Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] RE: film and scanning vs digital photography



Going back to Paul's original post...  and writing as an SS4000 & D200 owner
who just unloaded his most modern film gear, I'd say macro & landscape are
good territory for the D200.  If you prefer the wide range & lower contrast
of negative film then there's some adapting.  I'd put RAW files about
half-way between slides and negatives for range (just my experience, no
citations).  The Fuji-Nikons like the S3 are one way around this.

The film gear I parted with was the Contax G2.  For now only the Leica M8
(M8.0?) replaces the 35mm rangefinder with compact high performance wide
angles.  Not that I don't love the images & handling of the D200 & Nikon's
17-55/2.8, but it's a big attention-getting rig compared to a Leica, Contax
G, Bessa, etc. and a fixed lens between 21 & 50 mm.

As people have mentioned, the 36x24mm Canon sensors put a lot of stress on
their lenses off-axis.  The smaller sensor Nikons (& others) can deliver
corner-to-corner evenly illuminated images that are arguably (sometimes)
better.  Current 36x24 cameras are more often lens-limited where the smaller
ones are more often sensor-limited. (Extended discussion omitted for
civility's sake  ;-) )  I'd rather see a generation of cameras with better,
wider-range pixels over their predecessors instead of just another 50% boost
in the current type of pixel.

Nikon will probably have a D3 to compete with Canon's eventual 36x24mm Mk
III.  Nikon reps have informally mentioned a body "for the pros later this
year."

Bob G

-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of
ppatton@bgnet.bgsu.edu
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 11:56 PM
To: bobgeo@dgiinc.com
Subject: [filmscanners] film and scanning vs digital photography

Thanks for the suggestions about my Polaroid SprintScan.  I got
home too late tonight to try them, but will soon.  This list is
much more helpful than Polaroid tech support.  I also have some
questions on another matter.  I'm considering buying a Nikon D200
digital camera, and I'd like some opinions on the relative merits
of film followed by scanning vs. digital photography.  Are there
still any major advantages to sticking with film plus scanning
over going fully digital?  (I'll still need to have a working
scanner anyway, because I have lots of old slides that I haven't
scanned yet). I do lots of macrophotography (mostly butterflies
and dragonflies), as well as landscape photography and would
especially appreciate comments on the relative merits of film
plus scanning vs. digital photography for these sorts of
applications.
___________________________________________________
Dr. Paul Patton
Life Sciences Building Rm 538A
work: (419)-372-3858
home: (419)-352-5523
Biology Department
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green, Ohio 43403

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is
the mysterious.  It is the source of all true art
and science."
-Albert Einstein
___________________________________________________



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.