Thomas,
> Over here, if I use "normal" slide film, which is not necessarily
> any worse than "pro" films, I'm at about $3 per 36 exp roll. That
> would shift the break-even point a bit. Plus, the quality is just
> not comparable (yet). And what are the extra costs per additional
> microdrive? You will definitely need some at your shooting rate.
"Pro" film tends to be "better" than cosumer grade film,
either in grain, sharpness, color rendition, contrast,
reciprocity response, or a combination of these. Perhaps
the film choice doesn't matter so much for "consumer"
applications, E.g. occasional projecting or for 8x12 or
12x18 enlargements. Provia F slides hold up very well
at 40x and higher maginifications.
Are you in Germany? I thought slide film was more like
$35 for ten rolls. Of course that's still just a third
of what I have to pay in the US.
Let me exagurate a little bit. If you shoot using a coke
bottle it doesn't really matter what type of film is used.
I noticed a world of difference when I switched from "plastic"
and consumer lenses like the 28-80 and 75-300 IS to L glass.
And I noticed some more improvement when I started using
Provia instead of Sensia II.
Of course, emulsions improve all the time, so a consumer
emulsion today might perform better than a "pro" emulsion
from yesteryear. But today's "pro" film will have been
improved, too.
1GB Microdrives sell for approx. $350 nowadays.
As far as resolution goes goes, Digital probably isn't
quite there yet, but as image quality go, it compares very
favorably:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm
Output slides from my D30 look like shots taken on 200 ASA
film, the grain is certainly more pronounced than Provia
100F. (This might be more of an issue of the emulsion used
for film recording.)
> This is true. But I don't scan every frame I take. In fact, I scan
> a rather small percentage of my *keepers* only. Also, dust spotting
> a low res scan is obviously not as labor intensive as a high res one.
OK, maybe that's just me. But if I have to do dust spotting
and image correction and all that, I want to do it on a hires
image. Next time I need a different sized version of the same
photograph, I load the full-size image again and just resize.
Most of my images are for the web, so skipping the digitizing
step really saves a lot of time. I can upload images on the
same day - I used to have to wait two weeks to just see the
results. I have more than three hundred rolls of slide film
which I would like to have in digital form. If I scan just
1 in 12 slides, that's still more than a week's (evenings)
work. (I don't do PhotoCD because the image quality just
sucks.)
At this rate I'll reach the break-even point by the end of
this year - at which poing I'll consider an upgrade to the
EOS D1v (or whatever it'll be called).
Lars
--
Lars Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED]
87GT http://www.citilink.com/~larry/gallery
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
