jreades

<p>Just wanted to say that, thanks to this thread, I was able to plan out how my wife and I would carry our kit to Iceland. We've each got Lowepro AW-type cases and have simply bought a bunch of carabiners with which to secure them in front of us to the shoulder straps of our packs. A little experimentation suggests that two clips on one shoulder strap and one on the other should strap gives you a good balance of security (3 clips in all) and quick-ish entry/exit (you can remove the pack by only unclipping one carabiner).<br>

Will send a photo after the Laugavegurinn. :-)</p>

<p>Just going through old email and came across the photo.net "Forum Alerter" on this old thread I started. Thought I would comment on my decisions after more than a year of usage.</p>

<p>First, I was really happy with ReallyBigCameras -- Kerry really worked with me to stick to budget and to ship it to my friends in CA in time for me to collect it. Very pleased and thoroughly recommend him on the basis of my experience.</p>

<p>Second, I am really happy with both the Feisol tripod and Photo Clam ballhead. Neither has ever given me a bit of trouble (creep, slippage, what-have-you). And man do I appreciate the shift to carbon fibre from Al -- a day of hiking with 1-2 heavy lenses is perfectly manageable and I'm rarely even tempted to leave the tripod behind to save weight.</p>

<p>Third, I <em>do</em> sometimes wish I had purchased the 'Rapid' version (i.e. single twist to lock/unlock the entire leg) since there <em>are</em> times when setting up the tripod is still a bit of a faff. 13-15 seconds (which is probably what it takes me) sometimes feels like a very long time. That said, the rapid version probably only gets you down to 7-8 seconds, so I probably shouldn't complain as it saved me $75 or so.</p>

<p>I've never had trouble taking the tripod on planes, except once in Naples airport when the security staff tried to tell me that it was a blunt weapon and needed to be checked into the hold. After a good deal of back-and-forth, which included me successfully pulling off the utterly fallacious argument that the carbon fibre tripod couldn't be a weapon because it was too light and no way would I trash such an expensive piece of kit attacking someone (in retrospect, I probably should have pointed to the prohibited goods page and asked them to point to the the tripods), they let me through security anyway. </p>

<p>Hope this is helpful to anyone who stumbles across this page down the line...</p>

<p>Thank you for your feedback Dave -- your comment on ballheads made me go back and take another look at my assumptions. So now I've pulled the trigger and ordered my tripod and ballhead from ReallyBigCameras. Kerry was really helpful: I explained my budget, my considerations, and my thinking and he guided me through the final choice. I'll be collecting it from friends when I'm next in the US in 2 weeks' time. Very excited!<br>

I opted for the 3401 'Traditional' and Photo Clam PC-36N ballhead since this kept the entire rig to just about $400. The more expensive Rapid legset or changing to a different tripod altogether would have put me very close to $500 which was, for me, a deal breaker. Similarly, Kerry steered me away from the cheaper 30N ballhead. I was especially glad to have stuck with my gut that $500 was more than I was comfortable spending after Kerry reminded me that a quick release plate ($32) would be a good idea and I realised that I'd need 2, one for me and one for my friend. :)<br>

Hope this summary helps anyone else searching for help. Can share the URLs and Kerry's input if it's really helpful.<br>

jon</p>

<p>Errr, it figures that right after posting I discover that I was one level too deep in the Feisol site to realise that they're still selling non-Rapid versions of the 3401/3402/3301.<br>

I get from their site that the price difference is about $60 (20% on $284 vs $219) between Rapid and regular. Is it worth it in your opinion?</p>

<p>I'm looking to replace a long-suffering (both me and it) Manfrotto DigiPod with something that is both more portable (I'm getting more into the hiking) and more sturdy (I'm getting tired of watching the ball head on the old Manfrotto gradually lose a carefully set-up shot when the mass distribution on the camera is wrong, and I probably don't need to go into any detail on what's happened to some of the plastic leg clasps...).<br>

Quite simply, I and one of my good friends really enjoy landscape photography but aren't professionals or intending to ever becoming professionals. So we're not looking to spend professional prices. However, we really want to upgrade to something that we won't be tempted to leave at home when setting out for a day hike or, perhaps more importantly, on a trip to somewhere truly spectacular and, potentially, inaccessible (i.e. remote parts of Isle of Skye at the end of May!).<br>

