I haven't had time to wade through all the pages of the site but have done some searching to no avail. I am wondering if any of you are using film SLRs with a film scanner? I am seriously considering this approach due to the lower cost of entry. That way I can take my film to a lab when I want prints and then have all the negatives to scan into the computer for sharing or editing etc. Seems like a good combo to me.
I was looking at the Canon Rebel T2. It comes with a 28-90 lens that is not supposed to be very good but I'm sure It'd be fine for me. I'd also be buying a sigma 70-300 super II with macro. Any thoughts? Reviews on those items? Maybe they have been discussed awhile back and someone can point me to it? The scanner I'm looking at is a minolta Scan Dual IV.
Thanks
Jace

By the way, I'm using my parents sony cybershot 5 MP with the Zeiss lens at times and at others I'm using a pretty ancient olympus OM10 camera with a 50mm lens. After shooting some cool shots with the olympus it has got me wanting to upgrade! Am I just being dumb thinking that with a more versitile zoom lens and better camera that I will get better shots? I feel like it is limiting and I don't want to buy more olympus lenses as the camera just isn't up to snuff I don't think.

 

I use both digital and film. All I have to say is that 10 thousand slides and about the same number of black and white negatives later, it is a HUGE pain in the ass to scan.

I sometimes give my negs to the lab to scan and sometimes if I have time I'll do it myself at home. Just be prepared to put in a LOT of time doing it, especially in the beginning.

Quality wise, they're about the same until you start making really large prints. Slide film generally fares better than digital. There are examples of both digital and scanned film in my photoblog.

 

Go get yourself an Olympus OM-1 or OM-1n (if you want an all mechanical SLR) or an Olympus OM-2 or OM-2n (if you want electronic shutter control). They are all compatible with your current OM-10 and all accessories and lenses will fit, so you can continue to use the lenses you are using with your OM-10. The OM-1/2 are very cheap now, you can get a good one for under $100. The only problem with the OM-1(n) is the original battery may be difficult to find, but you can modify it to use the modern batteries. The OM-2(n) has no such problems. Good luck.

 

Well, I wouldn't expect a new camera to improve your shooting to a great extent, but having a variety of lenses would be good. I have an old Minolta SRT101 with 50mm and 28mm lenses, and find all I really want now is a decent telephoto and I'd be set. Old 35mm frames are as competent as newer SLR's, and as long as the light meter works, the lenses are the place where you should spend your money, IMHO. You want the brightest lenses you can find. Zoom lenses are fine, but I'd just buy, in your case, both a wide angle and a telephoto Olympus lens. The lense is the most important part of the package, so I don't know why you would buy a lens you didn't think was very good. you can get used Olympus branded lenses for anywhere from less than $100 to a few hundred, and get very nice optics.

I have started just developing the negatives, and using a film scanner to make my own prints at home. The main thing is I crop and enhance the images to turn an otherwise throw-away shot into a nice piece. The single largest hassle is dealing with dust on the negatives. I don't always scan the whole roll, just the shots I want. Scanning takes time, but the other option is only having 3X5 prints of whatever was on the film, rather than an 8X10 of a spectacular shot that you "saved" using your scanner and software. Scanning is a hands-down win for me.

The resolution of 35mm film and scanner, coupled with the abilities of software editing, make it a powerful combination. Just make sure you have a lot of memory and disk space in your comp. The Minolta Scan Dual looks like a great scanner, but i have never used it.

 

no really and others thanks for your advice. I wasn't implying I was purposely going to by a poor quality lens no really. It is just what comes with the camera. I would buy better glass if/when i decided i was a good enough shot to deserve it. The other thing I forgot to mention is that the current OM10 I have seems to have a light leak somewhere as every shot in exactly the same place has a small "lightning bolt" effect go through it. Most shots you couldn't tell if I didn't tell you but it annoys me.
Anyways, the reason I am leaning toward a newer canon camera is twofold. First, I want the camera to have a fully dumb err automatic mode on it so I can hand it to anyone while on vacation and say press the button. Or, for when I just want to grab some candid shots. Second, I don't have any vested interest in staying with the olympus brand as I only have the one 50mm lens and canon seems to have a large selection of lenses accessories etc etc I guess lastly, I have my doubts about the light meter in my current olympus. I've taken pictures that say the shot would be overexposed only to find out they look better than some of the "correctly" exposed pics. I like the idea of the canon having the modern technology and such that helps take some of the guesswork out of things for the relative newcomer such as myself.

Again, thanks all for the replies. Keep them coming. no really, I think I would really enjoy having the film scanner as like you said you can take a throw away shot and delete out the annoying phone booth or whatever and make it alot nicer to look at.

 

digital is the way to go unless u really need large prints, the convenience of it and flexibility is well worth the extra money upfront. plus you'll likely make it up in film & development cost savings in the first year anyway. my wife was not a big fan of digital until we went on our honey moon and she took her film slr and i took my point and shoot digital. when we got back she ebay'd her film camera and got a d70. no regrets.

 

Well, the whole idea of buying another Olympus OM series camera body is to save on money. The Olympus Zuiko line of lenses were some of the best in picture quality, and they are all cheap now. Except for auto-focus, the Olympus OM-2(n) can do automatic exposure just like any of the current automatic cameras (if you pre-set the aperture for hyperfocus, you can even skip doing manual focusing, just point and press the button). The 50mm Zuiko lens was one of the best standards ever produced.

On the other hand, if you are investing in the new technology such as a new Canon auto-focus SLR, then I don't see the point of going with film. You might as well get a digital SLR while you are at it. Good luck.

 

Don't bother with film unless you want a larger format shot, but those are pricey anyways. Digital is the way to go. I got a D70 with the kit lens last year and love that camera. As mentioned above you'll make up the cost difference in no time when you consider film and processing cost. Also, i thinks it's easier to learn photography on a digital as you can see the results immediatly. Check out The Photo Forum for more advice.

 

D70 is a great camera. I have it too. I will upgrade for the D90 when it comes out though

 

I'll have to say I don't quite agree with you on the costs being pretty equal. I understand that developing costs add up but I don't plan on shooting 10 rolls a week. At my age it's easier to come up with an extra 8 bucks a week for a roll of film and developing than an extra 500 right now. The camera I'm looking at will cost me about 500 and the D70 looks like its at least 500 more. I do agree it'd be cool to go digital but if all else fails I can sell my 35mm at a loss and buy a digi cam once the entry price comes down. Even if I take a loss on my camera sale I will have lenses that will work, provided I stay with the same brand, and the loss I took wont be any different than if I bought a dig cam right now when they are more expensive.
That's just my logic.
I did check out the photo forum and thanks, i'll check it out frequently.