Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: SLR with Pro Film scanner and DSLR

  1. #1

    Lightbulb SLR with Pro Film scanner and DSLR

    Hi everyone,

    As we know DSLR 6.1 maga pixel and above is quite expensive in compare to a pro film scanner plus a SLR body. In the result of SLR user who own the pro film scanner will it be the same achievement of digital image?

    DSLR Advantage:
    1. Review after you take the picture.
    2. Save cost in developing picture.
    3. No worry of wasting negative.

    SLR Advantage:
    1. No worry about battery.
    2. You can take slides.
    3. No worry about storage.

    Do you think DSLR is good to invest?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    L2TPYSG
    Posts
    4,057

    Default

    what SLR do u use? FM2? still need to bring backup usually

    DSLR if u already own a film system and dun have the urge to take super wide digital shots... otherwise ok lor...

    invest? maybe not...
    "I'm... dreaming... of a wide... angle~
    Just like the ones I used to know~"

  3. #3

    Default

    Note that digital has a rather tangible advantage over scanned slides/negs in that it doesn't have patches and grain all over. Images from sensors are smoother and looks better overall.

    Lets say a nice SLR + scanner.
    $900 (EOS 30) + ~$1000 (with ICE3 - Coolscan 4?)
    Total: $1900.

    Note that normal "semi-pro" DSLRs like the D30/60 is more sluggish in its AF than its film cousins, etc the EOS 30/50 or maybe even the recent x00s. I don't feel that its a lot, but according to a seasoned DSLR user (wai), its noticable.

    One more factor.

  4. #4

    Default Re: SLR with Pro Film scanner and DSLR

    Originally posted by Agpx4
    Hi everyone,

    As we know DSLR 6.1 maga pixel and above is quite expensive in compare to a pro film scanner plus a SLR body. In the result of SLR user who own the pro film scanner will it be the same achievement of digital image?

    DSLR Advantage:
    1. Review after you take the picture.
    2. Save cost in developing picture.
    3. No worry of wasting negative.

    SLR Advantage:
    1. No worry about battery.
    2. You can take slides.
    3. No worry about storage.

    Do you think DSLR is good to invest?

    don't forget, the personal satisfaction and pride of ownership because you have something that is the latest, greatest and top of the line

  5. #5
    Member Knighthunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Pigeon Hole in Mandalay
    Posts
    958

    Default

    DSLR will turn you into machine gun shooter......no brainer....
    Shoot first choose later.....As long as the buffer not full keep clicking the button. Yeah Baby!
    With negative I think first before I shoot since I have limited resource and I want to limit the scrap.
    Note that normal "semi-pro" DSLRs like the D30/60 is more sluggish in its AF than its film cousins, etc the EOS 30/50 or maybe even the recent x00s. I don't feel that its a lot, but according to a seasoned DSLR user (wai), its noticable
    Not necessary true, my F80 and D100 using CAM 900 module for AF not different at all in speed but D100 focusing better in dim light condition compared to F80.
    W204FL

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    340

    Default

    Digital technology (and its price) is still unstable, keep changing very fast.
    In my opinion, DSLR is not an investment, unless you're a working pro and your work require the advantage of digital.

  7. #7
    Member Knighthunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Pigeon Hole in Mandalay
    Posts
    958

    Default

    Originally posted by tsdh
    Digital technology (and its price) is still unstable, keep changing very fast.
    In my opinion, DSLR is not an investment, unless you're a working pro and your work require the advantage of digital.
    This how I justify my DSLR depreciation:
    Shooting with 35mm film:
    Film cost: $6 (averaging) 36exp
    Processing and Printing: 40c/print
    Total cost per roll: $20.40
    In one year if my DSLR depreciated by 1k at least I must shoot 1765 exposure to justify the cost. But now less than one month I already got more than 1k shoots........
    See the difference?
    Just my rough calculation
    W204FL

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    340

    Default

    Originally posted by Knighthunter
    This how I justify my DSLR depreciation:
    Shooting with 35mm film:
    Film cost: $6 (averaging) 36exp
    Processing and Printing: 40c/print
    Total cost per roll: $20.40
    In one year if my DSLR depreciated by 1k at least I must shoot 1765 exposure to justify the cost. But now less than one month I already got more than 1k shoots........
    See the difference?
    Just my rough calculation
    well, probably you're going for shooting spree every day.
    I'm using film SLR as main camera, combined with prosumer digicam for casual shots. I only develop the film, never print because I will scan it, then only some selection will be printed either by photo-lab or just use photo-printer.
    Those casual & documentary shots are taken using digicam. That way, my cost will be lower (less film usage). And the "hit-rate" (number of selected frame in a roll) is also higher.
    With this manner, I make use the digital to reduce my film cost, while waiting for the technology to become stable.