Poking around on the Photo.net boards suggests that the Feisol tripods get far and away the best recommendations for people who aren't looking to spend significant amounts of cash on a Gitzo but would benefit from the weight gain of shifting from aluminium to carbon fibre. They seem to offer decently-built carbon fibre tripods at prices that are 'only' twice those of decent quality alumnium frames.<br>

However, I'm having a hard time puzzling out some of the differences between models and am looking for a sanity-check from more knowledgeable members:</p>

<ol>

<li>Aside from max/min/folded heights are there any important differences between the 3401/3301/3402? For instance, none of them <em>seem</em> to use plastic leg locks (per the announcement on <a href="http://www.feisol.com/english/standard.htm">http://www.feisol.com/english/standard.htm</a>), but is there anything else that I should be on the lookout for in a budget version of an expensive tripod?</li>

<li>On the basis that I'll generally spend more time carrying the tripod than actually using it in action, I tend to lean towards buying the tripod with the shortest folded length since that will the one that is most hiker-friendly. I recognise that this might affect the types of shots that I can compose.</li>

<li>The Feisol site only seems to sell the Rapid system these days (via PayPal, which makes me a little nervous). Is there any reason to go looking for the (presumably older) non-Rapid system? It seems like the older system was a bit odd but I don't have any essential objection to unfurling the legs in a particular order.</li>

<li>I got used to a centre column with the Manfrotto but, again, had trouble with the locking mechanism (not strong enough for the 50D+70-200/f4 with 1.4x extension). Feedback on the Feisol CC seems mixed, but generally favourable, and presumably this would help me with the shortest tripod while also giving me a bit more flexibility to recompose at the last second.</li>

<li>How do you do airline travel with a tripod like this? The reason I ask is that companies like Ryanair (especially Ryanair) and easyJet have quite draconian policies and I'm <em>assuming</em> that, in the same way you'd not check your camera and lenses, you'd not want to check your $300 tripod. Looks like easyJet's allowance is 56 x 45 x 25cm and Ryanair's is 55 x 40 x 20cm, so that would rule out the 3301 and make the 3401 with CC a very tight squeeze length-wise. I'm assuming that the folded diameter is less than 20cm. Does this square with your experience?</li>

<li>Does one <em>only</em> buy these from Feisol.com? Reviews seems to indicate that ordering direct is fine, but it still seems sensible to check.</li>

<li>Anything else I should know before taking the plunge into a carbon fibre tripod or one from Feisol in particular?</li>

<li>Finally, I can see that the tripod head is a separate purchase. I'm thinking a removable 3-way panning head (separate locks on each axis) is the way to go since it avoids the weaknesses I experienced with a cheap ball head mount but wouldn't require me to spend tons of money to get something that is still enjoyable to use. Suggestions for something of comparable build quality and price (i.e. rather cheaper than the legs, but not so cheap as to be a pain in the a**)? </li>

</ol>

<p>Many, many thanks for any feedback or suggestions.<br>

Sincerely,<br>

jon</p>

<p>I picked up a used 50D from B&H and the quality of the images blew me away -- even shooting at the extended ISOs (3200, at night-time, around a fire) I got shots that are good enough to print at modest sizes... 6x4s easy I'd say, though A4-size might be pushing the boat out a bit. Certainly, looking at the ISO3200 ones at 100% magnification isn't pretty, but what do you expect for hand-held photos in the dark? If I look at an ISO200 one taken during daylight from the same trip then I honestly can't find any obvious noise at 100%. I've just uploaded some lower-res photos from the 50D to my photo.net account if you want to poke around.<br>

The dirt/gap business sounds a bit fishy to me, so I'll assume that you've checked into it and Canon have dealt with it if it's not a perception issue.<br>

I'd second t<script type=

I would second the fast second-lens suggestion -- put the 100-400 on your 'good' camera

and something short and quick on the backup. No trying to switch lenses while dust floats

around the back of the Range Rover, and no missing a shot because you've got the 'wrong'

lens on your camera.

The best photograph I took on my safari several years back was shot off the cuff using a wide

angle lens of the African sunset -- I had just a few seconds when the sun dropped below the

clouds but was still slightly above the horizon. It didn't need anything fancy, just something

wide and fast.

I've lived in New York and all over the old EU-12 countries, and have visited Eastern

Europe on several occassions. Thus far (knock on wood) I've never had so much as a dollar

bill stolen. Have I been lucky? Of course. Have I been careful? Of course. You're far more

likely to get ripped off on, say, the restaurant bill or at the highway toll plaza (especially in

Italy -- there's a reason you should count your change before pulling away from the plaza)

than on the street.

