jeremy_wakefield

This has been a bit of an education/ I can see I did have wrong information and ideas about this whole process. I suppose I thought you just took your slide, stuck it into a scanner, and ended up with a file on your pc that was of a better quality thank one from my digital camera. It seems I was pretty far off the mark.

As I said I was looking for advice because I didn't really know any better and I am very grateful for all the contributors efforts and time in helping me with this. I have searched the forums now and I take the point that it would have been better to do that in the first place, but thanks for giving polite responses to what must seem like a tedious question.

Happy Christmas to everyone.

Willie

Jim, thanks for your explanation to the thing that had puzzled me about this whole business. I hadn't considered the role of the light path etc and now understand this a bit better. Thanks to everyone else to for your time and patience in dealling with a novice in this area.

I will go for the Nikon V in the New Year. As I say I plan to use the film camera for slides in club competitions so having the ability to scan these with reasonable quality and reasonably cheaply will be a bonus.

Willie

Thanks for all the points you have made.

I didn't intend to start a digital v film debate. I bought the EOS 3 mainly for taking colour slides for club competitions but thought as I had it I might as well consider the possibility of scanning film images.

I can see I asked the wrong question initially and I suppose my question really should have been, not which is best but how far I would need to go in terms of scanner quality before I got results comparable in resolution to the images from my 20D. The reason I am puzzled is that I read a review of one scanner ( 4990 ) which stated that prints bigger than A4 from scanned images looked like prints from very low resolution digital cameras. I couldn't understand this because I had thought scanning created such a high resolution image. I assumed that because the film image would be of sufficient quality to start with, a high resolution scan should produce a great (in terms of resolution) quality image.

If it is possible to get quality that is of not noticeably inferior resolution to my 20D ( though obviously different in terms of characteristics) by using velvia 50 or similar and scanning on something of the order of a Epson 4990 or V700, then I would see it as worthwhile for me at the moment. If not then I wouldn't bother.

Thanks

Willie

Thanks Emre. I note the caveat "at a price" which is why I put mine in:

" using a reasonably cheap scanner". I know if I spent a fair bit I could get good results either way. My main confusion arises from the fact that everyone told me a couple of years ago that using film and scanning it was a much more economical ( if more labour intensive)route to much better quality

Willie

Hi

I wasn't sure which forum to put this in. If the editor feels it is in the wrong

one please feel free to move it as you see fit.

I used to print my own B&W until circumstances made it difficult for me to have

access to a darkroom. Digital re-awakened my interest and I have used it for a

little while now, having had a break of several years from photography.

I am a bit confused though. I was under the impression that it was possible to

get much higher quality from a film negative - scanned, and the image finally

processed on a pc - than I could get from a digital camera. I was told that such

an image would be equivalent in terms of resolution to a digital sensor having

around 26 megapixels.

I recently bought (and am truly delighted with )a Canon EOS 3 film camera and

now would like to scan B&W and transparency film images taken on it onto my pc.

However I find that when I look for a scanner to do this the quality is not so

easy to find. I am led to believe that something along the lines of the Epson

v700 or even the 4990 would not produce images equal in quality to the results

of my Canon 20D.

I cannot understand this because it seems logical that scanned negatives have

much more resolution than an 8mp camera. I am sure this is a laughably foolish

question and I have got completely the wrong end of the stick somewhere but I am

genuinely perplexed.

I would love to use B&W and colour slide film negatives to produce prints of

high quality. Is the pursuit of such quality in film - using a reasonably cheap

scanner - viable, or should I just forget it and go back to digital for prints?

Thanks for your help

Willie

Hmmm the ? signs should be indicators of pounds sterling but the site doesn't know about them.

Willie

I have to say that I recently bought the Sigma lens to go with my 20D and I really really like it.

I thought the build quality was very good and although it is slower than the Canon I didn't really think I would miss the extra speed on a lens of this focal range.

I have found the image quality to be superb and would recommend this lens to anyone.

The Canon sells for around ?500 here in the UK and I got the Sigma for ?287. I have no regrets about saving the money and don't feel I missed out at all.

Willie

Thanks Robin. I'm fairly sure the one I have is the standard screen and will set it to CF0 0 as suggested. I don't know how to take the screen out to check so unless my exposures come back badly I will stick with that.

Willie

Thanks to everyone for your kind help. I believe the screen is a standard one as described by Peter and therefore the CF 0 should be set to 0.

I wasn't sure if the difference would simply be a noticeable exposure shift or not. As I now know that this is what I need to look for, I will check this with my 20D in the morning.

Thanks again everyone for your help,

Willie

Hi,

After considering a 50e I got the chance to buy an EOS 3 at what I thought was a

reasonable price and went for that instead. It arrived today and it seems great.

Solid and a pleasure to hold. My first impression are that I really do like it.

I do have one question though.

In the CF settings, CF 0 sets the camera's exposure meter to match the focussing

screen. The manual says this has to be set correctly. The problem is that I

don't know which screen the camera has.

The current setting is at 0 and I am assuming this is likely to be correct (

although all the other settings are also at 0 so maybe the previous owner simply

set them all to 0 in a blanket way). I can't get the seller to ask him.

Anyway. Does anyone know how I can check this? Will it be immediately obvious

once I put a film through it that the setting is either right or wrong?

Thanks for your help again.

Willie

Thanks for the clarification. Sounds good to me all round. I'm champing at the bit to get my hands on it now!

Willie

Thank you very much indeed for your helpful comments. I have bought the camera on ebay uk for ?41, which seems reasonable to me.

I am assuming that when you override the eye control off you mean you can still use autofocus?

Thanks again for such helpful replies

William Scott

Hi

I have the opportunity of buying one of the above and wonder if you would

recommend this or not? In particular does the eye focus facility work or not? If

not can it be overriden?

Anyway I'm really just looking for a camera to take colour slides with for my

club and if you could let me know if this is a good body or not I would be grateful.

Thanks

Just to let you know that I have tried a few shots in similar conditions and with different lenses and the effect is present in all of them. I can't seem to get rid of it very satisfactorily in RAW although I can mitigate it a bit. Anyway it seems similar to Jeff's findings as mentioned above and is not to do with one particullar lens.

Thanks again for your help

Willie

Thank you for your replies to my query. I did try to change the WB in the RAW converter but with limited success. I can remove the purple with the hue/saturation control in PS by using the dropper and desaturating but little else seems to help. I

f the general opinion is that it is unlikely to be a lens issue then that is helpful for me to know and I keep the lens. Other subjects don't seem to suffer from any odd effects.

I will try again today and see how things go.

Thanks again

Willie

Sorry I seem to have managed to add two links. Excuse my ignorance

Willie

Hi

I am familiar with purple fringeing in wide angle lenses and so on but I

wonder if you could tell me what is causing this purple colouration? It was

shot in RAW with my 20D and the above mentioned lens at 1/60 sec at f4.

I have just bought the lens and tried it out yesterday in some woods. Is the

lens faulty? If so I should return it but I have not heard of lenses behaving

like this other than wide angles shooting high contrast areas.

I am quite new to digital photography and my knowledge is limited so I am not

at all sure whether my analysis of the situation is anywhere near the truth or

not.

There is a crop from one picture on this link. (Sorry I don't know how to post

it with the message)

Thanks for your help

Willie

Sorry Simon. I responded too soon and can't use your kind offer.

Hope it goes to a good home

Willie

Hi Simon.

I would be extremely grateful if I could use your voucher book to buy a 10-22mm EF-S lens for my 20D Can you let me know?

Many thanks.

Willie