If the question is wether to get a digital camera or a flatbed "neg" scnanner, the answer is: Get a digital camera.
If the question is wether to get a digital camera or a film scanner, the answer is: Get a digtal camera. If the question is wether to get a film scanner or a flatbed scanner for film, the answer is: Get a film scanner. If the question is wether to get a digital MF camera or a faltbed scanner or a film scanner for 120 film, the anser is probably: Get the scanner if you alrady have MF film equipment. Digital MF cameras are still too expensive unless you shoot several rolls every day. If you must count your working hours, the cost of film and time spent scanning - you must have a digital camera. Don't scan. Take pictures. I bought a nice MZ-S a year ago. I have shot maybe 5 rolls with it. I talked to an old pro this afternoon. He has both film and flatbed scanners. Fladtbed for his Hassies. Film scanner for 35mm film (Olympus OM4Ti). And he uses a Minolta digital camera with a fixed zoom lens from time to time. By the way - DSLR's cost no more than a film scanner. If you choose a Pentax, you may still use you "analog" lenses for the next 5-10 years. Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Toralf Lund [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 4. december 2005 12:51 Til: [email protected] Emne: Re: "Photo scanner" vs real film scanner? >Yes, Toralf, we do. >I have the Epson Perfection 3200 Photo. >It's kinda allrigt for 6x6 film. I did fine scans from Fuji Velvia 100: >http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt/DreamHC/Side24.html > >For 35mm it's usable, but not brilliant. Or maybe it's just the film: >http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt/DreamHC/Side22.html > > Not bad, but I can definitely see grainlike noise. Whether it's the actual grain of the film, or extra noise (aliasing?) introduced by the scanner, is of course hard for me to tell... >My pictures look grainy and unsharp. >I guess I'd still be shooting film had I bought a film scanner in stead. > > I would to, if I were serious about image processing. But they cost more, and if I wanted to do this kind of thing a lot, I might get a DSLR after all... But maybe I'll forget about the 120 negs, and get hold of a used 35mm film scanner. >I have friends who love this scanner for 35mm negs. I can't seem to make it >work right. >Above 2500 ppi I dont'gget more resulution. > > I sort of expected that... I suspect that the producers of these things tend to stick in CCDs with more pixels than the rest of the design can handle, just to have a "better" spec. >I'd certainly buy a film scanner - for scanning film. > >Regards > >Jens Bladt >http://www.jensbladt.dk > >-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >Fra: Toralf Lund [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sendt: 2. december 2005 22:48 >Til: [email protected] >Emne: "Photo scanner" vs real film scanner? > > >Another scanner question: > >Does anyone have any opinions of, or experience with, "photo" scanners >like the Epson 3170 Photo? How do their film scanning capabilities >compare to a "real" film scanner? > >- Toralf > > > > >
