Going back to Paul's original post... and writing as an SS4000 & D200 owner who just unloaded his most modern film gear, I'd say macro & landscape are good territory for the D200. If you prefer the wide range & lower contrast of negative film then there's some adapting. I'd put RAW files about half-way between slides and negatives for range (just my experience, no citations). The Fuji-Nikons like the S3 are one way around this.
The film gear I parted with was the Contax G2. For now only the Leica M8 (M8.0?) replaces the 35mm rangefinder with compact high performance wide angles. Not that I don't love the images & handling of the D200 & Nikon's 17-55/2.8, but it's a big attention-getting rig compared to a Leica, Contax G, Bessa, etc. and a fixed lens between 21 & 50 mm. As people have mentioned, the 36x24mm Canon sensors put a lot of stress on their lenses off-axis. The smaller sensor Nikons (& others) can deliver corner-to-corner evenly illuminated images that are arguably (sometimes) better. Current 36x24 cameras are more often lens-limited where the smaller ones are more often sensor-limited. (Extended discussion omitted for civility's sake ;-) ) I'd rather see a generation of cameras with better, wider-range pixels over their predecessors instead of just another 50% boost in the current type of pixel. Nikon will probably have a D3 to compete with Canon's eventual 36x24mm Mk III. Nikon reps have informally mentioned a body "for the pros later this year." Bob G -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 11:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] film and scanning vs digital photography Thanks for the suggestions about my Polaroid SprintScan. I got home too late tonight to try them, but will soon. This list is much more helpful than Polaroid tech support. I also have some questions on another matter. I'm considering buying a Nikon D200 digital camera, and I'd like some opinions on the relative merits of film followed by scanning vs. digital photography. Are there still any major advantages to sticking with film plus scanning over going fully digital? (I'll still need to have a working scanner anyway, because I have lots of old slides that I haven't scanned yet). I do lots of macrophotography (mostly butterflies and dragonflies), as well as landscape photography and would especially appreciate comments on the relative merits of film plus scanning vs. digital photography for these sorts of applications. ___________________________________________________ Dr. Paul Patton Life Sciences Building Rm 538A work: (419)-372-3858 home: (419)-352-5523 Biology Department Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." -Albert Einstein ___________________________________________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body