On 5/4/2015 7:17 PM, Willie Wonka via olympus wrote:
Kodak PMC 6059
We are on the web, Boris. :-) Drop the above into a web search and you will
find out all about it.
I believe CH is right, that good 'scans' are easier for MF with a scanner than
a camera.
Ed is right, too, that a dedicated film scanner is probably always better than a flatbed. I've done careful tests of my
4000 ppi FS4000 film scanner vs. the 4800 ppi 9950F, and the supposedly lower resolution film scanner resolves more detail.
BUT - They are pretty expensive, and, the Nikons have the internal flare problem that CH has illustrated and AG and
others experienced and reported. AND, it's likely that film shot in a TLR by a wedding photographer in the late 90s
simply doesn't have the level of detail resolution that a film scanner might do better on than a flatbed.
If you look at the used market, I highly recommend the Canon 9950F, long discontinued, but perfectly usable with VueScan
on contemporary Windoze and hardware. Although there are a couple of other reasons to like it over other similar
scanners, the big one comes down to film flatness. For whatever reason, Canon was the only scanner maker to build in
real DoF, so less than perfectly flat film still scans well.
Now that I know the film is color neg, I'll mention the other BIG advantage of a scanner over camera, IR dust cleaning
(which doesn't work with silver B&W film). Now CH said that spotting his camera 'scanned' 35 mm film was not big deal.
It drives me crazy.
I still think your lenses aren't going to be ideal, but the results may meet
your needs.
Random Info Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|