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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Digital vs Film
After taking 35mm photographs for over thirty years I decided that I want to
digitize my negatives. I read about Nikon's equipment as well at Minolta and Canon. Are there any current articles that compare the equipment against each other using a Laboratory type of standard throughout the tests? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Digital vs Film
No. I can tell you Nikon service is lousy and because of a problem with my
4000 ed scanner I will never buy anything Nikon makes again. It took three months and two trips (to say nothing of the 350 dollars) for them to actually fix it and it came back running at 1/3rd the speed it had before. When I emailed asking what gives they never bothered to answer. -- http://www.chapelhillnoir.com home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto The Improved Links Pages are at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html Searching@for an answer.com wrote in message link.net... After taking 35mm photographs for over thirty years I decided that I want to digitize my negatives. I read about Nikon's equipment as well at Minolta and Canon. Are there any current articles that compare the equipment against each other using a Laboratory type of standard throughout the tests? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Digital vs Film
Searching@for wrote:
After taking 35mm photographs for over thirty years I decided that I want to digitize my negatives. I read about Nikon's equipment as well at Minolta and Canon. Are there any current articles that compare the equipment against each other using a Laboratory type of standard throughout the tests? The top dogs for home scanning these days seem to be the Minolta DSE 5400 and the Nikon 4000/5000 scanners. Various tests show, that despite the higher scan res of the 5400, that the Nikons at 4000 dpi make slightly sharper images. This is splitting very fine hairs in any case. Chasseur d'Images in issue 260 rated the DSE 5400 behind the Coolscan V ED and the Super Coolscan 5000 ED; and about equal with the 4000 ED. comp.periphs.scanners is where the scanning gurus hang out. Cheers, Alan -- --e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Digital vs Film
I owned a Minolta Multi-Pro and then sold it to buy a Nikon 8000 scanner.
The Nikon is better, but you've got to take care with some films to avoid banding. I think the new 9000 scanner fixes this, but I haven't actually used it. The Nikon has been good, but needed service once. I sent the unit to Nikon in Mellville, NY, and got it back in 2 weeks. No problems since then. I estimate I've scanned about six to eight thousand images. Searching@for an answer.com wrote in message link.net... After taking 35mm photographs for over thirty years I decided that I want to digitize my negatives. I read about Nikon's equipment as well at Minolta and Canon. Are there any current articles that compare the equipment against each other using a Laboratory type of standard throughout the tests? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Insane new TSA rule for film inspection | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 94 | June 23rd 04 05:17 AM |
Can existing film equipments be used for digital erra? | jaekim | 35mm Photo Equipment | 6 | June 20th 04 08:51 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 09:51 PM |