>>3065556Well to be clear, there are two A7 poster in this thread (at least).
You've been arguing with a person who hasn't posted results, but I posted
>>3065282 >>3065153 >>3065145 >>3065106 >>3064755My comments since then have been
>>3065412 and
>>3065446 .
>>3065484>I'd be surprised too, because that's a huge underestimateI charge $25 to dev and scan a roll of film, if it took me longer than 3 minutes to make the actual scans it simply wouldn't be worth my time of day.
>>3065484>So what's your setup? Lets see the overall cost of your setup. Let's also see some results you've achieved from itPic related. I have posted this image to /p/ literally dozens of times. I now use an empty bedside dresser painted white inside instead of an esky, and an A7 on an enlarger column rather than a 550D on a tripod, but the principle is the same. Like I said above, an Eos M costs nothing and would do the same. Any large sensor interchangeable lense camera could achieve broadly similar results.
As the other guy is saying, and I have said many times, your lense doesn't need to be expensive, just appropriate.
A setup could cost $300. My current setup costs about $1200. If $10k showed up in my bank account tomorrow I might switch to a 5DSR and a 100mm Printing Nikkor, but I certainly wouldn't go buying an Imacon.
