Clovis
Established
Are there any resources about this? I haven't read about any SA-21 hack failures yet. I can understand why the SA-30 might have a different motor, but the gearing (the SA-21 moves the film via rubber rollers, no?) should logically be almost identical.
Brian Puccio
Well-known
Not to mention even if it does break after 500 rolls, buying another is much cheaper than the SA-30 anyhow. Or use the SA-21 until it dies, then buy the SA-30.
Or just figure out the specs of the little motor and order it online from an electronic parts supplier for $25.
mani
Well-known
Just bought a new one. ;-)
PS: Oh - and people who think that the difference between film and digital is just the amount of grain (and also that less grain is innately 'better'), haven't really looked properly at what film does in my opinion.
I shoot both film and digital - and I love what I can get from my digital cameras incidentally - but the look and atmosphere of film isn't reproduced by a Photoshop action, and really never can be.
Last edited:
zleica
Established
You will really enjoy your 9000ED! I have been using mine even more after I got into digital.
Cheers,
mani
Well-known
If it ever gets here - paid for it a week ago, and now the store says they sent it by USPS couple days ago, but the tracking number still doesn't show-up on the website.
I'm not seriously worried (yet), as the seller in question is actually a minor Colorado chain of photographic stores - but they've been amazingly unhelpful and pretty rude considering I just spent a total of almost $2,5K with them.
I guess that's not a significant enough amount for a store to be polite these days...
Just got a call from customs - and apparently it's arrived! Happy Ending!
Last edited:
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Take a read at http://www.helmut-stoepfgeshoff.de/note.html .
With a different motor, you also need different gearing.
That said, I'm rather happy with my 4000ED with a modified SA-21, I just try to keep it clean and to avoid running whole rolls back and forth. Normally I do just one archival full scan of the roll, there it just advances 1 frame at a time just as it normally would. Afterwards I cut the roll and for any subsequent scans I just use the individual strips, the way the SA-21 was meant to used.
J. Borger
Well-known
Just look at LFI Magazine.
Compare the filmprints from the 35mm contest with the M8/ M9 prints.
Look at the Stella Johnson prints and compare them with M8/ M9 prints in the magazine.
I constantly prefer the prints from film in that magazine to the M8/M9 prints so much i did not use my M8 for almost 8 months, did not feel the need to upgrade to an M9 and am completely back to film.
I am probably just tired of that lifeless smooth silky digital look. Also tired of PS and plugins to SIMULATE grain and film ... back to the real thing for 3/4 year after 7 years digital only and enjoying it!
So back to the original Question.: No a Fim M with a scanner is probably not the best M looking at objective facts like resolution and (lack of) grain. But at the moment i prefer the results from film, despite it's technical limitations and shortcomings compared to a digital M.
Compare the filmprints from the 35mm contest with the M8/ M9 prints.
Look at the Stella Johnson prints and compare them with M8/ M9 prints in the magazine.
I constantly prefer the prints from film in that magazine to the M8/M9 prints so much i did not use my M8 for almost 8 months, did not feel the need to upgrade to an M9 and am completely back to film.
I am probably just tired of that lifeless smooth silky digital look. Also tired of PS and plugins to SIMULATE grain and film ... back to the real thing for 3/4 year after 7 years digital only and enjoying it!
So back to the original Question.: No a Fim M with a scanner is probably not the best M looking at objective facts like resolution and (lack of) grain. But at the moment i prefer the results from film, despite it's technical limitations and shortcomings compared to a digital M.
Last edited:
mani
Well-known
Even though I love the files from my M8, I totally endorse this sentiment. Images from film photographers in that magazine are consistently better than digital files - and not least because there appears (in some unaccountable way) to be drama in the way that film captures light.
I know that many people think this is rubbish, but I can't shake off the conviction that it's true when I look at the evidence.