Film to Digital transition - nice article

Beautiful photos on an ugly site. . . pity :o
 
This article is comparing Velvia 50 to Canon 5G. I have a Canon 300D which was a newer model than the 5G.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong5/

Camera notes: I shot the image on the left on a Canon Powershot G5 in RAW file format (and JPG with same result), which captured more dynamic range and detail than the same image on the right shot on Nikon N70 with Fuji Velvia film, scanned at 2700 pixels per inch (ppi).
Click to expand...

So what he is saying is that a canon G5 is better than a Nikon LS-2000. (wonder why he used such an old scanner?) Because I can tell you that 35mm beats my 300D hands down in terms of dynamic range and detail. (We used the same lens and scanned it on a Nikon Coolscan5000)
 
Yeah, I figured that page is a bit outdated. And I try to keep in mind that he's trying to justify his move to digital too. I don't agree digital (except maybe on high end medium formats, but I haven't seen pictures from those yet) touches 35mm film on detail. Maybe his scanner just sucks. Even on my cheap-ass Canon 4400F I can get some serious detail from my P&S 35mm film (too bad it's all slightly out of focus - not sure if it's my old P&S or the scanner).
 
koffiejunkie said:
Yeah, I figured that page is a bit outdated. And I try to keep in mind that he's trying to justify his move to digital too. I don't agree digital (except maybe on high end medium formats, but I haven't seen pictures from those yet) touches 35mm film on detail. Maybe his scanner just sucks. Even on my cheap-ass Canon 4400F I can get some serious detail from my P&S 35mm film (too bad it's all slightly out of focus - not sure if it's my old P&S or the scanner).
Click to expand...

It's the scanner. Nikon LS-5000 FTW. Or if that's too pricey, the Epson V700. The V700 also does medium and large format. Now that's cool.
 
koffiejunkie said:
I don't agree digital (except maybe on high end medium formats, but I haven't seen pictures from those yet) touches 35mm film on detail.
Click to expand...

Actually 8MP digital cameras are as sharp as 35mm. (in my opinion, based on scans from LS-5000) It's the exposure latitude where film beets digital. (not all digital) Also, film has a gradual overload, whereas digital chips clip the highlights. Although this will soon be a thing of the past, too. Have a look at the highlight handling of Fuji's "Super CCD" technology. Like you said, high-end digital is amazing, but I don't think people understand what sort of money you must pay to achieve film-like results.

Having said that. A "Fuji Fujifilm S5 Pro" camera is now cheaper than buying a 35mm camera and a Coolscan5000. (I think these two option are comparable)
 
Last edited:
ldmelsa said:
It's the scanner.
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree, but for the sake of my enlightenment, why do you say so? I think so because I've had three or so different P&S cameras, ranging from an absolutely rubbish plastic no-name to a fairly decent Samsung. I also have single negs from pictures that was taken by hired photographers - old school pics, etc. There must be some in-focus negs amongst all those! :)

Nikon LS-5000 FTW.
Click to expand...
Amen to that - I've seen one of those in action. WOW...

Or if that's too pricey
Click to expand...
It's way more than I can justify for my cheap P&S derived films. But if I factor in the old man's collection of slides from his travels (some of which I think he might just be able to sell to a magazine or two), this might become an option. Still, £750 :eek: Lemme see how my salary review goes first :)

Epson V700. The V700 also does medium and large format. Now that's cool.
Click to expand...

That is cool! Don't have any old MF negs though :) This one appears to be higher res than the Nikon though: 6400 x 9600 dpi vs 3,946 x 5,782 (dpi?).
 
koffiejunkie said:
I'm inclined to agree, but for the sake of my enlightenment, why do you say so?
Click to expand...

Even if you use a 50mm prime lens it comes out blurry. I have a 4400F. Great value for money, though.
This is the best I can get out of it. For R800 -> :)



koffiejunkie said:
But if I factor in the old man's collection of slides from his travels....
Click to expand...

Plustek scanners - Great value for money if you want a 35mm scanner.

They are comparing it to a Coolscan5000: :eek:
http://www.photoinfos.com/Scanner/PlustekOpticFilm7200i-02.htm

$290 - Good bang for buck.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...nc__A17_BBM31_C_OpticFilm_7300_35mm_Film.html


koffiejunkie said:
That is cool! Don't have any old MF negs though :) This one appears to be higher res than the Nikon though: 6400 x 9600 dpi vs 3,946 x 5,782 (dpi?).
Click to expand...

Coolscan is better at 35mm. It is a dedicated 35mm scanner.

V700___________________________Nikon LS-4000 (older model)
Epson2.jpg
Nikon2.jpg
 
Last edited:
ldmelsa said:
Even if you use a 50mm prime lens it comes out blurry. I have a 4400F. Great value for money, though.
This is the best I can get out of it. For R800 -> :)
Click to expand...

Your image don't open up very big, but I believe you - I'm getting the same. I've made some A4 prints from my old Samsung P&S - big enough to see it's not out of focus, I think. That said, this scanner is a heck of a lot better than my old HP (PSC1400 I think) printer/scanner combo at scanning images.

They are comparing it to a Coolscan5000: :eek:
http://www.photoinfos.com/Scanner/PlustekOpticFilm7200i-02.htm
Click to expand...

Wow, in some of the crops it's hard to tell the difference.

Coolscan is better at 35mm. It is a dedicated 35mm scanner.
Click to expand...

I found that interview too, the Epson doesn't compare so well. Looks poor in some of the scans compared to the Nikon.
 
Aah sorry. Severe lack of common sense on my part today. Yes, that's the result I get. Looks almost like the pics from my CyberShot, just not as sharp :)
 
It was showing the first time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X