    I'm waiting for DSLR with full-frame sensor and using similar technology as Foveon ... with affordable price..
    Last edited by tsdh; 24th November 2002 at 07:36 PM.

  9. #9

    Default

    Originally posted by Knighthunter

    This how I justify my DSLR depreciation:
    Shooting with 35mm film:
    Film cost: $6 (averaging) 36exp
    Processing and Printing: 40c/print
    Total cost per roll: $20.40
    In one year if my DSLR depreciated by 1k at least I must shoot 1765 exposure to justify the cost. But now less than one month I already got more than 1k shoots........
    See the difference?
    Just my rough calculation

    I've no problems with this subjective form of justifications.

    However I think its the number of keepers that you get that matters more than the number of shots triggered off. Frankly speaking with enough planning and visualisation, one can get the same number of keepers from 36 frames of film as compared to squeezing off 1GB worth of shots from a DSLR in one session.

    okok...I know some people out there will claim they will can get 1GB worth of keepers but please be true to yourself...a keeper does not come about everyday no matter how often you shoot.

    I suppose its question of efficiency.
    |EOS, Fuji X and Leica M Systems | Need more good pictures to justify gear | www.ef2pt8.com |

  10. #10
    Member Knighthunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Pigeon Hole in Mandalay
    Posts
    958

    Default

    Originally posted by BraveHart



    I've no problems with this subjective form of justifications.

    However I think its the number of keepers that you get that matters more than the number of shots triggered off. Frankly speaking with enough planning and visualisation, one can get the same number of keepers from 36 frames of film as compared to squeezing off 1GB worth of shots from a DSLR in one session.

    okok...I know some people out there will claim they will can get 1GB worth of keepers but please be true to yourself...a keeper does not come about everyday no matter how often you shoot.

    I suppose its question of efficiency.
    I am understand that....with DSLR the hit rate is higher...
    I've been shooting about 4 years with 35mm (neg/slide) film before jump to DSLR. I had experience I shot more than 3 rolls but no keeper..... I am still a on learning curve, even now if I am shooting with neg/slide my keeper rate is only around 5% if I am lucky. With DSLR my keeper still low but I got more freedom to click my shutter. Equipment won't make a good a phostograher, isn't it?
    I am believe in Statistic, the more often or more exposure you burn your chance is getting higher.....plain statisic no need rocket scientist.
    Efficient? Do this count? I believe the thing that makes so call efficienct is one dough limit...if giving unlimited dough for neg/slide plus developing cost I bet everyone also become "machine gun" shooters.
    Just my two cents......
    Last edited by Knighthunter; 24th November 2002 at 11:53 PM.
    W204FL

  11. #11
    Member Knighthunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Pigeon Hole in Mandalay
    Posts
    958

    Default

    Originally posted by tsdh

    well, probably you're going for shooting spree every day.
    I'm using film SLR as main camera, combined with prosumer digicam for casual shots. I only develop the film, never print because I will scan it, then only some selection will be printed either by photo-lab or just use photo-printer.
    Those casual & documentary shots are taken using digicam. That way, my cost will be lower (less film usage). And the "hit-rate" (number of selected frame in a roll) is also higher.
    With this manner, I make use the digital to reduce my film cost, while waiting for the technology to become stable.

    I'm waiting for DSLR with full-frame sensor and using similar technology as Foveon ... with affordable price..
    Not everyday.......weekends only....
    Yep full frame DSLR is still too expesive lor.....
    I don't like the focal length multiplier in my DSLR too.
    W204FL

  12. #12

    Default

    In my earlier post I want to point out that one does not really need a DSLR and unlimited shots to make good pictures. I think this has been brought up many times but if you feel that a scene doesn't look nice....why bother to click the shutter in the first place? Just because its free and you can delete it? Please do bear in mind that your shutter mechanism has a lifespan as well.

    As for the rest of the pros and cons of the DSLR they are pretty well documented in this forums already I shan't bother to bring them up again since I can forsee this will go on and on without end.

    With regards to the issue of efficiency...its a matter of personal principles....I'll always respect the photographer who manages to get his pictures with the least number of shots.....because it goes to show the amount of confidence, competence and vision he/she has before depressing the shutter button.
    |EOS, Fuji X and Leica M Systems | Need more good pictures to justify gear | www.ef2pt8.com |

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    5,499

    Default

    well said BraveHart...

