>>3845889>the bigger issue is the scanner holders and focusing ability though generally, not just the effective resolution though, right?Sure, not the holders that much but focus point, however that is included in the system (effective) resolution.
Unless sample variation is huge, and you got a horrid sample while the reviewing side tested a great one.
There are 3 issues with scanners:
1. Lens
2. Stepping motor
3. Focus
All those are contributing to decreasing your system resolution. *Usually* the lens and stepping motor is the more limiting factor in dedicated scanners, while that plus focus on consumer flatbeds.
>I think it's pretty hard to argue that a camera scanning setup with proper holders and a lens you are focusing yourself with great precision to resolve the grain is going to give you superior results to all but the highest end scanners.As I said, it depends. I'm sure you can outresolve consumer flatbeds this way, with most setups. And also with good technique, a good macro lens and a high resolving body, you can match or beat most dedicated scanners aside from the very high end ones.
And the point is not beating them really, as long as you resolve grain, you're good, it's all that matters, after that it's purely diminishing returns.
And you'll able to resolve grain with ~12MP system resolution in pretty much all films aside from technical B&W ones.
Most ~24MP systems with a decent macro lens will be able to do that. But so will most (virtually all) dedicated film scanners.
So it's not like film scanners are that inferior so as to be useless, that was my point.
They're good enough to resolve grain in virtually all films, and a good macro setup is able to do the same. That's all. Choose what's more convenient to you in terms of workflow/space/software/price.