If you use your street-smarts from New York and Boson you should be absolutely fine in

Europe. That said, try not to stick out -- as someone else has mentioned, if you look/act

like a idiot, you will get taken for one. So try to dress more conservatively (floral shirts? no.

Short shorts? no.). Don't yell halfway across the piazza. And so on.

The only caveat to this is that, as a general rule, the further South you head the greater the

risks. I too have heard stories about Naples and parts down from there. For instance, in

Naples you would have to lock your doors and wind up your windows to keep boys on

mopeds from either reaching in to grab what they can while you're stopped at a light or

just opening the door entirely and grabbing stuff off the floor. They'll be gone before you

can do anything about it.

I don't think that this is a "problem of the South" per se, it's more a result of what you get

when rampant official corruption combined with widespread poverty or unemployment

makes it very unlikely that there's a will to catch and prosecute kids preying on wealthy

tourists. I'd probably be similarly wary in the Balkans and Greece.

HTH,

jon

Yep, it was tungsten slide film from Fuji. I stupidly discarded the box so I'm not sure the exact 'mark', but some quick research suggests that it must have been "Fuji RTP Tungsten 64 - 135-36".

It seems like you both use external light meters -- this is something that I've been considering for quite some time since I know that they provide superior performance (including real spot metering) but the costs seem to be all over the map... any suggestions for a first meter?

jon<div></div>

Not so much a question (except at the end) as an observation -- I just

picked up my first roll of tungsten-balanced film from the lab and the

results (from several nights spent along the South Bank of the Thames)

are just amazing (the film's results, not mine ;) ).

I had come across several references to T-balanced film in various

forums but had found it difficult to locate any to shoot since your

standard little shop doesn't seem to carry it at all. What finally

drove me to go out and really look for some was a passing reference in

the Edward Burtynsky book to the quality of this type of film,

espeically at night. For UK-reference, I managed to track some down at

Silverprint in London.

My only question is this: in *some* night shots, areas that were lit

substantially more than the rest of the frame appear to blow-out

completely. So a well-lit brown wall *can* actually turn bright white

even though the rest of the photo remains 'well-exposed'. When

exposing tungsten film do you meter for the highlights and go with a

dark photo overall, or do you have rule for finding some kind of

compromise exposure that really opens up the the dark areas without

blowing out the light areas completely?

Also, where else have you found this type of film to come in handy?

Cheers,

jon

Having never worked with a Minolta scanner I can't really comment, but the Nikons are certainly easy to load -- I've only ever had the slightest bit of difficulty with badly-curled negatives that a friend asked me to scan for him. The rest of the time I just stick in vaguely in the direction of the feeder and it grabs the strip and pulls it in.

My only word of warning is that, unless they've made significant improvements with the LS50 over the LS4000, these scanners are *noisy*. Not "what did you say dear? I can't hear you over the scanner?" loud, but surprising noisly given the relatively low number of moving parts inside.

Like everyone else who has commented here, I generally do the scans *while* doing something else (listening to the iPod, vacuuming the living room, reading The Economist, whatever) since it's terminally boring to wait for it to scan all six frames at a medium-high resolution (circa 10-12 minutes total). I've only ever had to re-scan a couple of frames (out of hundreds) because the automatic focus/balance didn't do a good job.

Cheers,

jon

Uh, everywhere I wrote LS5 I *meant* to write LS50...

And I *wasn't* suggesting the LS5000 (I read the question closely enough to realise it wasn't an option) -- I was trying to say: what are the features that you require from you film scanner and can you get most/all of them with a cheaper scanner such as the LS50 or LS4000 since it seems like you're a *bit* leery of the KM scanners.

For what it's worth, I have to admit to not having scanned mounted slides with my 4000 (I just develop and run through in batches of 6 since I can't be a**ed to use the roll feeder) so I can't comment on the apparent DOF issue, but I've certainly never noticed issues with negatives or felt like the ICE on the 4000 was underperforming in some way.

jon

Unless there's a reason that only the LS5000 will do, then why not look for either a new LS5 or a used LS4000?

Broadly speaking, the latter will give you the same features (except the shadow controls and the slightly higher resolution) for about $500, the former will give you the shadow controls minus the bulk-feed/firewire options of the 5000.

