Three years ago, after shooting slides since 1975 in all formats (6 by 6 , 6 by 4,5 and the bulk on 35 mm), I was a digitac sceptic. I couldn’t believe a 6 mb pic from a Kodak KDC520c/Eos-1N combination could come near my scanned slides. Then I bought one, and within days I saw the light. Up to A5, the Kodak blew my slides away in print ( I work for quite a number of mags , severall of them glossies). That year, my slide consumption went from around 300 a year to 23 , the following year, 2004, it was down to 6 rolls and for 2005, I don’t think I will use my IV or Mamyia. With the gear I use now, Eos-1D and untill a few weeks ago a 10D in combination with Lglass only. I got printed results that were not possible with scanned slides (I use(d) Velvia most of the time, never liked the Kodachromes). So, what’s the verdict, there are still people claiming that their vintage Leica’s loaded with TRI-X are the norm, still a handfull are still using 8 mm film in stead of the ” unsharp ” 8mm video’s and still many belief in the superiority of 35 mm film. The truth is, although you think this wil not happen to you, after you start using a DSLR there is no way back. The results you get are by far superior to the analog results you are used to. And for the future generations, well, I have loads of Kodachromes that have turned green (64) or red (25), 100 iso negatives that, compared to todays rolls have a terrible grain and 40 yar old ” inferior” AGFA slides that look as perfect as if shot yesterday. And for the record, I only shoot in RAW which give me an extra workflow of only up to 1 minute over JPGs (in Photoshop CS) BW Roger
Sign In
