Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message


I have scanned hundreds of my old film pictures, and not ONE of them looks
as good as any of my digital camera's pictures. Scanning is a very poor
substitute for the 'real thing'. For me, the appeal of digital is the
reduced cost, and hassle, over film. I doubt I will ever remove my film
camera from the drawer for any purpose than nostalgia in the future.


Were you using a decent film scanner, one with ICE3? I am surprised to see
your comment, as I've been pleased with my scanned film images.

Digital cameras, at least in theory, filter out much high-end information.
I'd prefer good film scans, taken on excellent film cameras and lenses, over
inexpensive digital camera images.

Of course, if you are placing film cost as a high-priority item, then
digital cameras offer an advantage. I am a relatively low-volume shooter,
for whom film cost is not a major factor. For a guy that shoots an average
of a roll per week, buying a high-end digital camera seems to be an
unnecessary expense--especially since I already have all the film bodies and
lenses I could ever want.

Still, I am surprised that more people haven't jumped onto the film scanner
bandwagon. Considering all the eBay and KEH sales of film gear, I wonder
what the new owners of all that legacy equipment are doing with it? Is
anyone still shooting color negative film and taking it to the drugstore for
developing and printing?