«

The EOS 750 is well past its use by date. All EOS bodies made before teh EOS
1 suffer from too many buttons and not enough dials. 100 dollars for a 15
year old camera doesn't strike me as being cheap.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
<> wrote in message
news:...
> I'd love to get my hands on a great digital camera. I'd love to be able
to
> afford one.
>
> I can (thanks in large part to digital) afford a film SLR...heck I can
pick
> up a Canon EOS 750 for less than a 100 bones. WOW! The memory card costs
> more than that!
>
> So what I'm wondering, from a graphic design angle...that is a lot of web
> stuff, some CD design, and eventually some full scale design work...can I
> get as good of a digital image by scanning in the film (the negative not
the
> printed pic) as I could by taking it digitally on a 3 megapixel, 5
megapixel
> whatever camera?
>
> Thanks!
>
> mb
>
>

Forgot teh second part of it. A good film scanner is going to be at least
800 dollars.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
<> wrote in message
news:...
> I'd love to get my hands on a great digital camera. I'd love to be able
to
> afford one.
>
> I can (thanks in large part to digital) afford a film SLR...heck I can
pick
> up a Canon EOS 750 for less than a 100 bones. WOW! The memory card costs
> more than that!
>
> So what I'm wondering, from a graphic design angle...that is a lot of web
> stuff, some CD design, and eventually some full scale design work...can I
> get as good of a digital image by scanning in the film (the negative not
the
> printed pic) as I could by taking it digitally on a 3 megapixel, 5
megapixel
> whatever camera?
>
> Thanks!
>
> mb
>
>

<> writes:
> So what I'm wondering, from a graphic design angle...that is a lot of web
> stuff, some CD design, and eventually some full scale design work...can I
> get as good of a digital image by scanning in the film (the negative not the
> printed pic) as I could by taking it digitally on a 3 megapixel, 5 megapixel
> whatever camera?
>
> Thanks!

For negative film, yes, a 200 dollar film scanner will work pretty
well. For slide film, you need a more expensive scanner to catch
shadow detail. That's the 800 dollar scanner Tony is talking about.
Neg film has less contrast range and is less demanding on the scanner.

However, you will find using a digicam a heck of a lot more convenient
and productive than scanning film.

There have been a lot of discussions how many megapixels you need in digital
to have a picture that matches an optical one. Wasn't it 11 megapixels (I
don't remember well)?

The scanning (if you find a scanner that fit's your needs) is a lot of work
and I prefer less quality but less work. Photography is a hobby for me and
it should not become a hard work.

However I scanned some older pictures (the prints) taken with optical SLR to
put them to download for some relatives in other countries. The quality was
better than expected (I didn't expect much) but I had to pay much attention
to avoid dust on the scanner surface because it became quite visible.

I also brought some 3-mega-pixel pictures to development on photo paper.
Until 10x15 format I could not say that it is less quality than optical SLR
pictures. When doing bigger enlargements you get rapidly less quality.

Although owning now a 5-mega-pixel camera I mostly use less resolution
because otherwise my harddisk would permanently be full and a second reason
is that I put the pictures often for relatives in other countries to
download and they do not have the quickliest internet connection so file
size is somewhat important.

So from my point of view a digital camera is worth it (some memory cards
included ).

Don't understand me wrong: I would never give away my optical SLR and for
big family events I still use it. But for all day purposes the optical
photographing is simply too expensive for me.

<> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:...
> I'd love to get my hands on a great digital camera. I'd love to be able
to
> afford one.
>
> I can (thanks in large part to digital) afford a film SLR...heck I can
pick
> up a Canon EOS 750 for less than a 100 bones. WOW! The memory card costs
> more than that!
>
> So what I'm wondering, from a graphic design angle...that is a lot of web
> stuff, some CD design, and eventually some full scale design work...can I
> get as good of a digital image by scanning in the film (the negative not
the
> printed pic) as I could by taking it digitally on a 3 megapixel, 5
megapixel
> whatever camera?
>
> Thanks!
>
> mb
>
>

where can you get such a scanner for $200 ?

for anything remotely usable you'll need 4000dpi resolution with a wide
density range.
in my thinking that $800+ at the very least.