I bought a used 4000 a few months after the 5000 came out (and had appropriately depressed the cost of the 4000) and couldn't be happier.

jon

The use of all tripods is banned in Scotland since real Scottish photographers will use a caber instead.

Uh, more seriously -- they're the same in Scotland and Italy as they are everywhere else in the world (minus the corrupt bits), which is to say that you cannot *generally* use a tripod inside museums/churches/archeological digs. This is not to say that *all* places ban the use of a tripod, just many of the more photographed ones.

However, if you are visiting somewhere on a quiet day and can speak the local language you may find that some places *will* allow you to set up a tripod if you appear properly respectful of the context and do your best to reassure them that you are not a commercial photographer. I would *not* try to bribe or tip anyone for the privilege, but a civil, polite discussion can open doors that are normally shut.

Similarly, don't be a jackass and use a flash when photographing old paintings, rugs, or furniture. I'd like to see the Carabinieri institute a policy of 'use it and lose it' for all cameras in the Sistine Chapel, but apparently it's an unreasonable seisure of property.

My general summary: if you are walking around Rome, I'd only collect the tripod if I were planning to do some early morning/evening and night shots since it won't get you far inside the Vatican during the day. Pack some 800 ISO film (or something that can be easily pushed to 800) and a wide aperture lens and you'll be good to go during the day.

HTH,

jon

You could buy online from B&H, ship it to New Jersey (where my girlfriend's parents, ever so conveniently, live and which has a much lower sales tax than the combined NY + NYC), and then carry just the lens home (minus instructions, warranty card, etc.) on the plane. Not that I've done this, you realise, but it seems to work pretty well from what I've heard.

I'm actually rather confused about what UK customs *does* these days -- I assume they're all off fighting drug smugglers on boats or something, because they sure aren't checking people passing through Heathrow. I've seen entire caravans of luggage (with Sherpas) pass through without anyone even being there to give it a second glance. Certainly, if I were looking to make easy money for the government I'd have someone meeting every plane from New York and searching for new iPods on which to charge VAT. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Anyway, to get back to David's question -- you'll get hit for VAT and various other fees that will add, as has already been said, about 25% to the cost of your purchase. If it still makes economic sense after that, then by all means go ahead. The US dollar is sliding again and the economics of shipping from the US have gotten better after a few months where the pound flirted with $1.60 or so and the Apple Store UK was briefly the same price as the Apple Store Soho (NYC).

jon

Second most responses here:

1. A good backup system is one that uses as many different media in as many different locations as possible.

2. Any one system *will* fail -- CD, DVD, HD, Tape -- when you need it most.

3. A good fire (not so much flood) will destroy your backups if they're all in the same place. I keep some backup DVDs from my home system at the office and was thinking of posting a pack to my parents in Canada. Since that's a different continent I figure it's the most remote I can get short of worry about nuclear war. :P

4. Don't use re-writable CDs and DVDs -- not only are they more expensive, but they're more error-prone than the write-once disks. Besides, it never hurts to have multiple copies of the same file.

5. Don't confuse RAID5 with backup. It *will* help to prevent errors but it's not the same as actual backup.

HTH,

jon

I have a LaCie external drive with Firewire/USB 2 interfaces and have been quite happy with it.

Since it was 'open box' I got the version with the LiteScribe for the same price as the regular burner. This means that I can pay a premium for burning bitmapped images on to the top side. :P

The more interesting part is that I originally bought a bunch of Sony DVD-Rs to archive off my slide scans. They have a generally good brand reputation, figured they'd make good DVDs too. Wrong. One in three would report write errors during verification.

Thinking that my drive was the problem, I bought a couple of Verbatim disks when I ran out of Sony disks since they were what the store had available. Miraculously, no problems. None. Every single burn verified 100%.

The moral of this story is pretty much that you need to experiment to find the right media for your drive. It's probably worth the premium to get a decent drive (i.e. no no-name drives for $50), but more than that you can't know just on the basis of the brand if the disks themselves are good or not.

HTH,

jon

You don't say anything about what system you are running here -- OS X, XP, Windows 2000, 98? Your options may vary a bit depending on which system you're using.

The basic explanation is what was stated above -- Photoshop is a resource-intensive programme and even 4GB of RAM wouldn't be enough to keep a file fully-loaded in memory after a certain point. Think about the multiple-undos -- PS needs a way to store each 'stage' of your photograph's edits, it can't say "Run this filter 'backwards'" because that simply doesn't work.

