New Nikon Coolscan Lineup

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=98

I cannot believe how much the price has dropped on these quality of scanner. The Coolscan V is 4000 dpi, high DR, and pretty fast too. You can get it new for about $600! As I move to digital capture (away from film capture and scan), this strikes me as an extremely cost-effective way to scan my old slides when I want to print them or archive them. Even the MF 9000 is only $2000 now. Used to be the high end 35mm model was slightly more than $2000.

Kind of cool to see how the maturation of this technology has now hit a peak and the prices plummet. The same thing will happen with DSLRs. Right now, DSLRs are at the stage where film scanners where 3 or 4 years ago in terms of maturity of the technologies used. Makes me want to keep on using film for a little while longer and then in a year or two, buy a camera that puts to shame what's out there now (and is less expensive than what's out there now to boot).

Makes you realize just how young some of these DSLR camera technologies are.

I would agree. I am shooting film, and will be probably for the next 3-4 years until I can get a least a 12 mp Canon slr for what the digital rebel goes for now. I scan my negatives with my minolta dimage dual III and get resolution equivelant to approx 11-12 mp camera would put out.

We are of like mind in the "wait a year or two more before putting down big money on a digital camera" theory. Then again, the difference between the D70 (a nice camera, if a bit flimsy) and the CS V is only $400. The convenience factor of not having to scan anything again is tempting to me. I recently found a print lab that uses at $250,000 AGFA print machine that can internally scan transparencies pretty much to perfection (as long as they're sharp and well-exposed), and then print it out all the way up to 12x18. High quality and not that expensive either.

So, I do I plunk down an extra $400 right now and shoot digital with an OK camera for a couple more years. Or do I get the scanner and just continue shooting film (because frankly I still like the results I get from a good slide exposure) on a more limited basis, until such time as the DSLR landscape is a bit more mature / cost effective?

I will tell you another thing I want to save my money for: the new Epson Stylus Pro 4000. I have been waiting for Epson to make a printer like that (replacing the 3000) for so long now, and it's really not that expensive for being able to produce museum quality prints up to 16x20. And you correctly assess that would be easier to make a high quality, large format print from a 4000dpi scan of a nice chrome, than it would from a 6MP D70 capture...

...decisions, decisions. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gahspidy

I would agree. I am shooting film, and will be probably for the next 3-4 years until I can get a least a 12 mp Canon slr for what the digital rebel goes for now. I scan my negatives with my minolta dimage dual III and get resolution equivelant to approx 11-12 mp camera would put out.

---

Unfortunately, that's not entirely correct. A 6mp camera resolves much closer to that than you would think. The 11-12 megapixels you're quoting are scans of grain clumps, not detail. Film does not work as digital does. WIth digital every pixel gets some detail, with film not every molecule records detail, only lumps of molecules do, that's the "grain" we see. I get more detailed prints from a 6mp camera than I ever did from 35mm scans.

Up to a point though, one would think. Once you surpass a certain print size, spreading those 6 million pixels thin across the canvas can result in fairly soft images based on what I've seen. How large can you print before you feel like you have to start resampling the image or using something like Genuine Fractals? I suspect it's still wise to keep the relative DPI close to 250 or so (though 300 is probably no longer necessary except for certain kinds of printers / presses).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PuckJunkey

Up to a point though, one would think. Once you surpass a certain print size, spreading those 6 million pixels thin across the canvas can result in fairly soft images based on what I've seen. How large can you print before you feel like you have to start resampling the image or using something like Genuine Fractals? I suspect it's still wise to keep the relative DPI close to 250 or so (though 300 is probably no longer necessary except for certain kinds of printers / presses).

---

At larger print sizes I prefer digital prints. Cleaner, less grain. SOfter? No softer than film, but there is a difference in look. Film gets really soft, digital gets slightly wavy, due to the interpolation of the pixels. Upon closer inspection the softness of film is preffered by me. As for detail, I still prefer digital.

The only time I prefer film is if it's a straight chemical print, especially off of a sharp B&W film, otherwise I'll take digital any day.

Granted, the edge is slight, but I see it. THat coupled with all the other millions of reasons to go digital and frankly, there is no legitimate reason to stick with film besides nostalgia. A year ago I would have slit my wrists rather than type those words...

:rolleyes: I think they both make great prints.