Sure you can get a hobby scanner for near zero price, but the results will
just about be good enough to show granny a few holiday snaps

Ed

"Paul Rubin" <http://> wrote in message
news:...
> <> writes:
> > So what I'm wondering, from a graphic design angle...that is a lot of
web
> > stuff, some CD design, and eventually some full scale design work...can
I
> > get as good of a digital image by scanning in the film (the negative not
the
> > printed pic) as I could by taking it digitally on a 3 megapixel, 5
megapixel
> > whatever camera?
> >
> > Thanks!
>
> For negative film, yes, a 200 dollar film scanner will work pretty
> well. For slide film, you need a more expensive scanner to catch
> shadow detail. That's the 800 dollar scanner Tony is talking about.
> Neg film has less contrast range and is less demanding on the scanner.
>
> However, you will find using a digicam a heck of a lot more convenient
> and productive than scanning film.

I even use a print scanner when I want a high res image. As long as the
print is properly exposed, I'm willing to give up a bit of dynamic range
to get the higher resolution I get with my 80 dollar print scanner.
There is no way my Oly 3Mp digicam can match the resolution I get from
scanning a decent 5 x 7 print.

Sure, less convenient. If I need convenience, I use the digicam, and am
willing to trade resolution for convenience. If not, I use the film
camera.

Paul Rubin wrote:
>
> <
>
> For negative film, yes, a 200 dollar film scanner will work pretty
> well. For slide film, you need a more expensive scanner to catch
> shadow detail. That's the 800 dollar scanner Tony is talking about.
> Neg film has less contrast range and is less demanding on the scanner.
>
> However, you will find using a digicam a heck of a lot more convenient
> and productive than scanning film.

--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota

webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer

<> wrote in
news::
> ... can I get as good of a digital image by scanning in the film
> (the negative not the printed pic) as I could by taking it
> digitally on a 3 megapixel, 5 megapixel whatever camera?

It depends strongly on what kind of film you are using, but,
generally, yes. You can get as good or better digital images by
scanning film.

However, count on spending many times the amount of man-hours
working with the film. And if you are a graphic designer who will
use alot of film, count on film and film processing costs to quickly
overtake the initially higher cost of the digital camera.

I'd love to get my hands on a great digital camera. I'd love to be able to
afford one.

I can (thanks in large part to digital) afford a film SLR...heck I can pick
up a Canon EOS 750 for less than a 100 bones. WOW! The memory card costs
more than that!

So what I'm wondering, from a graphic design angle...that is a lot of web
stuff, some CD design, and eventually some full scale design work...can I
get as good of a digital image by scanning in the film (the negative not the
printed pic) as I could by taking it digitally on a 3 megapixel, 5 megapixel
whatever camera?

Thanks!

mb

Oops...that's not my email, my email is


<> wrote in message
news:...
> I'd love to get my hands on a great digital camera. I'd love to be able
to
> afford one.
>
> I can (thanks in large part to digital) afford a film SLR...heck I can
pick
> up a Canon EOS 750 for less than a 100 bones. WOW! The memory card costs
> more than that!
>
> So what I'm wondering, from a graphic design angle...that is a lot of web
> stuff, some CD design, and eventually some full scale design work...can I
> get as good of a digital image by scanning in the film (the negative not
the
> printed pic) as I could by taking it digitally on a 3 megapixel, 5
megapixel
> whatever camera?
>
> Thanks!
>
> mb
>
>

<> wrote in message
news:...
> I'd love to get my hands on a great digital camera. I'd love to be able
to
> afford one.
>
> I can (thanks in large part to digital) afford a film SLR...heck I can
pick
> up a Canon EOS 750 for less than a 100 bones. WOW! The memory card costs
> more than that!
>
> So what I'm wondering, from a graphic design angle...that is a lot of web
> stuff, some CD design, and eventually some full scale design work...can I
> get as good of a digital image by scanning in the film (the negative not
the
> printed pic) as I could by taking it digitally on a 3 megapixel, 5
megapixel
> whatever camera?
>
> Thanks!
>
> mb


If you couldn't put down $1200 for the Canon Digital Rebel and critical
accessories, I would suggest you at least get a decent digital camera with
manual control in the $500 range. As an inexperience photographer, it took
me many shots to get good pictures with the Olympus C-3000Z. The time and
cost of film development and scanning outstrip the initial cost of a digital
camera. What other full scale design work are you doing? Does it need the
resolution of film?