You and I probably cannot afford a drum scanner. The Espon 500/700/750 scanners are reasonably priced and get a clear image of the film grain. And they handle a wide range of fim densities.

Try the Rollei/Agfa Pan 25. A little pricey but at least it is still around.

I use an Epson V750, which is only a little better than the 700 or 500 version. Also a Nikon LS9000 that is a little better but not worth the extra cost, even if you could find one used. All of these produce excellent scans.

For landscape, without breaking the bank, you might consider a Mamiya C330 with a couple of lenses from KEH.

Glass is inorganic, silicone dioxide and other inorganic elements.

"Organic glass" is a euphemism for “transparent plastic”. I have never been cut by the edge of a Cokin filter. They bend and are easily cut with a sharp knife. See: http://www.answers.com/topic/organic-glass

Look at www.apug.org for a lot of people who still use film. This is one of my favorite sites and there are some superb photograpers in their gallery.

In particular, look for user cliveh. He uses a Leica M3 and a single Leica 50mm F1.4 lens with Ilford FP4 developed in D76 1+1, almost exclusively.

There are a lot of medium and large format members as well.

APUG also has an excellent active forum. Some of the post are old but they still have plenty of useful information for you and me.

Also, Cokin filters are much thicker than glass. Since the refractive index is about the same, there is a greater chance of optical degradation with plastic.

I use a Nikon LS9000 for 35 and 120 as well as an Epson V750 for 120 and 4x5. Both are excellent scanners and the Canon 9000 is comparable.

Scanning is not for the faint of heart. I waited until I retired to start the process. I have scanned well over 22,000 negatives and slides.

It took a very long time to clear up my backlog but I am now up to date and can enjoy the best of both worlds, film or digital.

I agree with MT. Glass is also more durable and you will be inclined to treat it more carefully than plastic.

F/8 is a good bet for most 35mm cameras, full frame or crop sensor, and it's easy to remember.

Forget about the 1/3 figure. What that usually refers to is the distribution of depth of field in front of (1/3) and behind (2/3) a nearby object. But DOF is a complex subject and the 1/3 value only applies some of the time. Follow the link to cambridgeincolour.com on the first page of this thread for some great information.

Actually, 5.6 is only 2 stops above 2.8 and 2.8 is only 2 stops above 1.4. Three stops above 2.8 would be 8 and 3 stops above 1.4 would be 4.

Nevertheless, three stops is close to the right value. But there are a lot of other varables involved and it is hard to make a general rule.

I would just use F/8 (easy to remember) and not worry about the difference.

And keep in mind, sharpness is only important some of the time.

Same manufacturer will product different diameter filter sizes.

At one time, Nikon used 52mm as their main "standard" filter size. But they have used different sizes to allow for larger maximum apertures (smaller F/numbers) on longer focal length lenses and larger zoom lenses.

They still try to have only a few standard filter sizes so we don't have to invest in too many filter sets and have a little money left over to buy lenses.

Based on your subject matter, focus should not be too difficult. The simplest answer is to set the focus to infinity and the aperture to F/8. But nothing is ever that simple...

If your subject is actually in the foreground and landscape is merely background, focus on the subject and use an aperture between wide open and F/11-F/13 for a crop sensor or a maximum of F/16 for a full frame SLR. Most 35m lenses go up to F/22 but by then you will start to see problems from diffraction.

Another approach I have seen recommended is to set the focus on the hyperfocal distance for an aperture two stops wider than the one you are actually using. For example, if your camera aperture is set to F/16, use the hyperfocal distance calculated for F/8. For more on hyperfocal distance you can see: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/hyperfocal-distance.htm

So far as depth of field is concerned, it depends on so many factors that it would take pages to cover all of the tradeoffs and nuances. I recommend: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm

And finally, for really sharp landscapes, use a solid tripod, mirror lockup and a cable release or the self timer.

Exactly the point I tried to convey in my long-winded semi-scientific response earlier. Not much point in quibbling over what a filter does to the picture - post processing and printing do a lot more.

DSLRs and film SLRs already capture more information than we can appreciate online or even in most prints. We should concentrate on the more practical aspects such as the protection of the lens and the overall impression of the picture.

Do you believe your lying eyes?

It may not be possible to see the difference between a picture made with a filter and one without based on a computer display or a print. But logic tells us that there must be a difference that our imperfect analog eyes are not revealing.

Your lens may already have six or more separate (or glued) glass elements. At between 90% and 95% transmission for each element the total light transmitted would be about 75% to 50%. Yet the total light transmitted for the entire combination may be closer to 85-90% for the best lenses, so the loss from each element must be less. The light loss for a single, clean, properly coated, clear filter should therefore be well under 10% (90% transmitted). Regardless, 90% transmission represents less than a tenth of a stop.

Logic tells us that there should be an optical effect. Whenever light enter a glass surface at an angle it is refracted and its direction is restored as it leaves, assuming both surfaces are parallel and flat. Meantime, its path has been displaced by an amount proportional to the thickness of the glass and this displacement is more if the angle of incidence is greater and it is different for different colors. So, thinner filter glass should be better and telephoto should be affected less than wide angle lenses.

But the question remains, can we see the effect visually in the print or display or is this just an optical phenomenon that would need to be measured in a laboratory? It seems that most of us cannot tell the difference.

A quality clear or UV filter is more than justified on the basis of protecting the lens.

I doubt that film will go away in my lifetime, maybe not even in yours. My film cameras (other than 35mm) will still be in good shape for another 30-40 years and appreciating in value.

If I am wrong, I'm sure that by then I can pick up a used D800e with lots of shutter actuations left from KEH for about $100.