What camera?

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Interpreter

Has anyone considered using a 35mm camera and a good quality scanner? It would be less expensive to keep your 'old' film camera equipment and scan the images to produce digital files which can then be used on a computer for printing.
I see that some consumer scanners will now give 4000dpi images which, in theory, should out perform most, if not all, digital cameras. Scanners no longer have to be drum scanners to give good results. Many flat bed scanners are now very good and relatively inexpensive. Some appear very time consuming, taking some 40 minutes to scan a single image at high resolution. This would equate to 24 hours per 36 exposure film. I should think that this would just not be practical. If high resolution is not important, most high street d&p shops will scan a film to disc for a few pounds. The internet will give the names of companies which will process and scan 120 and larger format films. However, they charge up to £20 for a single scan at very high resolution. (I think a scan at 'normal' jpg resolution is about £5 for up to 15 exposures. Just right for a Bronica 645?)
An ebay shop from America is offering the EOS 3000v camera body for £59 plus some £20 P&P, but they pay the inport duty. The EOS 300v is £10 more and if this camera is purchased together with the standard two lenses the whole outfit is just over £100 and has a three year international guarantee. Add another £250 for a scanner and you have an inexpensive outfit, which should cover everything. At this price you would use the camera in situations where you would not dare to risk your Hasselblad H3.
If you want to know what expensive is, try using an HP Photosmart 145 for printing digital images. I used one to print 400 6"x4" prints which my wife took in South Africa. Never again!

part of the problem with the argument here is that you are not comparing like with like , the 3000v while an okay camera to learn with is very bottom end and does not compare on features with a 400D or 20D - for that you would need a eos 30 which is about 600 notes new (although second user E models can be had for a quarter of that).

secondly digital capture enables you to take a lot more shots , and to experiment without worrying about cost - I have had my 20D since may and have put circa 18,000 shots on it in that time - the equivalent in film would be 500 rolls of 36 which using good quality slide film (ie Provia F or Vevia )would cost just over a quid a roll to buy plus about 3 for D+P - ergo a total of 2k

Thirdly although a 250 quid scanner will be okay for those just shooting for pleasure or to put on the net if you sell your pics you will need drum scan because even a 4000ppi scan will not match the quality of the output from a highend DSLR - this is not just my opinion but the judgement of many pros and more importantly the requirement of most major picture libaries and picture editors. Drum Scans as you rightly point out arenet cheap - arround 5 - 10 notes each if done in bulk upto 60 if done singly. I have sold around 150 photos since may which would therefore have cost 750 notes.

Fourthly I dont routinely print my shots so this doesnt add to my digital costs

and fifthly my kit insured so i take it whereever the job requires. (insurance costs arround 50notes a year)

So to tot up

Digital: 20D - £750, Spare batts £60, Spare memory cards £150, Portable Downloader £300, insurance £50
Total £1310

Film equivalent: 30E £150 (SH), Batts and spares £10, 500 rolls+D+P £2k, 150 drum scans £750,
Total £2900

There are also other reasons I moved to digital notably the faster turnround in getting pictures into picture desks - a film user covering a gig, match, or tournament is at a major disadvantage in terms of getting the pics in fast.

Mind you all that notwithstanding I would not dismiss film , if you are starting out or only an occasional user then the film route could work for you , especially if you cant afford the higher capital outlay required by digital in one go.

[Interpreter]

Most people would find that they do not need the high resolution of a drum scanner, simply because they do not print huge images. Taking this into consideration, it would be much more effective to keep their existing film equipment and use a modern 'inexpensive' scanner. As you yourself say, you do not print all of your images. Read the reviews on some of these scanners. Some of them are very good indeed, and this includes flat bed scanners.
One thing is certain, and I am speaking as a professional photographer of some experience - I started in 1957 - digital photography certainly brings out some very poor photographic techniques. Blaze away and take 50 or 60 shots in the hope of getting one right. I would not recommend this to anybody. I always processed and printed my own films, so I cannot comment on the costs of having someone else do that for me. If you look at the cost of refilling, say, an Epson 7800 with ink, it would work out much more than it cost me to process and print my own films.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Interpreter

Most people would find that they do not need the high resolution of a drum scanner, simply because they do not print huge images. Taking this into consideration, it would be much more effective to keep their existing film equipment and use a modern 'inexpensive' scanner. As you yourself say, you do not print all of your images. Read the reviews on some of these scanners. Some of them are very good indeed, and this includes flat bed scanners.
One thing is certain, and I am speaking as a professional photographer of some experience - I started in 1957 - digital photography certainly brings out some very poor photographic techniques. Blaze away and take 50 or 60 shots in the hope of getting one right. I would not recommend this to anybody. I always processed and printed my own films, so I cannot comment on the costs of having someone else do that for me. If you look at the cost of refilling, say, an Epson 7800 with ink, it would work out much more than it cost me to process and print my own films.

as far as private use goes you are perfectly correct - however for proffesional use - ie selling images, drum scans are required . as a semi pro i am at the mercy of picture editors and those that run image libraries and that is what they require.

i dont use blast and hope , but if you are covering action fast burst modes are required and are extensively used by top level pros such as andy rouse, this is not a digital phenonema in pre digital days wildlife photographers and sport photographers would regularly rip through a roll of film to get one shot - why else were lightning fast motor drives developed for proffesional cameras ?

and as far as the cost of printing goes you are perfectly correct - however as i said i rarely print my images - instead they are sold in the required digital format to magazines and libraries. Where large prints are made such as for the fine art market they are done by a dedicated service and the cost passed on to the buyer.

I cant match your years of experience - I wasnt even born til 1973 but I have sold over 150 photos this year including 2 front covers and have enough experience to know that my approach is a workable one. However there is no argument here, you have your approach and opinion and I have mine , both are equally valid takes on a wide ranging field of endeavour. at the end of the day we shall have to agree to disagree

[speckled wood]

Originally Posted by Interpreter

I always processed and printed my own films, so I cannot comment on the costs of having someone else do that for me. If you look at the cost of refilling, say, an Epson 7800 with ink, it would work out much more than it cost me to process and print my own films.

I started serious photography around about 1977, I did do my own black and white developing and printing. In 1982 I started printing from colour slides using cibachrome, I certainly found that easy and cheap but never had much success in developing my own colour slides

Going back to the issue of digital I rarely make hard copies and agree that printing from digital can become expensive. looking at the cost of chemicals ect I can see that devloping and printing your own along with use of bulk film could be cheaper than digital. The problem is how many people would be prepared to spend an hour or two in a darkened room doing their own D & P, for a lot of people Darkroom means Adobe Elements and of course there is the other issue that probable most DSLR users have never had the pleasure of owning and using a film SLR.

Certainly no one should be ashamed of sticking with film and doing your own D & P ultimately the pleasure of seing your own prints develop in front of you is a joy that cannot be underestimated.

I for one though wish that I had kept my developing drums and enlarger, but whether I would give up digital is another matter I just wish that I could get a 20MP digital back for my old Olympus OM1.