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

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.

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.

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

Shed loads of info. A bit of rainy day reading. :D

http://www.normankoren.com/

Don

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.

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

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