Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Jan,
Yes, well, OK, believe what you like 'as an engineer', and feel free to dismiss the opinions of lens designers and film manufacturers, but I can't help feeling that your high horse is a little too high.
Note the careful qualifications in what I wrote, about ". . . honest enough (and rash enough) to make comparisons are of the opinion . . . roughly equivalent to 18-21 megapixels", and note what I said about film flatness (chiefly relevant with 120) and film location. Note also that I said in most cameras at that. No-one disputes that it is possible to get 200 lp/mm on the film -- but with most cameras, you'll need 'focus bracketing' (tweaking the focus to and from and choosing the sharpest image) to see it.
Unlike you, I am not claiming eternal verities, merely broad working assumptions, but honestly, you are the only person I have encountered who is quite so dismissive (and indeed, rather rudely dismissive) of the generalizations I reported. And as a matter of interest, why would film manufacturers have a stake in promoting what you dismiss as 'fairy tales'?
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
mdarnton
Well-known
The original post is unclear to me. Do you mean scanner or DSLR for scanning film, or do you mean which one to buy now?
If it's about scanning, I recommend the DSLR. I've gone through a bunch of consumer-level scanners, and not found happiness, and am now scanning film with my Nikon D300 and 60/2.8 Nikon micro in a copy setup, getting better results, and much quicker. If you can pay more than I paid for the camera and lens for a GOOD scanner, then get the scanner, it will probably do a marginally better job. A newer camera with higher resolution than my 12Mp Nikon would do proportionally better.
The B&W stuff currently at the top of my flickr page was "scanned" with the camera:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdarnton/
If it's about scanning, I recommend the DSLR. I've gone through a bunch of consumer-level scanners, and not found happiness, and am now scanning film with my Nikon D300 and 60/2.8 Nikon micro in a copy setup, getting better results, and much quicker. If you can pay more than I paid for the camera and lens for a GOOD scanner, then get the scanner, it will probably do a marginally better job. A newer camera with higher resolution than my 12Mp Nikon would do proportionally better.
The B&W stuff currently at the top of my flickr page was "scanned" with the camera:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdarnton/
hyunkseo
Member
It depends on your point of view and current status of inventory. If you have the time to use film... aka developing, scanning, etc by all means use it. However keep in mind when you're developing, and/or scanning errors can occur; like dust, scratches, accidents on developing... as well as time for developing it yourself or getting it developed in a lab. Scanning at a high resolution also takes time as well if you take a lot of photos. For a DSLR, all you really do is copy the files and set it up the way you want in your photo manipulation / organization software.
I have two lenses for my Nikon D70s which I use all the time. Since I needed a film camera for school, all I did was get an Nikon N80. I used the same lenses and the SB-E Speed Flash.
If I was starting out fresh, I'd get a DSLR unless I was a professional photographer or I had access to developing chemicals or a lab that is really near me, I'd get both
But yea..
1. DSLR
or
2. DSLR and SLR.
I have two lenses for my Nikon D70s which I use all the time. Since I needed a film camera for school, all I did was get an Nikon N80. I used the same lenses and the SB-E Speed Flash.
If I was starting out fresh, I'd get a DSLR unless I was a professional photographer or I had access to developing chemicals or a lab that is really near me, I'd get both
But yea..
1. DSLR
or
2. DSLR and SLR.
The whole point of film is using manual cameras and achieving that certain "look" of 35mm. If your main concern is technical image quality than forget about it. A high res DSLR and a decent lens wins anytime.
I still prefer film for a lot of reasons but resolution it is not.
I still prefer film for a lot of reasons but resolution it is not.
janosh
Member
Given that DSLRs are mediocre tools for many kinds of images and situations, just as were SLRs, maybe it's worth considering a top-tier digicam, and maybe even one with a built in zoom (for dust control reasons).
IMO we're between formats right now. Something better is on the way. Fuji's almost there.
I mostly shoot a Pentax K20D with Limited primes. I have no question that it rivals medium format in terms of detail resolution, in some situations, and doesn't rival well-processed/scanned 35mm B&W in others (when I use a Nikon V). If I was a color photographer I wouldn't think for a minute about film ...except for my cache of now-out-of-date Fuji NPZ.
IMO we're between formats right now. Something better is on the way. Fuji's almost there.
I mostly shoot a Pentax K20D with Limited primes. I have no question that it rivals medium format in terms of detail resolution, in some situations, and doesn't rival well-processed/scanned 35mm B&W in others (when I use a Nikon V). If I was a color photographer I wouldn't think for a minute about film ...except for my cache of now-out-of-date Fuji NPZ.
Fotch
Man with a RF Camera
Film is better. On a trip to Washington state two years ago, I took pictures with my Nikon F3 and Nikon D70s. I scanned with both a Epson V700 and Nikon Coolscan V.
The film just had more depth. The color look more realistic. The film camera responded instantly and some of the wildlife shots I would not missed shooting digital.
On the other hand, most business use, pictures of item for sale or for reporting an event, I use the digital. Of course, I take hundreds more photos than I would film. Not that it matters, its just like smoking and have a cough I guess. No offense intended for those who smoke.
I use film more like I would of used a Polaroid, however, with better quality. Also, the convenience of web ready.
JMHO
The film just had more depth. The color look more realistic. The film camera responded instantly and some of the wildlife shots I would not missed shooting digital.
On the other hand, most business use, pictures of item for sale or for reporting an event, I use the digital. Of course, I take hundreds more photos than I would film. Not that it matters, its just like smoking and have a cough I guess. No offense intended for those who smoke.
I use film more like I would of used a Polaroid, however, with better quality. Also, the convenience of web ready.
JMHO