below $1000 film vs digital

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

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.)

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). 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.

"Mike Henley" wrote:

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). How would it
compare to the above, especially to digital SLR?

For your budget, a $500 used Fuji GS645S and an Epson 4870 (4800 dpi, but
real resolution is more like 2000 dpi) for another $500 is exactly on
budget. That provides a 13MP (3000 x 4400 pixel) scanned image that will
beat the pants off either scanned 35mm or 6MP digital. Of course, that's a
fixed 38mm lens with a funky rangefinder. But if you are printing at A4 on,
say, an Epson R800, your prints will look a lot better.

If you prefer the 50mm equiv. focal length, the GS645 is a belows folder
that will fit in a belt pouch.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:

For your budget, a $500 used Fuji GS645S and an Epson 4870 (4800 dpi, but
real resolution is more like 2000 dpi) for another $500 is exactly on
budget. That provides a 13MP (3000 x 4400 pixel) scanned image that will
beat the pants off either scanned 35mm or 6MP digital. Of course, that's a
fixed 38mm lens with a funky rangefinder. But if you are printing at A4 on,
say, an Epson R800, your prints will look a lot better.

How good IS the Epson 4870? I assume you have one.
With MF, Does it really beat 35mm on a good film scanner?

Thanks!

Chris

"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message
...
David J. Littleboy wrote:

For your budget, a $500 used Fuji GS645S and an Epson 4870 (4800 dpi,
but
real resolution is more like 2000 dpi) for another $500 is exactly on
budget. That provides a 13MP (3000 x 4400 pixel) scanned image that will
beat the pants off either scanned 35mm or 6MP digital. Of course, that's
a
fixed 38mm lens with a funky rangefinder. But if you are printing at A4
on,
say, an Epson R800, your prints will look a lot better.

How good IS the Epson 4870?

http://www5e.biglobe.ne.jp/~longnose/scanner_test.html

I assume you have one.

No. I had the 2450. That one was a dog compared to the Nikon 8000. The 4870
looks a lot closer.

With MF, Does it really beat 35mm on a good film scanner?

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 J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

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 J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



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.

Cheers,
Jeff Tokayer.

"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

In article ,
(Mike Henley) wrote:

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

Since none of your choices includes Medium Format, I suggest you not cross
post here. I'll killfile the thread for myself, but you could be more
carefull.

In article ,
(jjs) wrote:

Since none of your choices includes Medium Format, I suggest you not cross
post here. I'll killfile the thread for myself, but you could be more
carefull.

Sorry about that. You DID mention 645.

"Mike Henley" wrote in message
om...

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

What is your budget for recurring costs? The incremental cost to put
a shot "in the can" and to preview it is effectively free for digital
but not for film.

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).

I know what I mean by "image quality," but the term has different
meanings for different people. To me, the single most important factor
in image quality is to properly adjust the nut behind the finder.

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. New, you can purchase a
Mamiya 645E Pro Value pack with an 80mm f/2.8 lens for $775 at Adorama.
Add a lens hood ($31), cable release ($23), and something like a
Manfrotto 3001N tripod and 3030 head ($144) and you can start shooting.
You can do even better with used manual-focus medium-format (MFMF?)
gear. Recently, I purchased a Pentax 645 with a 120 insert, a 75mm
lens and a 135mm lens for about $500.

OTOH, if your definition of "image quality" includes digital editing,
with your budget you may be better off starting digital. If it
includes very selective focus or the ability to tailor apparent
perspective by choice of focal length, you may be better off with
35mm.

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

In article , "Michael Benveniste"
wrote:

"Mike Henley" wrote in message
om...

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

What is your budget for recurring costs? The incremental cost to put
a shot "in the can" and to preview it is effectively free for digital
but not for film.

I just bought my wife a little toy digital camera. The price was $279
at Best Buy. After getting her the memory and extra battery she needs for
her trip, it was $550. And now I need to get an extra portable
(pocketsized) external drive for home-to-work storage and schleping. That
was another $200. And then another extra drive to back that one (and
more); another $200. Then the printer just wasn't good enough. $300. Extra
ink cartriges: $109 for a set with backup.

Now I find that the home laptop computer has aged beyond usefull life for
digital imaging (the LCD backlight is going fast). That's almost more than
I can friggin stand.

But that's not all! With the digital pictures, one wants to share them and
now we're talking about burning CDROMs and DVDs, and paying an ISP for web
space, and there's never enough web space, so it's $$$ all over again.

Add it all up, again and again. There's NO FRIGGIN END to the cost of digital!