FR 寫:
IMHO, placing the cost of digitizing the slide vs a DSLR is in itself a faulted logic. If one is aiming to shoot for a result and that can be given either film or digital, then why the hell use film. A top to mid range or even entry level DSLR can equally give the result in and among today's technology.
Using film is very much , as today are, an artistic choice instead of much technical one. On that then, the issue of digitizing it is very much like old wet darkroom. A real quality digitization of any film ( be it slide or neg ) would require time and effort, and in fact if one tally the cost. It would look more like $50.00 per frame ( care to know how much time is needed to prepare the film for scan, and then how long a multi-sampling scan would take in term of machine and personal's time ).
Today in Hong Kong, the cost of such as D&P and scan is very much artificially kept low by this being subsidized by other service in the lab and where the scan is just put at almost minimal Auto setting ( one reason why people keep saying they cannot get good scan from lab ). The reality is that price simply cannot sustain a business as Quality Scan Service.
My point is D3 or EOS 5 is by far the only DSLRs that could truely compare with traditional 135mm film body. As it can use same lens on a FULL FRAME CCD. I know what magic you can do on Digital darkroom (same to physical darkroom for film). ALL those 1.6x dsrl to me are meaningless as they do not actually produce same image as on film in particular to the WIDE extreme.
In fact there are never an apple to a orange exactly the same. But I found it very meaningful to compare to TOP notch quality of 135mm film to DSLR on FULL FRAME. (I MEAN I cannot agree mid-range DSLR can produce the same results as in film - that is not a fair game for a 1.6x dslr for sure. Of course 1.6x DSLR can produce almost equal qualtiy as to FILM but LIMITED by the 1.6x). The ANGLE OF VIEW is a concern!