WPF - World Photography Forum
Home Gallery Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts

Welcome to World Photography Forum!
Welcome!

Thank you for finding your way to World Photography Forum, a dedicated community for photographers and enthusiasts. There's a variety of forums, a wonderful gallery, and what's more, we are absolutely FREE. You are very welcome to join, take part in the discussion, and post your pictures!

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.


Go Back   World Photography Forum > Photography Equipment > Cameras


Cameras Discussion on Cameras of all types

Medium Format Film

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 03-04-07, 18:35
Leif Leif is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Luton
Posts: 911
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Farmer View Post
Copying a slide using a macro on a digital camera or any camera will not render results as good as a scanner for a few reasons; 1)…. Image quality will be lost due to creating a second generation using optics while the scanned image would be a direct copy from the slide. 2)… The camera can’t create a file big enough.
Jonathan: I use a D200 and a Minolta 5400 scanner. The scanner does not get all of the detail from a Provia 100F slide (though it is close).

File size is rather misleading and although a scanner creates a large file, the file size is a poor measure of the amount of information in the scan. For example I can take a file, and make it bigger with interpolation, without increasing the amount of information. What matters is the quality of the scan. In practice a scanner is limited by the quality of the lens (it uses a lens), and the accuracy of the stepper motors.

Also I am suggesting using a macro lens and extension tubes, to go beyond 1:1. In other words, I suggest zooming in on part of the slide, so as to make sure that the DSLR captures all of the detail from the slide within the cropped area.

You might find this rather interesting:

http://www.borutfurlan.com/test_results.html
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-04-07, 18:43
Leif Leif is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Luton
Posts: 911
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hoey View Post
I have to page up for the Nikon 8000ED and to quote from its spec ' Tri-linear CCD with a total of 30,000 pixels, High-quality 48-bit images at file sizes up to 790 MB, and one of many sizes Effective Scanning Area: (6 x 6) 56.9 x 56.9mm (8,964 x 8,964 pixels)'

Don
Ah! You are quoting the specs. Those terribly nice people at Nikon are giving you the pixels, not the actual amount of information in the scan. Also when they say 48 bits, all they mean is that the file store data from each pixel using 48 bits. But what about the sensor dynamic range and the analogue to digital converter? In practice the 8000ED has a much lower dynamic range than implied by the 48 bits figure. (The Minolta 5400 is no better.) If you doubt what I say, have a Google for reviews.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-04-07, 19:23
Don Hoey's Avatar
Don Hoey Don Hoey is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 4,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leif View Post
If you doubt what I say, have a Google for reviews.
Leif,

You have knowledge of scanning through your practical use of it. I have none so I am in totally new territory. I will have a read through your link. Thanks

Don
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-04-07, 19:28
Leif Leif is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Luton
Posts: 911
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hoey View Post
Leif,

You have knowledge of scanning through your practical use of it. I have none so I am in totally new territory. I will have a read through your link. Thanks

Don
Okay. I hope my postings do not sound rude, it's just the manufacturers specs really do have to be taken with more than a pinch of salt. Norman Koren also has some excellent information on his site.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-04-07, 19:37
Don Hoey's Avatar
Don Hoey Don Hoey is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 4,462
Default

All info gratefully recieved Leif.

I do recognise any manufacturer will try the blind with the most impressive numbers - thats marketing. In this case at the mo I know no better.

Don
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-04-07, 20:13
Don Hoey's Avatar
Don Hoey Don Hoey is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 4,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leif View Post
Norman Koren also has some excellent information on his site.
Shed loads of info. A bit of rainy day reading.

http://www.normankoren.com/

Don
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-04-07, 08:44
Joe's Avatar
Joe Joe is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Age: 51
Posts: 1,586
Default

Thanks for posting the link Don.
It certainly confirms what many believe now....that a high spec 35mm 'style' pro digi body can out perform 35mm film.
To add impact to this review, I do hope that the guy writing it has been completely impartial and 'independant'. Looks like he might have been to me, but I have read so many reviews of digi bodies that as sponsored, either directly, or indirectly, by the manufacturer who I guess obviously need to promote the days latest new model. Sony are very good at doing this trick!
Cynical I know, but This review looks to be an unbiased comparison, which is good to see.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-04-07, 10:28
Don Hoey's Avatar
Don Hoey Don Hoey is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 4,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe View Post
I do hope that the guy writing it has been completely impartial and 'independant'. Looks like he might have been to me, but I have read so many reviews of digi bodies that as sponsored, either directly, or indirectly, by the manufacturer who I guess obviously need to promote the days latest new model. Sony are very good at doing this trick!
Cynical I know, but This review looks to be an unbiased comparison, which is good to see.
I agree over the unbiased bit Joe.

Although I have all my old darkroom kit in the loft I am not going to invest in a scanner to run a side by side using the F3 and 6mp D100, 12mp D2X and same lens.

I see Colab offer a Super Res ( 40-50mb) scanning service but that is £20:47 for a roll of 35mm. Something a bit odd about that as 120 comes in at the same file size and I would have expected higher for that.

Perhaps you and Christine can do a side by side. To be totally unbiased you would each need to be aiming to get the absolute best from your particular media.

Colab link http://www.colab.com/digital/scanning.aspx

Don

Last edited by Don Hoey; 06-04-07 at 10:55.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-04-07, 12:19
Saphire's Avatar
Saphire Saphire is offline  
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Shropshire
Age: 75
Posts: 5,980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hoey View Post

Perhaps you and Christine can do a side by side. To be totally unbiased you would each need to be aiming to get the absolute best from your particular media.

Colab link http://www.colab.com/digital/scanning.aspx

Don

Don, yes we will have a go at doing just that, it will be interesting to see a comparison.

I am trying to work out what lenses to take with me, I don't want to be bogged down with too much weight. I think it will be the 80-400mm 18-55mm and the 1.4 converter just in case. I can't make my mind up to take the 400 f5.6 for that extra clarity if needed. Decisions, Decisions.
__________________
Christine Iwancz
Gallery upload limit is 4 photos per 24hrs Gallery Posting Guidelines here
http://ciphotography.freehostia.com/index.php
Equipment= Canon 7D, 40D, 400 f5.6, 75-300, 100mm Macro, 18-55, Canon 70-200 f4, Tokina 12-24mm, Kenko pro 300 1.4,1.5 and 2.0x, Jessops ext tube set,
Canon 580 flash. Home made ring flash. . Close-lens.


Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-04-07, 19:53
Don Hoey's Avatar
Don Hoey Don Hoey is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 4,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saphire View Post
Don, yes we will have a go at doing just that, it will be interesting to see a comparison.

I am trying to work out what lenses to take with me, I don't want to be bogged down with too much weight. I think it will be the 80-400mm 18-55mm and the 1.4 converter just in case. I can't make my mind up to take the 400 f5.6 for that extra clarity if needed. Decisions, Decisions.
Christine,

I have just had a look at the Trentham Gardens web site and understand the dilema. If you go to the Monkey Forest then the 400 would be handy as I guess it is sharper than the zoom. Otherwise the zoom will cover most eventualities.

I look forward to the results and wish I was able to be there. Have a great day as I am sure you all will.

Don
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 18:20.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.