DannyDoi: Some sample pics :
Amazing for a phone. Iso 1600 is cleaner than in my D90 and those 4 pointed stars are lovely. What's the longest exposure time you can get on it as this has always been very fast on all android phones?
I can see myself using only this and a medium format film camera.
Tee1up: I have an Epson 4490 that i purchased exclusively for scanning my slide collection and it has been a nightmare. I cannot get a sharp scan out of the thing, Epson was no help. I am looking at these two but am sceptical.
Anyone out there recommend a good color slide scanner that doesn't break the bank?
if your slides are 35mm you will not get super sharp results from any flatbed
goloby: All I'm asking is for every hobbyist or professional photographer out there that has never tried film to give it a go. Get an old film camera, they are cheap. Most of your digital lenses will work. Buy a few rolls of Provia slide. Or some negative film, Portra, Ektar, Pro400h. Send them to a proper lab for dev and scan. You might be pleasantly surprised.Or if you are into instagram and filters get some cheap film, kodacolor, superia200/400, colorplus 200, vista 200. See where all the hype comes from.Are you a b&w buff? Then you have to try T-Max and Tri-x. There's no substitute.
I've heard somewhere that shooting film is like having the world's best photoshop artist working for you. People just don't realize how easy it is to get very good results on film, especially on negative stock. All you need is a good lab.On films like Portra and Pro400H you can underexpose by 2 stops or overexpose by 3-4 stops and you still get beautiful results. Now try that with any digital.
All I'm asking is for every hobbyist or professional photographer out there that has never tried film to give it a go. Get an old film camera, they are cheap. Most of your digital lenses will work. Buy a few rolls of Provia slide. Or some negative film, Portra, Ektar, Pro400h. Send them to a proper lab for dev and scan. You might be pleasantly surprised.Or if you are into instagram and filters get some cheap film, kodacolor, superia200/400, colorplus 200, vista 200. See where all the hype comes from.Are you a b&w buff? Then you have to try T-Max and Tri-x. There's no substitute.
GothtinPowers: So how do these compare to dedicated film scanners like the Nikon coolscans?
The coolscan 5000 and 9000 are way better than the old V700/750 in terms of sharpness and tonality. The V ED might still be better, but anything older I would avoid
RobertSigmund: The best method at the moment is copying the negative/slide with the digital camera. Brings better results than scanners and is faster. You need a macro lens of course, and a slide copier. I have the old minolta slide copy unit 1000 for the Minolta ring flash. Very good device.
Surely you haven't tried a proper scanner. Epson V700 is the bare minimum and it yelds better results that any digital camera. Not even thinking of Nikon 9000ED, Flextight X5, or a proper drum scanner.You do get the resolution with a digital camera but you lose the only thing that film is better than digital, and that is color and tonality. Not to mention scratches.
nitroman: Is the dMax of 4.0 good for scanning transparencies ?
I have the V700 and a dMax of 4 is more than enough for slides. Currenlty that's all I shoot. For negatives you could say it is enough, but if you want absolute quality 4.8 would be recomended. I think 4.8 is the max currenlty, on the now discontinued Nikon 5000 and 9000ED
goloby: or just get a fuji x-e2 + 18-55 + 23, cheaper, faster and, may I say, better looking
JackM, I had the same issue in the first days with my x-e1, then I turned nr to -2 and sharpness to -1 for the primes, for the zooms you can leave sharpness at 0. Remember, in weird Fuji engineers language 0 is not 0, it is actually medium. -2 is 0 or off
or just get a fuji x-e2 + 18-55 + 23, cheaper, faster and, may I say, better looking
iae aa eia: I think it was supposed to be already mirroless, with a nice EVF, and its sensor 56 x 41.5mm, as it was the 645 film frame area. 33 x 44mm looks like what the APS format is to the 135 full-frame, a cropped sensor to cut their investment some slack. Not a true medium-medium. Just medium.
Dear ogl, you obviously have never experienced true 645, let alone 6x6, 6x7, 6x9
goloby: AF sensitivity down to -4eV WOOOW!!! Not even 1Dx or D4s do that!!!!
New boyz, you might be right in theory, but I never played with a mirrorless that focuses as good as my D90 in low light. And the D90 is not stellar in that regard, as it's sensitivity goes only to -1eV.A7 has a sensitivity of 0eV. The best dslr's have -3eV. So this new A7s in theory should be a beast on focusing in low light.
AF sensitivity down to -4eV WOOOW!!! Not even 1Dx or D4s do that!!!!
on kenro.co.uk there's no mention of fuji fit.on nissindigital.com it is mentioned, hope they do it
I always loved the Fuji colors, in my opinion they are the best. Fuji lenses are stellar as well. But one thing will keep me from buying this camera and that is the crop sensor. I need bokeh, I love my 50mm f1.4 and I do not want it to be a mid tele, I want it to be a 50. Same with the 35 f1.4. For anybody that thinks oterwise please rent a ff camera with either a 35 or a 50 1.4 lens and you will be hooked.One question about this camera's autofocus, how low can it go? 0 eV like Sony's A7, -1eV like most Nikon dslrs or -3 eV like Canon's 6D?
goloby: 1/60 flash sync. Ha, good luck getting sharp results at that speed
I am still shooting more film than digital and a slow flash sync is not an issue with everyday photos. But try freezing fish or wobbling see weed at 1/60
1/60 flash sync. Ha, good luck getting sharp results at that speed
What they need to do is a digital FE2 with a full frame sensor in it. That's what they should have done in the first place. You could still use the old manual focus lenses if you wanted small lenses and the AF 50mm f1.4, AF 20/24/28mm f2.8 and the AF 85mm f1.4 are not big at all and it's all you need
goloby: Or just shot film!!!I have tried both earlier versions of Dxo Film Pack and current Nik Software and, as a film shooter, none came even close to the actual films. I used raw D90 files. I think it all boils down to 3 insurmountable things:1. how can you create a plug-in that will make a D4 file and a D5000 file to look exactly the same. Only way to do that is to have different settings for different cameras and I have not seen that. And there are a few hundred digital cameras with raw capture. I would not even mention the others.2. film captures light differently than digital. To mention a few differences: more tonality, wider dynamic range for professional films. For a digital sensor it is just not there to begin with.
continued in replies
I might have a read at that site later, but I'll just say that I have overexposed by 3-4 stops Portra 400 and everything was there, pictures came out great. You might even underexpose it by 1 stops and still get beautiful results. Now try that with any digital. And when I mean overexpose I mean metering the scene with a Minolta ligt meter, incident reading and I do know how to use it.
Nuno Souto: So if film is such an inferior product, why waste time and $$$ making digital look like it?
There's more to film than Holgas...