RE: Quandry!
> Here's my problem - and I am sure you can all relate. Do I > sell all my gorgeous near mint 35mm gear and buy a *ist D or > do I keep shooting 35mm trannies and buy a really good film > scanner? Scanning is a pain in the butt, but I've decided to pass on the *istD. I will wait for 2 or 3 generations. By then they'll have a terrific camera that will be more affordable. Ideally I would like to wait for a full-frame sensor because I like to shoot a lot of wide angle. In the meantime, I've gotten a Canon Powershot. It has enough advanced features to keep me happy until a DSLR comes out that has the right combination of price and features.
Re: Quandry!
Welcome back, Shaun. I have an *ist D and am also keeping all my film gear and my Nikon LS 2000 scanner. Film cameras will be used for extended travel, and for when I need slides. Other then that, I particularly love two things about the *ist D: 1. At ISO 200, blue New Mexico skies are rendered with no discernable noise/grain. I've never seen that on even the finest-grained film. 2. The immediacy and flexibility are wonderful. If I want to shoot something on the spur of the moment, there is no more worrying about: Do I have the right film on hand or in the camera? Or is the film in the refrigerator or freezer? Am I in the middle of a roll of the wrong film? I can take a few shots and not have to wait for processing. The cf card goes directly to the computer, and I can have a print in minutes. The new DA 16-45 f4 looks like it will be a fine lens, and goes a long way to reducing the problem of getting wide angle shots. Other WA lenses look likely to appear. Get an *ist D but keep your film gear as well. Joe
Re: Quandry!
Subject: Re: Quandry! > Shaun Canning wrote: > > > Here's my problem - and I am sure you can all relate. Do I sell all my > > gorgeous near mint 35mm gear and buy a *ist D or do I keep shooting > > 35mm trannies and buy a really good film scanner? Obviously, the *ist D > > option will be cheaper in the long run (film use wise), but are the results > > going to be as good as 35mm high resolution scans? I don't think the istD is going to be as good at landscapes as film, but I also don't think 35mm film is much good for landscapes. I prefer larger sheets of film. The digital does really well with images that have large sweeps of not too much detail, but as soon as you get into a subject with very fine detail, the image starts to look artificial. I am looking forward to using the istD for portraits, but i am also looking forward to having my darkroom back on line for 4x5 sheet film. William Robb
Re: Quandry!
Shaun Canning wrote: > Here's my problem - and I am sure you can all relate. Do I sell all my > gorgeous near mint 35mm gear and buy a *ist D or do I keep shooting > 35mm trannies and buy a really good film scanner? Obviously, the *ist D > option will be cheaper in the long run (film use wise), but are the results > going to be as good as 35mm high resolution scans? I think Mark Cassino covered the question of whether the ist-D shots will be as good as scanned film: It depends. He's of the opinion that digital is better at subjects that are defined by edges and things that really benefit from lack of noise/grain. Film is better at things that are defined by textures. Landscapes generally (but not always) fall into the latter category. Portraits fall into the former. (Search the PDML archives for the subject "Re: *istD - Hm" for Mark's complete, very informative post.) My own, brief experiments with a few ist-D shots bear this out. I made a 12 x 18 print of a landscape shot I took with an ist-D. It was very good, but not *quite* as good as I think I could have achieved with ISO 100 film (if you want to see the type of image I'm talking about the photo in question is at http://www.robertstech.com/graphics/pages/7d3d0001.htm). On the other hand Tom Van Veen's digital portraits that I've seen are probably *better* than what could be done with film. So what kind of photography do you do? Another question is how much you want/need the immediacy of digital. Do you have an archive of existing slides that you want to save in digital form? Finally, you might want to consider the continuing decline in the cost of digital cameras. They're going to get better *and* cheaper. At what point in this process is it most advantageous for you to get in? Getting a decent film scanner now and a DSLR in a year might actually be the cheaper way to go. But I'm guessing you won't be able to resist the siren song of digital that long ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Quandry!
On 31 Jan 2004 at 22:03, Leon Altoff wrote: > I shoot MZ-S's for film and I'm not likely to ever buy another film > camera, but I'm not going to get rid of them just yet. The *istD is > good and today I tried out my X-Drive in the field for the first time > downloading one CF card while I shot on another. Worked perfectly. Got mine the other day, yet to test it in the field, glad yours is working for you, thanks for the Power In Numbers tip. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Quandry!
The *ist-D can't produce the resolution, sharpness, or file size of a decent film scanner such as the Nikon 4000 (4000 dpi) or Minolta 5400 (5400 dpi) but apparently has less grain than film. The Minolta scanner is half the price of the *ist-D. Other factors to bear in mind include - Do you like wide-angle shots? If so forget the *ist-D. A 20mm lens becomes a 30mm equivalent field of view. Do you need to project transparencies - Film's the only way. You could get a digital projector and laptop but that would set you back a pretty penny and have nowhere near the resolution. However if you like telephoto shots or would like to see the results immediately then *ist-D could be for you. It depends on you I guess (ally helpful that!). Nick. -Original Message- From: "Paul Stenquist"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 31/01/04 02:30:50 To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Quandry! I wouldn't buy a really good film scanner at this point if you don't have one. I think the *ist D will yield results comparable to scanned 35mm transparencies or film. Of course you'll want to keep your lenses. After looking into res-up software and the results it can yield, I decided to go with the *ist D. I sold some equipment that I wasn't using but was able to keep my working 35mm and MF kits intact. Note also that the *ist D price is dropping steadily. I paid $1345 from B&H. The list price is now down to $1349. B&H and Adorama will probably be selling it with the digital zoom for around $1300. A good film scanner will cost you nearly that. Paul On Jan 30, 2004, at 8:44 PM, Shaun Canning wrote: > > > Hi Gang, > > Here's my problem - and I am sure you can all relate. Do I sell all my > gorgeous near mint 35mm gear and buy a *ist D or do I keep shooting > 35mm > trannies and buy a really good film scanner? Obviously, the *ist D > option > will be cheaper in the long run (film use wise), but are the results > going > to be as good as 35mm high resolution scans? > > Cheers > > Shaun > > >
Re: Quandry!
If digitalized output is what you are going to need. I would recommend going with the istD. If digiatazed output is just incidental (web use) I would keep the 35mm and go with a low end scanner. If you need both either of your solutions will work, and it is a tougher decision. You might want to consider waiting awhile until things shake down here on the list. Remember, most of these guys are bragging about their new toy. Wait a year and see what they are saying then. Since you have been off the list for awhile, I will warn you that I am moving in the opposite direction of most everyone else here, so that might be influencing my thinking. -- Shaun Canning wrote: Hi Gang, Here's my problem - and I am sure you can all relate. Do I sell all my gorgeous near mint 35mm gear and buy a *ist D or do I keep shooting 35mm trannies and buy a really good film scanner? Obviously, the *ist D option will be cheaper in the long run (film use wise), but are the results going to be as good as 35mm high resolution scans? Cheers Shaun -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
