[Leica] Canon 30D?

[Jim at hemenway.com (Jim Hemenway)]

Daniel:

Buy a Leafscan now while you still have the chance.  They're slow but 
the resulting scans, 35mm to 4x5", are up there with drum scans.

And, Silverfast is now available for it, which means that you can now 
use the Leafscan with XP and OS X.

Jim

Daniel Ridings wrote:

> Boy, I wish they did meet mine. On the other hand, commercial scans
> can't even touch black and white (unless it's the C41 emulsions, I
> guess).
> 
> The cemetery shots I had around a couple of weeks ago were commercial
> scans. They sharpen them way past what you would really want. More or
> less results in scans that you can't work with. Possibly print out
> without any adjustments, but if they don't get it right, there's not
> much you can do with the image without it falling apart.
> 
> We hear a lot about films, cameras and film manufacturers going down
> the tubes, but there is another aspect that has me frightened. Film
> scanners.
> 
> A year ago you could pick up a film scanner and chose between a
> professional (expensive) or consumer model. The consumer models were
> usually well nigh just a good for all practical purposes (up to 8x10).
> 
> I fielded a scanning question recently and went to B&H to provide some 
> links.
> 
> The film scanners are definitely a dying breed. They are going faster
> than film manufacturers and film cameras.
> 
> This alone will drive me back into the darkroom. If I can't get a good
> scan, I can't print digitally. I bought a good scanner a year and a
> half ago (top of the line Nikon), but I better baby that one and keep
> the el-cheapo Minolta around as a back-up.
> 
> I'm not impressed with the results of converting digital to b/w. I am
> also not comfortable with SLR's (probably my main reason for not going
> digital. I have an SLR but it just feels too big to work with). I'll
> never be able to justify a digital M (assuming there ever is such a
> thing). If film scanners disappear, I will be up the proverbial shit
> creek without a paddle.
> 
> Daniel
> On 1/18/06, Richard S. Taylor <r.s.taylor@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>>Daniel - Well sometimes you just have to do things yourself, don't
>>you, when you want them right.  :-)  Commercial scans easily meet my
>>needs for the moment.
>>
>>
>>
>>>On 1/18/06, Richard S. Taylor <r.s.taylor@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> - Film is easily processed and digitized.
>>>
>>>I shoot film too ... but I don't think I'd go _that_ far. Easily
>>>processed, yes, but digitized, no. At least not easily digitized if
>>>you are a little picky (I am pathologically pedantic so I have to do
>>>it myself. It isn't easy.)
>>>
>>>Daniel