The idea of the scratch disk is that you specify a drive (maybe C:, but maybe not) where Photoshop can write all of its temporary data. Think of it like a notepad where it can jot things down as it goes. The problem is that if your scratch disk is also your main disk it *may* run out of space. This is especially true if your computer crashes or hasn't been restarted in a while (I'm assuming Windows here) since the temporary folder tends to fill up with rubbish that isn't cleaned out on a regular basis.

So the first thing you need to do is figure out what Photoshop is using as a scratch disk. There'll be an option under preferences to set the location of the scratch disk. Whatever drive that's pointing to is the one that's almost full.

If you have other drives that have more free space you can point your scratch disk settings (up to four, I think) at those other drives and PS will happily use them instead and the error messagse will go away.

If you don't have any other drives then you will need to start backing up data on your only drive and deleting it. *OR* you can buy a second hard drive to install into your computer (if you have a desktop). Since you can buy 250GB drives quite cheaply these days I'd recommend that you do this rather than randomly deleting old files.

HTH,

jon

I would skip the chemicals and bring the gear (after having given everything a good rinse).

Most of the photographic chemicals are marked 'toxic' or 'do not put in eyes' and any number of other labels that are going to make the INS sit up and ask a lot of pointed questions. The fact that it's all useless from the standpoint of attacking someone on a plane is irrelevant, you *don't* want to bring *anything* that might have dubious uses with you on the plane.

If people get freaked out about nail scissors then just think for a moment of what they'll do when they see a mid-sized bag of chemicals whose use may be unclear (if they are still sealed in the original wrapping you might be ok).

As was pointed out, Germany has abundant access to darkroom chemicals so why risk it?

jon

Seconded.

I have this combo plus a 35/f2 and 1.4 x TC and it's treated me very well in all sorts of climates and all sorts of locations (city, jungle, mountains). My one small gripe is the vignetting on the 24-85 when wide open at 24mm, but since I'm usually shooting architecture from a tripod (i.e. stopped down) at the short end it hasn't been a major issue.

I was thinking of trading the 35 for something prime either longer or shorter, but if I switch to a DSLR with a significant crop factor then this becomes a 50/f2. Of course, now that the 5D rumours seems to be gathering credibility I may hold off on any major lens changes.

jon

Verbatim has been pretty good to me, while Sony has been surprisingly bad for DVD media. I have a DVD-DL writer and could not get a *single* readable burn from Sony media. The Verbatim had *no* such trouble. For DVD-R media I get issues on one in four burns to Sonys.

Given the trouble I've had with name-brand media, I would *never* buy store-brand DVD media even if they were 20p a pop.

That said, on the whole I've been rather surprised by how many times I get disk verification errors after writing the Sony disks. It almost makes me wonder if the drive itself (a LaCie external DVD+R/-R/DL is the problem. It could well *also* be my 667MHz G4 PowerBook having throughput problems or something.

jon

You might as well ask whether Canon or Nikon is better... as with many things it's a matter of opinion.

Some people use no filters at all -- they feel that introducing an extra pane of glass between the lens and the subject is only going to detract from final image quality and so just use a lens hood instead. I think that that's a good choice for studio shooting, but you wouldn't get me with my 70-200/f4 to Costa Rica *without* some kind of filter because of the amount of dirt and dust floating around.

Personally, I like having *something* between the expensive lens glass and the rest of the world, but there is *no* point in buying a $5 filter to put on the end of a $1500 lens. You get what you pay for and most people will recommend B&W or something similar (if you can afford it) with Hoya being an apparently excellent second choice.

You would ordinarily want to look for an 'MRC' filter -- which basically means multi-coated and so less likely to have blemishes or other problems that will interfere with the quality of your shot.

Personally, I like the following combination of filters:

1. UV -- goes on by default since it has little to no impact on the quality of the shot in *any* environment. It filters out a *bit* of haze when you have sky in the background and that's about it.

2. Circular Polariser -- used to cut down on reflected light. Often used when shooting on or around water or in other situations where there is a lot of glare (e.g. rain, snow, reflective foliage). This filter can be rotated to adjust the amount of polarisation and you'll need to play with it to understand how it works.

