Digital BW, The Print

The cost savings are not really there for 35mm (the price difference 
between a 5D and the closest film body, the Elan 7N is a whole lot of 
film, probably on the order of 2 years shooting for me). You're just 
trading ongoing cost for up-front cost.

My workflow is only slightly more time consuming than shooting RAW, of 
course I use 2 systems and multitask (I'm doing something else while the 
scanner is running) which greatly improves the time cost of shooting & 
scanning film. Also spotting dust isn't much of an issue if you can get 
the film in the scanner as soon as it's dry.

-Adam

john dean wrote:
> Our world is changing. I think when you consider film cost, the time
> and headache of cleaning up a file, the whole ease of workflow, you
> would be smart to go with a Canon 5 D digital SLR. I've worked a lot
> with these files and compared to the Nikon 9000 scans, I like them
> just as good or better for output. Look, you don't have to buy or
> process film, you've got better than Polaroid type of immeditate
> proofing before the shoot. Everyone I know is going in the opposite
> direction from 35mm analogue film and ccd scanners. If I wasn't
> shooting 4x5 and drum scanning I would get rid of my Nikon scanner and
> go with a Canon 5D in a hearbeat. For me there would be no contest if
> I was starting down that road.
> 
> John
> 
> 
>