Well I capture at 15.1 so its likely good enough. Trouble is unless you currently use a lot of film, which I don't anymore, justifying the scanner is hard to do. It doesn't make money unless it generates current revenue and if you use the digital body for the majority of your work, it is money better spent elsewhere.
Now I don't really worry about whether or not its exactly 1 to 1. I will get as close as I can. If I can't fill the entire frame exactly, though its time consuming, I move out and crop the excess out later and it will still be faster than scanning. Yes I lose some resolution, but it might be a trade off worth making. IF the need arose I guess I could send it out and get it scanned later cheaper than buying a better scanner. I have enlarger lenses. I think the L glass zooms would do ok, but buying extension tubes might cost as much as a macro lens.
Now I did come up with an idea. I may be able to find a tired old enlarger, remove the lamp and housing and figure out a mount to hold the camera body. The rest should be relatively easy.
Should work on anything I am likely to do in house. I wouldn't want to use this technique on a print the size of a wall unless its being viewed from a mile away, but like someone said it depends on the use. There is always an option if you think hard enough.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Scanning/copying addenda
From: Don Roberts <droberts@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, January 03, 2011 2:21 pm
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
<photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I did download the Krogh article on using a DSLR to digitize slides. It is interesting and useful with one large caveat. He mentions that one can obtain results equivalent to a dedicated scanner IF one uses a pro-quality DSLR. He mentions 16 megapixels as the base standard. How many of you have that level of capture in your cameras? If you do, it might mean you are a working pro and can justify a scanner. Probably an unwarranted assumption on my part.
Don
