Starter but capable film camera for 2022?

[logan2z]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 minutes ago, aksclix said:

I am 55 miles away from that place .. 

They ship. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[logan2z]

24 minutes ago, aksclix said:

That’s like $550

Not sure what's happened to scanner prices, but I just checked my order and I paid $179 for my V550 at Amazon in 2018.  

The V600 is $249 on Amazon.

I've never used the Kodak.  

Edited February 5, 2022 by logan2z

[johnwolf]

16 hours ago, aksclix said:

Hmmm… I am into my 4th roll of film now!! I ended up buying a used Pentax 645n as well.. just cuz I had the 120 f/4 I kept from my 645z days.. yet to process anything after my first roll. Will soon find out if film is for me! 😌 I am enjoying the shooting experience BUT this is quite expensive $ wise and ⏱ wise.. I think there’s good ROI if you developed at home.. but $50 per roll of film for (buying + processing 36 or 16 shots) isn’t sustainable for me 😑 I’ll hold on to one of the FM2/645n eventually and then shoot on film occasionally.. hope the results change my mind 😁 

Completely agree. If you are budget-driven at all, color film doesn't make much sense, IMO.

And unless shooting something distinctive like Portra, it's hard for me to see much difference between film and digital color. 

BW is a different story. There's clearly a different aesthetic with most BW films, and it can be cheap and easy when home-processed.

I feel it's important to be able to shoot freely, without the pressure of cost. 

John

[aksclix]

48 minutes ago, logan2z said:

Not sure what's happened to scanner prices, but I just checked my order and I paid $179 for my V550 at Amazon in 2018.  

The V600 is $249 on Amazon.

I've never used the Kodak.  

In fact Amazon shows v550 at $739

will checkout the v600 

 

[aksclix]

4 hours ago, Danner said:

If possible, a home B&W darkroom set-up with enlarger is the way to go for analog photography.  Not too expensive and very enjoyable.  You have a great deal of control over the final product, and IMHO, nothing looks better than a well produced silver-gelatin print.

I am ok with occasional B&W shooting but not dedicated.. I love colors 😊

[Doc Henry]

1 hour ago, aksclix said:

In fact Amazon shows v550 at $739

will checkout the v600 

 

https://www.amazon.com/Epson-Perfection-Negative-Document-Scanner/dp/B002OEBMRU?th=1

V600 a new model (279 USD)  is a good scanner for MF and 135mm.

Flatbed scan is interesting if you photograph in Medium Format or Large Format and 135mm.

Best

[giannis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 hours ago, aksclix said:

Kodak slide n scan?

I'll expand more if you want, but avoid at all costs. These kind of "scanners" are a complete crap product that comprises of a tiny sensor, a crappy macro lens and some basic backlighting, that takes a bad picture of your negative. It's really no better than placing your negative on a light table and taking a photo of it with your phone. (Don't be fooled by the Kodak branding, they licensed out the name to be used by whomever makes those things).

You'll get much better results with a proper film scanner. The most common options are dedicated film scanners and a flatbed film scanners. Dedicated ones, roughly, have a 4x advantage in quality (mostly resolution/sharpness) than flatbeds. Flatbeds on the other side allow you to scan larger formats for which a dedicated one would get really expensive.

For starters check the PlusTek 8100. It is unbeatable in its budget when resolution is concerned (also dynamic range). €270 in Europe, not much more in US I'm guessing, gives you roughly 16-20MP highly detailed scans, pretty much good for everything and extracting virtually all the information most non-technical films can give. (I'm taking about real, measured resolution, not what the scanner claims). Alternatively, for flatbeds check the Epson V600, roughly the same price. It'll give you 4-5MP scans (measured resolution and not claimed), which is fine for online use, and for very good 5x7" prints and also good 8x10" prints.

 

Edited February 6, 2022 by giannis
grammar

[aksclix]

24 minutes ago, giannis said:

I'll expand more if you want, but avoid at all costs. These kind of "scanners" are a complete crap product that comprises of a tiny sensor, a crappy macro lens and some basic backlighting, that takes a bad picture of your negative. It's really no better than placing your negative on a light table and taking a photo of it with your phone. (Don't be fooled by the Kodak branding, they licensed out the name to be used by whomever makes those things).

You'll get much better results with a proper film scanner. The most common options are dedicated film scanners and a flatbed film scanners. Dedicated ones, roughly, have a 4x advantage in quality (mostly resolution/sharpness) than flatbeds. Flatbeds on the other side allow you to scan larger formats for which a dedicated one would get really expensive.

For starters check the PlusTek 8100. It is unbeatable in its budget when resolution is concerned (also dynamic range). €270 in Europe, not much more in US I'm guessing, gives you roughly 16-20MP highly detailed scans, pretty much good for everything and extracting virtually all the information most non-technical films can give. (I'm taking about real, measured resolution, not what the scanner claims). Alternatively, for flatbeds check the Epson V600, roughly the same price. It'll give you 4-5MP scans (measured resolution and not claimed), which is fine for online use, and for very good 5x7" prints and also good 8x10" prints.

