My film scanning results.

Without knowing what camera, lens and AF method you used, what was your shutter speed and aperture, whether you focused the film scanner properly, and what down-scaling method you used (bicubic, linear?), it's hard to draw a conclusion.

Otherwise as a ballparck, yes, the Astia scan looks way softer than it should coming from a Coolscan. But that could come from a number of errors along the way, not due to an inherent system issue.

Just for information, why did you downsize the film scans? One of the strengths of scanning slides is the sheer size, . Would you conclude differently if you compared full size scans appropriately cropped against your 6mp digital.

And no, your results do not match my expectation. I would not expect 6mp digital camera to wipe the floor with well scanned slide film.

I would suggest you revisit your 35mm workflow. The comparison below is from a >24MP Sony A900 set at ISO 400 vs Fuji Sensia ISO 400 35mm film scanned with no pre or post processing applied except for the superimposition of both images into one. The A900 courtesy of DPREVIEW's original samples from the camera but unfortunately has been moved to another location that I cannot find. The Fuji Sensia 400 scan is my own. Click the image to get the full 10Meg file. The EXIF still has the A900 info.

Image removed. Per the photo.net Terms of Use, do not post photos that you have not taken.

Ray,

Your slide scans do not look sharp for starters. This might be expected for the Epson but not for the Coolscan. You may need to manually focus your slide in the Nikon (pick the eyes as your focus spot), assuming you can. I don't have a Coolscan so I don't know, but I think you can determine where the scanner will focus. You can do this on the Canoscan.

Also, how much sharpening and contrast adjustment was applied to the digital capture? Both in-camera and scanned digital images require 'capture sharpening' as well as output sharpening, but the first sharpening is sometimes hidden in the digital camera workflow.

Is the film photo even in focus at the point you are cropping?

The film camera was a Nikon F100. I probably used the same f-stop (f/8) on both the film and digital. The digital camera had a speed of 1/800. Because the D70 has the min at ISO 200. The shutter speed is probably 1/1600 on the film camera.

I think I did use the manual - AF feature on the Coolscan.
The D70 was probably just shot with "normal" image settings. Simply downloaded into LR and exported out.

Maybe the focus could be a bit off.
Here is another test I did. But I didn't shoot digital. Just the Nikon Coolscan vs the Epson.
Kodak Ektachrome E100G film. I used a Nikon F100, probably AF onto the buildings. Settings not recorded but probably at f/8 or f/11 with a tripod, cable release. Again no scanning sharpening is applied.

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6011/5969023004_a0ffc7f768_b_d.jpg

Does this one seem right? Or is the issue with my scanner? As films can cost up to $25US for a roll. I import them so for reasons, I haven't shot a bucket load of them .....

Better version - my editing for the above expired.

The film camera was a Nikon F100. Digital is lowest ISO 200.
My notes - Film - f/2.8 1/400. Digital's EXIF - f/2.8 1/800 - 50mm f/1.8 AFD Nikon lens.

I think I did use the manual - AF feature on the Coolscan.
The D70 was probably just shot with "normal" image settings. Simply downloaded into LR and exported out.

Re: downsized - I used bicubic - that's the default in Photoshop right ....

Maybe the focus could be a bit off.
Here is another test I did. But I didn't shoot digital. Just the Nikon Coolscan vs the Epson.
Kodak Ektachrome E100G film. I used a Nikon F100, probably AF onto the buildings. Settings not recorded but probably at f/8 or f/11 with a tripod, cable release. Again no scanning sharpening is applied.

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6011/5969023004_a0ffc7f768_b_d.jpg

Does this one seem right? Or is the issue with my scanner? As films can cost up to $25US for a roll. I import them so for reasons, I haven't shot a bucket load of them .....

Here are two more that I compared. These two I didn't downsized them.
First Kodak Ektachrome E100VS

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6011/5969022806_01ed3ca271_b_d.jpg

Digital ISO 200, f/8, 25" at 18mm with the 18-70mm Nikon DX lens. Film is ISO 100, f/8, 60 seconds. Didn't record lens but it would be either a Nikon 18-35/3.5-4.5 or the Sigma 10-20mm.

Astia again
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6016/5969022684_79d9f19b82_b_d.jpg
Digital's ISO 200, f/8, 2". 55mm with 18-70mm Nikon DX lens. Film is ISO 100, f/8, 4". Lens used not recorded.

That looks more like it. You can see a high level of sharpness in the coolscan version (window frames) and you can see why the epson is not such a hot contender. The 6mp digital vresion will have some trouble matching that (resolution wise)