>>4431912why would someone waste film by using a compact and pocketable camera that can be easily carried places? Is that what you're asking?
>>4431985That's a lot of money, so I would assume basically any 35mm camera at that price point would be far more than enough. Why would you be sad missing a camera like that? If your budget is that high you can just buy any other T90 and lens you want.
>>4431989What the other guy said
>>4432382I already have a DSLR but buying a macro lens and the scanning shit for it or a copy stand comes out to more than the price of a 90s scanner
> i'll drop 2k I could get one for $150
>shit from 1993which is cool
>spend another 140 on cable adaptersI'm sure it's less than that but fair enough
>train for 6 months as a hacker to run windows 95 I already have computers that run Windows 95 (and XP) and I use 7 and the Coolscans will work on XP and 7, or so I've heard, and anyway, I think you could use a SCSI to USB adapter and then do USB passthrough on a VM anyway
>on my macbook airI am not a raging homosexual who doesn't know how to use computers
I don't mind the idea of DSLR scanning but if I were averse to fun and cool old technology I wouldn't be shooting film in the first place
Also, how did you digitize the negative in your photo, with your DSLR? I like the sharpness you have. My flatbed gives me great colors but dogshit sharpness. But again, I haven't DSLR scanned because it's still expensive anyway, to get the macro lens and stuff, and also because if I can get decent results with 90s technology I would have more fun with it anyway