 

Thank you for the detailed explanation.. it helps and I was skeptical about the slide n scan.. so wanted some vote of confidence which never came 😌 

I was considering the v600 but if it’s just 4-5MP then I am not interested.. just saw a YouTube review on the plustek.. seems promising. 20MP is sufficient resolution for me 

[aksclix]

I also saw a YouTube video by this guy who demo’d scanning using his camera and a macro lens with a negative supply film carrier.. upon checking even that basic setup is pretty expensive!! A film carrier that just advances your film costing $250+? Wow! Wish I had local film shooter friend whom I can exploit 😂 

[giannis]

32 minutes ago, aksclix said:

I was considering the v600 but if it’s just 4-5MP then I am not interested.. just saw a YouTube review on the plustek.. seems promising. 20MP is sufficient resolution for me 

As you'll find out, "claimed" resolutions on scanners are all over the place and many times not nearly close to the actual measured ones (measured by scanning a resolution test chart). I've written before about the scanner situation, I'll summarise here:

The thing to remember with scanners is, that the detail you get on the final image is the system resolution. System resolution depends on the sensor and lens (of the scanner) and stepping motor quality and focus quality/calibration. The formula is 1/(system resolution)=1/(component A resolution) +1/(component B resolution)+1/(component C resolution)+ ... etc. . However manufacturers only quote sensor resolution, because it's the easiest spec to bump up and market. This tells only half of the picture, if not less. The real, measurable resolution you'll get will mostly depend on (aside from sensor res):

1. Lens quality, which is usually the biggest culprit of low res in modern budget scanners. If you disassemble an Epson, a Plustek and a Nikon Coolscan, you'll see some for instance the lens assembly for the Epson vs the Nikon is like comparing a single use camera lens vs a full sized SLR lens.
2. Focus quality/calibration, which is the second culprit for reduced resolution. Most current scanners (all?) don't have any focusing capabilities, focus is fixed at the factory. If for whatever reason (manufacturing tolerances, shipping damage, or just extensive use) the focus drifts, it is what it is and there isn't much that can be done.
3. Stepper motor and transport system that moves the sensor line across the scanning area, which is the last culprit. Many times, it's not of high enough quality, to be able to consistently move the scanner in tiny enough steps, to provide the advertised resolution. Think about it, if the transport system makes "longer" steps, it's the equivalent of having less pixel density across the direction it travels, i.e. less resolution.

Mind you, I'm not even touching upon interpolated resolutions that some manufacturers quote, which are pure bs (i.e. just upscaling the scanned image in software). All the above applies to optical resolution, i.e. when the manufacturer isn't outright lying, just not revealing the whole picture.

Long story short, the only way to get proper resolving power figures, is through testing with a target. Filmscanner.info  is a great resource for that (skip to the "tested resolution" section). Practically speaking, here's a rough estimate: a Plustek 8100 will resolve clearly the grain of virtually any film, maybe except some technical films (copex rapid, tech pan etc.). A V600 will not resolve clearly the grain of any film. A V850 will resolve the grain for some films, but not very clearly. 

Just to illustrate how much real resolution can differ from claimed one, here's the real resolutions of some popular scanners: Epson V600:~1800dpi, Epson V850:~2400dpi, Plustek 8100:~3600-3800dpi. All of them claim roughly 7200dpi resolution! (mind you, a doubling in dpi means quadrupling in megapixels).

Edited February 6, 2022 by giannis
additions

[250swb]

19 hours ago, giannis said:

You'll get much better results with a proper film scanner. The most common options are dedicated film scanners and a flatbed film scanners. Dedicated ones, roughly, have a 4x advantage in quality (mostly resolution/sharpness) than flatbeds. Flatbeds on the other side allow you to scan larger formats for which a dedicated one would get really expensive.

There was a crossover point between high end scanners and scanning with a digital camera, but nowadays scanning with a digital camera is far cheaper and much better quality than a dedicated film scanner. True with a film scanner you only need to load the film into the holder with no more messing about, but all you need to copy scan your negatives with a camera is a copy stand, a light source, and a macro lens, and combined usually cheaper than a film scanner. I would say if you are able to copy at 24mp or above you are ahead of a dedicated film scanner and instead of four or five minutes for a top quality scan its more like 1/15th second. Things move on.

Edited February 6, 2022 by 250swb

[Guest]

19 hours ago, aksclix said:

I also saw a YouTube video by this guy who demo’d scanning using his camera and a macro lens with a negative supply film carrier.. upon checking even that basic setup is pretty expensive!! A film carrier that just advances your film costing $250+? Wow! Wish I had local film shooter friend whom I can exploit 😂 

Try this system, it's a pretty good option to the expensive Negative Supply route......https://clifforth.co.uk

[giannis]

2 hours ago, 250swb said:

but nowadays scanning with a digital camera is far cheaper

If you have the equipment, sure. But I doubt you'll find a high resolving enough camera+lens+backlight+copy stand+software for less than $300. Far less? Big doubt. Some people are paying as much just for the copy stand and film transport, let alone camera and lens, software, stand, etc etc. . I mean if you can price out a full system like that for cheaper than the price of a 35mm Plustek, link it here and I will consider it.

