The *ist-D can't produce the resolution, sharpness, or file size of a decent film
scanner such as the Nikon 4000 (4000 dpi) or Minolta 5400 (5400 dpi) but apparently
has less grain than film. The Minolta scanner is half the price of the *ist-D.
Other factors to bear in mind include -
Do you like wide-angle shots? If so forget the *ist-D. A 20mm lens becomes a 30mm
equivalent field of view.
Do you need to project transparencies - Film's the only way. You could get a digital
projector and laptop but that would set you back a pretty penny and have nowhere near
the resolution.
However if you like telephoto shots or would like to see the results immediately then
*ist-D could be for you. It depends on you I guess (ally helpful that!).
Nick.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Paul Stenquist"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 31/01/04 02:30:50
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Quandry!
I wouldn't buy a really good film scanner at this point if you don't
have one. I think the *ist D will yield results comparable to scanned
35mm transparencies or film. Of course you'll want to keep your lenses.
After looking into res-up software and the results it can yield, I
decided to go with the *ist D. I sold some equipment that I wasn't
using but was able to keep my working 35mm and MF kits intact. Note
also that the *ist D price is dropping steadily. I paid $1345 from B&H.
The list price is now down to $1349. B&H and Adorama will probably be
selling it with the digital zoom for around $1300. A good film scanner
will cost you nearly that.
Paul
On Jan 30, 2004, at 8:44 PM, Shaun Canning wrote:
>
>
> Hi Gang,
>
> Here's my problem - and I am sure you can all relate. Do I sell all my
> gorgeous near mint 35mm gear and buy a *ist D or do I keep shooting
> 35mm
> trannies and buy a really good film scanner? Obviously, the *ist D
> option
> will be cheaper in the long run (film use wise), but are the results
> going
> to be as good as 35mm high resolution scans?
>
> Cheers
>
> Shaun
>
>
>
