chips have a theoretical maximum of around
50 to 56 lpmm, which is the resolution limit of the chip. You can
somewhat calculate that based on the chip height and width, and the
maximum file size height and width. However, there are also the Bayer
pattern filter, often an IR filter, and an anti-aliasing (or softening)
filter, which all drop resolution slightly. Similarly, the Bayer pattern
favours green more than red or blue, so resolution of more red, or more
blue, objects can be slightly worse. AGFA, Fuji, Ilford and Kodak all
publish lpmm limits for their films, with many choices yielding better
than 50 lpmm under test conditions, and some reaching 80 to 100 lpmm, or
even more with special techniques. Consider that hand held photography
will degrade resolution from any camera, though again it can be better to
start off higher than lower in many photography situations.

The other factor of digital is that RGB has trouble with some colours,
especially approaching pure Cyan, or bright Yellow. While the same
trouble can happen trying to scan those colour ranges from film, at least
there are many films that do a good job of capturing those colours.
Considering printing, it is often easier to get those difficult colours
to print from film than from digital, especially anything near Cyan,
since monitors do not properly display Cyan.

Okay, so medium format over smaller 35 mm . . . basically I like the
colour tonality improvement of large films. Even with B/W films, the
change of tones of grey can be smoother than with 35 mm. There are many
more small and compact camera choices in 35 mm than with medium format,
and more places to get film processed and printed (not that you would
want to use some of them). While the same 8" by 10" print comparison of
35 mm and even lowly 645 might not seem like too much difference, I have
found that most people can tell the difference in the tonality, and
sometimes in the resolution. Even small medium format like 645 takes less
enlargement multiplication to get to 8" by 10" than with 35 mm films.
What you might want to consider is how often you might want larger
prints, which will really allow medium format results to stand out from
35 mm. While it is possible to get nice large prints from 35 mm, it
requires much more expertise on the part of the lab, or the individual
doing the prints.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Leica digital back info.... Barney 35mm Photo Equipment 19 June 30th 04 12:45 AM
below $1000 film vs digital Sabineellen 35mm Photo Equipment 8 June 15th 04 07:13 AM
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... Todd Bailey Film & Labs 0 May 27th 04 08:12 AM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 10:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.