I agree though that a high resolving camera with a good macro lens can match a good scanner. About surpassing, potentially yes though there's not much to surpass since at ~3600dpi you've extracted virtually everything that most films have to give.  

2 hours ago, 250swb said:

Things move on.

Of course. And it's unfortunate that scanners have remained stagnant - if not regressed.

Edited February 7, 2022 by giannis

[romualdo]

the Leica BEOON copy stand+ was a great addition to copying until word got around, now the price has increased substantially (they were round $150-200 when I was looking not that long ago)

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1313&_nkw=leica+BEOON&_sacat=0

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[aksclix]

9 minutes ago, romualdo said:

the Leica BEOON copy stand+ was a great addition to copying until word got around, now the price has increased substantially (they were round $150-200 when I was looking not that long ago)

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1313&_nkw=leica+BEOON&_sacat=0

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Damn! I think it’s easy to build something like this.. won’t look pretty but the current prices are outrageous.. well, anyway.. it’s an overkill for someone just starting out with film photography.. 😌 I’ll try and come up with some DYI project soon
 

[Doc Henry]

Hi,  if it is to take a photo with a CMOS sensor camera (CCD < scanner) it is better to take the photo directly without scanning with this camera (it will be a digital photo not analog) or not to scan at all and go directly to the enlarger for printing 😀

[convexferret]

56 minutes ago, Doc Henry said:

Hi,  if it is to take a photo with a CMOS sensor camera (CCD < scanner) it is better to take the photo directly without scanning with this camera (it will be a digital photo not analog) or not to scan at all and go directly to the enlarger for printing 😀

@Doc Henry do you have a post on this forum that is not an anti-digital rant? Even your own analog thread was dominated by continual "isn't this much better than digital" comments? What's the point?

[Doc Henry]

58 minutes ago, convexferret said:

@Doc Henry do you have a post on this forum that is not an anti-digital rant? Even your own analog thread was dominated by continual "isn't this much better than digital" comments? What's the point?

Hi ...  just to give an opinion ... because you have to be logical with yourself if you are digital do it and stay .... but if you are analog stay there

because it is not the same support and everything is different , exactly like in analog : vinyl sound versus digital sound CD not the same sound ,

not the same support .

Best

from a film photographer who has done 10 years of digital ...  and who has compared film and digital for five years.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest]

This is the camera/scanning kit that I have cobbled together here in a corner of my darkroom space. I had an old copy stand that I removed the column from it's base and bolted that directly onto the work-table, as it was a cheap stand it wobbled a bit with the weight of the Nikon D810+55 Macro so I braced it at the top by fixing it to a shelf, all good now, all square and no movement at all. The HDMI monitor came from a since sold video kit so that means that I don't have to use the camera's small LCD to frame and focus. The negative carrier is the Essential Film Holder resting on a LCD light source. Everything cost around €150, not counting the D810, but that camera had been in a long period of rest so now it's back in the work-force. I also use a Panasonic GH4 too, that works very well with the 7Artisans 60mm MFT Macro.................Of course I would have preferred to be able to have put together a complete 120-6x7 and 35mm kit from Negative Supply, but that would have set me back at least €1500,00 and I can't afford or justify that step. What I have works well enough.

The larger LCD light table under the one with the EFH allows me to photo-scan complete rolls of 35mm and 120 film in strips for a "contact print".

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by petermullett

[aksclix]

14 hours ago, petermullett said:

This is the camera/scanning kit that I have cobbled together here in a corner of my darkroom space. I had an old copy stand that I removed the column from it's base and bolted that directly onto the work-table, as it was a cheap stand it wobbled a bit with the weight of the Nikon D810+55 Macro so I braced it at the top by fixing it to a shelf, all good now, all square and no movement at all. The HDMI monitor came from a since sold video kit so that means that I don't have to use the camera's small LCD to frame and focus. The negative carrier is the Essential Film Holder resting on a LCD light source. Everything cost around €150, not counting the D810, but that camera had been in a long period of rest so now it's back in the work-force. I also use a Panasonic GH4 too, that works very well with the 7Artisans 60mm MFT Macro.................Of course I would have preferred to be able to have put together a complete 120-6x7 and 35mm kit from Negative Supply, but that would have set me back at least €1500,00 and I can't afford or justify that step. What I have works well enough.

The larger LCD light table under the one with the EFH allows me to photo-scan complete rolls of 35mm and 120 film in strips for a "contact print".

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Interesting setup you’ve got there.. I am tempted to build something myself..