3. Neutral Density Graduated (a.k.a. ND Grad) -- for a simple SLR setup you would want a Cokin "P" filter *holder* but get the filter from a company that uses glass rather than resin (HiTech, Singh-Ray, Heliopan). This filter can be adjusted horizontally or vertically (depending on which way you rotate the holder) and you would probably want to start with a soft transition. This filter is designed to compensate for extremes of light and dark in the same frame (i.e. a sunset). So by cutting down the amount of light entering the bright part of the picture (but not changing its tone, thus *neutral* density) you can also get detail from the dark part.

More sophisticated users will often have warming and cooling filters (82C, etc.) to use in certain circumstances but the three above have treated me fairly well.

HTH,

jon

A few (disorganised) thoughts:

1. 70-200 will probably not be enough if you want real detail on a large animal or birds. On your long lens you'll most likely want the long end to be at *least* 500mm.

2. All reviews (and my limited experience) point to the 1.4x TC being better value than the 2x TC -- AF performance is good and picture degradation minimal. Believe me, you do *not* want to lose AF on a safari so I'd scratch the 2x TC right now.

3. I'd strongly urge you to explore renting the long lens (then you can go with something in the 400+ mm range *and* IS) unless you you plan to do a lot more wildlife photography. However, if you are sure that you want to buy and not rent and you want a versatile 'rest of your life' setup then I'd go with the 70-200/f4 + 1.4x TC since it's still an excellent combination and you'll have decent AF and something that tops out at 448mm after allowing for your cropping factor. You'll miss *some* shots but you'll get *many* of them.

4. Bring a film SLR body that is compatible with your lenses. You cannot possibly regret doing this since this weight is minimal and backup value should anything happen to your DSLR is incalculable. As suggested earlier, a used Rebel would be a good choice.

5. I'd bring an assortment of 50-100ISO (perhaps Velvia or NPS for some landscapes) and 400-800ISO (perhaps Sensia or NPH for wildlife since both are easily pushed to 800).

6. Tripod & beanbag -- ideally I'd bring both. You will have *zero* use for the tripod while in the jeeps, but you may find yourself with the opportunity for some great landscape photography where the tripod will give you the ability to shoot with very small apertures.

7. That said, given the limited value of a tripod I'd go with the lightest one possible that will still do the job properly. I like the Bogen DigiPods since the fold up to about 1'2" in the size and are quite light. You wouldn't use one with a really long lens (my 70-200/f4 is about the most it seems able to lock down) but it's fine for landscape work.

8. There's no reason to buy some pricey speciality photography beanbag, you just want one with sufficient 'give' that it will mold to the top of the jeep but sufficiently filled to support the lens.

9. I've read several reviews of the iPod storage approach and suspect that it's not robust enough for your needs. It's slow and apparently eats through batteries at a rapid clip. I'd probably go with a more specialised tool. There's at least one article on photo.net about going on a digital safari and they have plenty of detail there. A google search of photo.net should also turn up a number of other comprehensive, well travelled responses to this problem.

10. You'll want to be careful about what you connect your chargers too since you may have issues with voltage or current surges. It's best to speak with the safari operator and see if they've anyone with relevant experience or can refer you to someone else who has taken your trip who might be able to help.

Hope this helps,

jon

There's a hack for iBooks to enable them to do monitor spanning instead of plain old mirroring (search the photo.net forum history) so this is kind of a non-issue in my opinion. You'd get higher resolution from the PowerBook but this may or may not matter all that much depending on your monitor's capabilities.

Unless Apple is sourcing their iBook and PowerBook screens from different suppliers I'd be somewhat surprised if there were radical differences between the quality of the two. I'm not saying it isn't possible, just that I'd be surprised.

Mainly I'd just come back to my original point -- you're best off waiting until the end of September to see if Apple comes up with anything substantively new (i.e. new processors, motherboard) for the aging PBG4 lineup.

jon

It doesn't matter, you'll get great detail for both. Or from neither, as the case may be.

It really has to do with the grain size of the film and the quality of the exposure. A well-exposed negative would easily beat a badly-exposed transparency. And vice versa. Similarly, a well-exposed 50ISO film will show more detail than a well-exposed 800ISO film.

I *have* found that slide film appears to produce a more appealing output from my LS-4000 than negative film, but I think it just comes back to the two points above. Obviously, the colour gamut is also different so the same shot with negative and slide will look noticeably different and you might prefer one to the other.

Is there any particular reason you wanted to know this?

jon