mansio
Established
after googling for answer, is it true that flatbed scanners (canon 9000fmk2, v700) could output only 4 to 12 megapixels? my dilemma is that if this is the case, would a gxr or nex6 be better?
i am somewhat confused as i always thought scanners could get around 20ish megapixel on an enthusiast pricing
so what should i do? get a scanner and stick with m5? or sparsely doing film and get a apsc body like nex5r/6 and gxr?
i am somewhat confused as i always thought scanners could get around 20ish megapixel on an enthusiast pricing
so what should i do? get a scanner and stick with m5? or sparsely doing film and get a apsc body like nex5r/6 and gxr?
mdarnton
Well-known
Maybe I'm dense here, but what does not wanting a scanner that won't do 20Mp have to do with whether you should buy a Nex that won't do 20Mp, either?
What is the precise problem that you're trying to solve?
What is the precise problem that you're trying to solve?
mansio
Established
20 is just a random number, i am just trying to decide if film+flatbed be a better solution than a digital and raw
pardon my english, it's rusty
pardon my english, it's rusty
mdarnton
Well-known
You could do what I do, which is film/camera + digital camera = digital output:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdarnton/7183241686/
That was my solution to the problem of what to do with film. The other solution is to find a place that will process your film AND scan it. If you find the right place (a commercial lab that works with wedding photographers, for instance) the results can be quite good.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdarnton/7183241686/
That was my solution to the problem of what to do with film. The other solution is to find a place that will process your film AND scan it. If you find the right place (a commercial lab that works with wedding photographers, for instance) the results can be quite good.
jtm6
Well-known
In my experience, that is not the case. Therefore, no dilemma.
I'd recommend to go with how you want to work and what you want to work with. Don't chase megapixels. Besides, most images for the web are reduced to less than 1 megapixel.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
It all depends on what you want to do with your images.
If you want to make exhibit quality 4 ft. x 6 ft. inkjet prints, get a Nikon D800.
If you want to make exhibit quality 6 ft. x 9 ft. inkjet prints, get a Leica S2.
If you want to make exhibit quality inkjet prints that you can hang on the wall of a normal sized home, your M5 with film and an Epson V700 or V750 scanner will do the job just fine.
My printer scans my Tri-X negs with an "obsolete" old Epson flatbed scanner (can't recall the model #). He gets beautiful 11"x16" full frame prints out of this hybrid process. He could easily print to 14"x20" or even 16"x24" without a significant decline in image quality - and I have a very critical eye regarding my prints.
If I were shooting a finer grained film such as Velvia 50 or Acros 100, he could print even larger and still get exhibit quality prints.
Image quality and print size is not so much about the scanner itself - it's more about the skill of the printer, just like it is in the traditional chemical darkroom.
If you want to make exhibit quality 4 ft. x 6 ft. inkjet prints, get a Nikon D800.
If you want to make exhibit quality 6 ft. x 9 ft. inkjet prints, get a Leica S2.
If you want to make exhibit quality inkjet prints that you can hang on the wall of a normal sized home, your M5 with film and an Epson V700 or V750 scanner will do the job just fine.
My printer scans my Tri-X negs with an "obsolete" old Epson flatbed scanner (can't recall the model #). He gets beautiful 11"x16" full frame prints out of this hybrid process. He could easily print to 14"x20" or even 16"x24" without a significant decline in image quality - and I have a very critical eye regarding my prints.
If I were shooting a finer grained film such as Velvia 50 or Acros 100, he could print even larger and still get exhibit quality prints.
Image quality and print size is not so much about the scanner itself - it's more about the skill of the printer, just like it is in the traditional chemical darkroom.
mansio
Established
i bought a nikon v1 not so long ago and i am not all that fond of the final image, it's very capable but i needed/wanted a little more. and as a techy i am going to wait this year out to see if there will be any new surprises on coming technology from a price perspective. having the 10mm lens on with wide depth of field i am almost never afraid to take landscape photos, problem has more to do with having no extra space to crop; on a better framed photo this little camera is really all i need.
i don't think i will be making large print in the foreseeable future, but having a higher detailed pixel count is like a safety net brushing off my rusty hand, or maybe i am just looking for fun/cheapness factor in the lowest denominator.
i love to shoot with films, with digitals i am almost always deleting all of the photo soon after, maybe my only grudge with them is the inability to change iso on the fly but that's pretty much all to it.
the scanner i am looking at is the canon 9000f mk2, it's only 1/3 of v700 and seemingly better than the next inline of v300 here, right now cash is still king for me as i am hoping to start something profiting on the side; as a student of economics i have to say the next best thing i have learn from this silly subject is scarcity(actually not the next best, quantification and game theory are the bread and butter for me), but i loathe this concept to the bone :bang:
i am going to go with film+flatbed for now, i may not be printing to the wall but at least i have 2 monitors to choose my wall paper from, for now
thanks guys.
msbarnes
Well-known
Maybe I missed it...but what is your objective?
Do you plan on printing? What size? Do you plan on using photography commercially? or just for personal enjoyment?
Do you plan on printing? What size? Do you plan on using photography commercially? or just for personal enjoyment?