I can only talk of myself, but I still prefer 'real' photos made with a good camera and good films. But of course you need an excellent scanner for premium results.
In addition to what Craig, Rainer and Neil wrote, I want to direct your attention to the Leica R9 SLR for which a digital back is available now (presumed you have a fortune to spend for a camera). In my experience Leica lenses are still the best when it comes to colours and difficult exposures. If you can't afford a Leica and want to take only digital photographs look at Panasonic SLRs. Some of them are equipped with lenses from Leica and are much cheaper than Leicas. Christoph > Craig and Neil offer some excellent advice. There are truly a wide range > of variables to investigate. I would just add a couple quick items. > > The Hasselblad cameras fall into the category known as "medium format". > They have a film size considerably larger than 35mm, which is one of the > reasons pros prefer them. There are also "large format" cameras, which > have an incredible range of film sizes. These cameras also have a wide > range of movements simply not possible in the 35mm and medium format > cameras, which provide a number of useful functions. This is what > people like Ansel Adams use(d). The smallest well-known film size is > 4x5. That's in inches. > > Creo (the owners of Leaf, now) and PhaseOne make digital backs for both > medium format and large. Aside from being very expensive, take the > "large format adapters" with a grain of salt. They are medium format > digital backs with mounts that fit them onto the back of a large format > camera. Thus, while you gain the movements, you lose the film size > advantage. Some of these also require three shots, one for each of the > RGB colours. This is like the Amiga's DigiView of the 80's, albeit faster. > > All that said, you are more than likely looking at the digital SLR > solutions. I'm hearing wonderful things about the professional Canon > line, which tends to be in a constant leap-frog game with the equally > wonderful Nikon gear. Based upon what I've read, you may be very happy > with the Canon Rebel. Check some of the photo sites. Better still, find > a dealer that will let you "test drive" the camera(s) for a week. This > is what Ben Rockwood (see the blog at cuddletech.com) did. > > If you have a good 35mm SLR that you like, there are a variety of good > scanners for 35mm slide and negatives. I'm hearing excellent things > about the Epson scanners. Here, you are definitely getting what you pay > for. If you notice odd colour casts right away, take it back before the > warrantee expires! > > All of the above recommendations I know from friends in the industry. I > can't provide personal advice, I'm afraid, other than to say be wary of > the current market in large format even if you have several thousands of > dollars to splurge. The digital backs aren't there yet, and it seems > both the film market and the drum scanner shops to digitize the large > film, are drying up. My next load of 4x5 film will probably have to be > ordered from Samy's in Los Angeles. As for scanning my finished slides, > I may be up the creek without a paddle. :-( > > Rainer > > neil lewis wrote: > >> I've been a professional photographer for almost twenty five years, >> and have been working 100% digitally for the last five years. >> The sort answer to your question is that it all depends on the size >> and quality of output you are expecting. >> >> Some years ago (mid 80's) I remember the UK pro photo mags getting >> very excited because Hasselblads could at last be fitted with a >> digital back (made by Leaf) which had a resolution of about 4M pixels. >> (The Hasselblad, for those who don't know is a favourite pro >> photographers camera. It's totally modular and comprises a body, lens, >> viewfinder, winder and film or digital back. All these parts are >> interchangeable so that an ideal camera can easily be built in a >> couple of minutes to suit the job in hand.) The magazine publishers >> were excited because this Leaf back was capable of image quality which >> wqas virtually indistinguishable from film when used for a glossy >> magazine cover. >> >> I mention this for several reasons, and I'd like to explain the >> importance of each reason in turn. This may take some time, but I hope >> it's worth it. >> >> First, the size of the output for comparison was only A4. With an >> image sensor of 2048 x 2048 pixels, the pixel density on a page about >> 8" wide could be as high as 256 pixels per inch. (PPI) >> This PPI figure equates well to the "lines per inch" normally quoted >> by litho printers, since each recorded pixel must be represented by a >> pattern of many dots by either a litho or standard desktop (ie inkjet) >> printer. Few printers will work to much higher than 200 LPI for normal >> use, even on high quality glossy media, so this resolution is >> certainly plenty for this purpose. >> >> Second, the relationship of printed size and viewing distance must be >> taken into account. The same image printed at A2 (ie, twice as large >> in both directions) would have an effective resolution of just 128 >> PPI. A critical viewer would certainly be able to see flaws in the >> image if they were to view it from the same distance as the A4 >> version. In practice though, no-one will normally view an A2 image >> from eighteen inches away and from a more sensible distance the flaws >> will be invisible. The effect is similar to that for "depth of field", >> a much misunderstood phenomenon for which the scale vs viewing >> distance part of the equation is most often ignored by those who think >> they understand photography. >> >> Third, the pixel resolution is only one of the aspects of image >> quality which will affect the result. At least as important are: >> dynamic range of the sensor, recorded bit depth, compression method >> (if used) and of course lens quality. Sadly, it's much harder to find >> information on any of these factros than the pixel resolution. Once >> again, it's the result of a market driven by a desire to sell to >> people who think they understand what they are buying but in reality >> are over influenced by advertisers looking for easy comparisons. >> >> Lastly (for now at least!) the final quality you get from your printer >> will be hugely influenced by all of the above, but also by the way you >> prepare your images for printing and of course by the quality of the >> printing device and its consumables. I have absolutely no knowledge of >> your personal hardware setup, nor of whether you are using an external >> printer (or their setup). >> >> It may well be that your "local photography shop" (presumably you mean >> they retail photographic equipment rather than photography) is giving >> you excellent advice. I would certainly recommend a good lens, high >> dynamic range sensor and uncompressed file save options over high >> pixel resolution, unless you can afford all four of course! It's >> uncommonly honest of a photo retailer to give this sort of advice and >> I'd suggest you thank him for his honesty and reward him with your >> custom and loyalty. >> >> Neil Lewis (photobod)
