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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |