a few steps into digital, nikon 9000, canon eos 5d (help!). . .

[madkins]

hey there, folks. . . .

 

i've been into photography for awhile, but it's mostly been film-

based up to this point. i have the array of used medium format gear

(one large format as well -- graflex crown graphic), along with a

decent olympus OM system and a leica m6. i've enjoyed shooting for

awhile and primarily use 35mm film (specifically HP5 with a huge

amount of processed tri-x sleeved and archived).

 

anyway. . . . i'm reasonably well versed in black and white

film. . . i've shot some color (all taken to a friend of mine who

owns a photolab), and i've done okay. . . .

 

i've started thinking of doing a little work digitally, though. i

don't think it's going to be likely that i'll dump my film gear, but

i'd like to at least start doing some stuff digitally.

 

ideally, i'll be scanning film so that i can get a ready to use

digital file and still print in the darkroom for most of the prints

that i want to make. although, i wouldn't be averse to having a

digital slr. this is where the problem comes in. . . .

 

i'm totally ignorant of scanners. i know that they say the nikon

coolscan 9,000 scans at. . . what was it. . . 4,000 dpi -- dots per

square inch, right? i have almost no idea what that means in real

life. would this have any sort of equivalent to a digital camera's

resolution (something that a dullard like me can recognize)? i have

a tiny 5mp point and shoot. . . not too bad, but i know someone

that's finally upgraded to a eos 5d (the lower-end full frame sensor

with 12mp) and the stuff that comes out of that looks nice. . . .

 

sorry for the rambling, but i guess the question is if i'm hoping to

do a bit more digital, should i just bypass the scanner all

together? would the quality of a decent digital slr be that much

further beyond that of scanned film? also (because i'm really

leaning towards a film scanner purchase for my 35mm and medium

format film before i get a digital SLR), could you show me some of

your scanned 35mm black and white shots?

 

thanks for your time and patience!

[edward_john_junker]

I went the same way than you intend to do .

Due to a bad accident I could not handle anymore my MF gear(whole Hasselblad stuff)and Itook the necessary steps to go digital.

First I bought a Nikon 9000ED and scanned all my pictures.I tell you right away that no lab was doing a better job(maybe an Imacon scanner would do it better but too expensive for me).I had no problems whatsoever with this scanner,the 9000ED was truly amazing.

Second I bought a Canon 5D with a 24-70L.Of

what I have seen till now my results with that gear is by far superior to the lab(Fuji,Kodak)which I used for the MF.I would not switch back anymore . I ordered a Canon 2,8 70-200 L.Just to tell that I am completely confident in my stuff.

I hope that helps for you dilemna.

[scott_eaton]

<I>should i just bypass the scanner all together?</i><P>Yep, that is, if it's a choice between a 5D and film scanner. No brainer there.<P>A film scanner *is* a digital camera, just one that's dedicated towards taking high resolution samples of film.<P>

 

<I>i know that they say the nikon coolscan 9,000 scans at. . . what was it. . . 4,000 dpi -- dots per square inch, right?</i><P>It makes 35mm shooters feel adequate about themselves even though they are scanning at double the resolution I'd use for medium format because film looks like shit beyond 2,000dpi. Hence, why I accuse 35mm shooters of claiming their 35mm film has more resolution than MF or LF film :-)<P>Look, if you were shooting large format conventional B&W and doing you're own fine art fiber printing, I'd be hesitant on this, but if you can afford a state of the art dSLR like a D200 or preferable 5D, you're wasting your time with the film scanner route and 35mm.<P>We'll of course get a response or two from our resident scanner freak who insists his consumer film scanner is better than a dSLR, but simply look at the quality of actual work those posters present, and then look at the B&W galleries of dSLR shooters who know what they are doing. End of arguement. It's all in the printing anyways.

[pmind]

I am now facing the exact same dilemma myself; the problem is that unless you never intend to digitally print your existing negs & chromes, you're going to need a scanner. Like a lot of people, I've got a huge inventory of work on film, some scanned, some not. Digital camera technology improves (and de-values) by the minute, whereas a Nikon 9000 is currently top-of-the-range and is likely to retain most of its value until you are finished scanning your film. Therefore I would not necessarily make a choice of one or the other, but perhaps one then the other. Of course you may decide to keep the scanner for future use and wait awhile for the digital camera, or you could go the lesser expensive route of getting an Epson 4990 flatbed (or the like) scanner, the price is much lower, but so is the quality. However, in my experience, you can produce an exceptable 16 x 20 print from the file generated by scanning 120/220 film on the Epson.

<P>

So in summary:

<P>

1. Buy the scanner, scan your film, sell scanner.

<P>

2. Buy ditigal camera with money recovered from above sale.

<P>

3. If you don't like the camera results, sell it and see step 1.

<P>

Hope this helps. Paul

[ilkka_nissila]

Generally speaking selling equipment is a bad idea unless you bought it used in the first place.

 

Yes, get the LS-9000, and work on your existing images using that. 6x6 film imo is still nicer than any digital camera output, it's got more feeling to it. Digital capture is nice and convenient but it's not a replacement for medium format.

 

The files from the LS-9000 will take quite a computer to process. They'll be huge. You can of course sample at a lower ppi than the max so this will ease with the processing.

[george_stewart1]

If you're doing B&W then get the scanner. The dynamic range of B&W film is superior to a monolithic digital sensor. I shoot mostly B&W and continue to be disapointed by digital cameras with that respect. If I shot mostly color, it would be a nobrainer (get digital). You'll eventually get a DSLR anyway, and prices continue to fall while quality continues to go up.

[pbajzek]

As someone who would rather make photos than insult other members' dpi count, I'll offer

my experience, as I was in a similar boat recently. I love my digital SLR for commercial

work (fast, convenient, flexible) and I think digital is awesome for color photography. All in

all, digital made it possible for me to get deeper into photography, so I'm all for it.

 

Having said that, my most satisfying photos (black & white artwork) have been made with

film, yes even 35mm film. After 2 years of working strictly digital, I bought a Nikon V-ED,

and I couldn't be happier with my results scanning B&W film. Yes, some folks are quite

good at making monochrome images in Photoshop. But if you really love B&W, it's just not

the same (yet, anyway). Don't worry for a moment that you will be lacking in resolution or

quality if you go the film scanner route- I can make some very large, excellent digital

prints from scanned 35mm. In fact I want to get into MF, not because I find 35mm lacking,

but rather because it's inspired me to try more.

[pmind]

<I>"Generally speaking selling equipment is a bad idea unless you bought it used in the first

place."</I>

<P>

...say what?

[madkins]

thanks a lot for the insights, folks. . . . just because i am a bit dedicated to the film, i think i'll go for the scanner first. . . and then take the plunge and get a digital slr later. . . .