Film vs Digital

[HDNitehawk]

He was comparing a scanned image to the R5.
He said he was using a Epson 600. I bought a V850Pro last December and have been scanning old family photos.
He is also using Silverfast which I have heard numerous bad things about. There are a multitude of settings and ways you scan which impact the outcome.
There is also his developing skills, type of film, processing skills and skill using the digital camera.
I am not sure how much information you can derive from a comparison with so many variables.

[Jonathan Huyer]

He said he was using a Epson 600. I bought a V850Pro last December and have been scanning old family photos.

How do you like that V850? I notice that it's 6 times the price of the 600. Is it worth it?

[HDNitehawk]

How do you like that V850? I notice that it's 6 times the price of the 600. Is it worth it?

The problem I have with answering that is I do not own the 600 so I can not know.

But it does a really good job. I did quit a bit of research before I bought it. I am archiving my old family photos and wanted to do the best I could do.
What was impressive is I have quit a few small pictures, like 2" x 2" that were probably contact pictures from the negative.

I haven't had time to mess with it since April. I have the supplies and equipment to do wet scans and I am going to go back and scan all of the old negatives. I have the negatives from family photos going back to the 30s.

[Kayaker72]

He was comparing a scanned image to the R5.
He said he was using a Epson 600. I bought a V850Pro last December and have been scanning old family photos.
He is also using Silverfast which I have heard numerous bad things about. There are a multitude of settings and ways you scan which impact the outcome.
There is also his developing skills, type of film, processing skills and skill using the digital camera.
I am not sure how much information you can derive from a comparison with so many variables.

All true, but I would say that consistent natural tones like see a bit of the light blue from the mural on the model's nose in the film vs digital image, that seems like a legitimate potential difference. If I was to boil down my thoughts, I was wondering if he was comparing jpg (digital-FF R5) to Tiff (medium format scanned film) and that was the cause of the issue. But, having seen a comparison of FF (R5) vs medium format (Fuji GFX, so both digital) over the weekend that essentially was pointing out the same differences, this may also be, if it is legit, FF vs medium format. And, really, another way of saying this is that you get increased tonality with increasing light captured/sensor size, which has always been my understanding. More light captured, there should be more subtle details.