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    L2TPYSG
    Posts
    4,057

    Default

    heehee bravehart love ur sig... but who does the metering?
    "I'm... dreaming... of a wide... angle~
    Just like the ones I used to know~"

  15. #15
    Member Knighthunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Pigeon Hole in Mandalay
    Posts
    958

    Default

    Originally posted by BraveHart
    In my earlier post I want to point out that one does not really need a DSLR and unlimited shots to make good pictures. I think this has been brought up many times but if you feel that a scene doesn't look nice....why bother to click the shutter in the first place? Just because its free and you can delete it? Please do bear in mind that your shutter mechanism has a lifespan as well.

    As for the rest of the pros and cons of the DSLR they are pretty well documented in this forums already I shan't bother to bring them up again since I can forsee this will go on and on without end.

    With regards to the issue of efficiency...its a matter of personal principles....I'll always respect the photographer who manages to get his pictures with the least number of shots.....because it goes to show the amount of confidence, competence and vision he/she has before depressing the shutter button.
    Bit contradiction here with your statement, I had real experience to go to Photographer booth at Australia WRC series for two consecutives years. My friend from Mitshubishi Ralliart gave me pass to access the pit and press room. I saw lots of photographer compiling their shots taken from dirt tracks, I can't believe how may prints they have that time and at the end they only chose 3-4 prints to be sent to their editor. I do believe they are competence photographer since most of them are team official photographer and they came from different parts of the world. I wonder how to gage this type of photographer with your standard.

    Regarding shutter life, as we know both DSLR and SLR has same shutter life. But the resale value for DSLR is very miserable compared to SLR. I think this is fair, the shutter for SLR can last years more than DSLR on extensive use......
    That's why in my first opinion..I already stated that owning DSLR makes you like a machine gun shooter and use less brain. We still can learn from the shoots from DSLR since all the data is recorded at EXIF file.

    So, back to topic......all is back to the individual call.
    DSLR - One must find a way to justify your depreciation and the style of shooting. DSLR is not cheap so in my case I will squeez every juice from it. Even some people will tag me with incompetent, I don't care.

    SLR+Drum Scanner - is a perfect combination for people who thinks that DSLR depreciation is unjustifiable. Extra $1000 saving can supply film and developing/printing cost for more than one year for average shooter.

    At the end photography is creativity having DSLR or SLR will not making any differents, it's a personal call.
    W204FL

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    L2TPYSG
    Posts
    4,057

    Default

    minor point: not drum scanner lah... quite ex per frame

    another minor point: if u earning from photography, it's paying for itself. if hobbyist then another ballgame altogether.
    Last edited by denizenx; 25th November 2002 at 10:37 PM.
    "I'm... dreaming... of a wide... angle~
    Just like the ones I used to know~"

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Ang Mo Kio outskirts
    Posts
    754

    Default

    Braveheart, u made some veri good points. I tend to agree with u.

  18. #18
    Member Knighthunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Pigeon Hole in Mandalay
    Posts
    958

    Default

    Originally posted by denizenx
    minor point: not drum scanner lah... quite ex per frame

    another minor point: if u earning from photography, it's paying for itself. if hobbyist then another ballgame altogether.
    I am sorry my error .......... drum scanner may cost more than DSLR.....

    See here's my point those guys are the person shooting 35mm like with DSLR...since they can justify the unlimited film and processing cost.....
    For us hobbyist we will never match them in burning 35mm film, DSLR give me chance to do something close to that they can do.
    I read some pro DSLR like user like Moose Peterson takes 1000 shots average per week (refer to nikondigital.com), even pro also turning into a machine gun shooter, I guess........
    W204FL

  19. #19

    Red face

    Hi everyone,

    I do believe both DSLR and SLR user have a vaild point in the sence of "Photography".

    In today technology, both of the result are showing in difference area. Digital will show the best result in the screen. You can tell what modification has been done in the screen but the result is the BEST! It doesn't matter how many clicks has been executed during taking the picture.

    As SLR user will tell the true skill in hard copy, which most of the Photograper will note the time, patient, effort has spend in the picture.

    I would say the evaluation is difference for both of Digital and hardcopy.

    Do you all think the same way I think?


  20. #20
    Member Knighthunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Pigeon Hole in Mandalay
    Posts
    958

    Default

    Originally posted by Agpx4
    Hi everyone,

    I do believe both DSLR and SLR user have a vaild point in the sence of "Photography".

    In today technology, both of the result are showing in difference area. Digital will show the best result in the screen. You can tell what modification has been done in the screen but the result is the BEST! It doesn't matter how many clicks has been executed during taking the picture.

    As SLR user will tell the true skill in hard copy, which most of the Photograper will note the time, patient, effort has spend in the picture.

    I would say the evaluation is difference for both of Digital and hardcopy.

    Do you all think the same way I think?

    Nicely said......
    Your conclusion remind me of Jerry Springer's Final Thought....
    W204FL

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •