# Scanner vs digital camera



## zedin (Oct 22, 2005)

I am really struggling to decide.. My old scanner broke so was looking at getting a dedicated film scanner.. but with the cost I would almost rather just get a digital body instead. I would have to wait a bit longer to save up the extra money for a d70. I am just debating.. a digital would be nice since I would feel less constrained when taking pics (since I am a poor graduate student) and using a lot of film.. However from my understanding a good slide scan is a lot better then you are going to get with a even most digital SLRs. Why do these choices need to be so damned hard.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Oct 23, 2005)

Slide scans are not necessarily better than digital. The MTF of a Fuji ISO 100 slides is pretty bad at 40 lpm and virtually inexistent at 100 lpm.

Which gives you a theoretical resolution limit of 3500 by 2400, which is about 8 mp.

So unless you use ISO 25 slide often AND shoot with sharp primes, it makes sense switching to digital.

What camera system do you have right now?


----------



## zedin (Oct 23, 2005)

Currently shooting a nikon f100 so obvious choice would be their d70.  Mainly shoot provia 100 right now (like the veliva but its twice as much =p)  I was thinking maybe of getting the minolia digiscan 4.. its the one that rund around $220 bucks and is 3600dpi if I recall correctly.  Heard it scans well and only drawback is time and noise (both of which I can live with).


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Oct 23, 2005)

I just have to ask what your final output is. How big do you print? Do you project? What do you shoot? How much/how many rolls a month?


----------



## zedin (Oct 23, 2005)

Well final output is prints usually 8*12 altough I would like the option to go at least a little bigger if wanted.  Most of my shots are nature ones with about 60% closeups, 20% landscapes, and the rest in between.  My budget really only allows for around 4 rolls or so a month so I try to make sure what I shoot is worth it (to me at least).  That is one the biggest reasons I am thinking of just saving for the digital since it will free me up from that restriction..  I would still have to pay for my prints but I am doing that now anyhow shooting slide.


----------



## Mumfandc (Oct 23, 2005)

My college just got rid of the Nikon 8000 ED scanners and replaced them with the new Nikon 9000 ED medium format film scanners. Still 4000 dpi optical res. but much faster scanning and other options.

I scan my Hasselblad 120 negs and positives regularly with them. All I can say is "Wow!". Only problem is I hate the film holder because it takes a lot of tinkering to get the film to stay flat. 

That's why I wish my school spent $10,000 on one Imacon 646 virtual drum-scanner, rather than on five Nikons (@ $2000 each) that nobody seems to ever use but me.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Oct 23, 2005)

I have a 300D with it's "measly" 6 megapixels, and I am getting very decent quality 12*18 and 20*24 even. The color control is better too, with digital.

80 bucks a month for film is quite a lot. I never shoot color neg film. Only slide sometimes... just for the sake of projection and BW for something artsy or street photography.


----------



## jadin (Oct 23, 2005)

To me if you are a darkroom guy and like making your own prints than use film. If you like editing on the computer then use digital. To me it doesn't make any sense to use film and then scan it into the computer.

A good analogy is listening to a vinyl record (the equivelant of shooting film and making your own prints).

Versus using the record to make a cd (the equivelant of shooting film and scanning them into the computer).

And lastly using a cd to make a cd (the equivelant of shooting digital and keeping it that way).

Listening to a record sounds great, listening to a cd sounds great, listening to a cd made from a record doesn't sound so good.


----------



## Marctwo (Oct 23, 2005)

jadin said:
			
		

> A good analogy is listening to a vinyl record (the equivelant of shooting film and making your own prints).


Sorry, that's a terrible analogy.  A good analogy would be ADD instead of DDD where each letter represents the method used (analogue/digital) at that stage (recording/mastering/copying).

Analogue tape is still the prefered medium for many as they feel it gives a warmer and more dynamic recording - even if it will be mastered and copied digitally.  You get the same analogue/digital arguments in music that you do in photography.

As with film, tape is inconvenient compared to direct disc recording.


----------



## jadin (Oct 23, 2005)

Well my analogy requires the last sentence in my post. My point was that you lose some of the sound / picture quality when you copy analog to digital. It's inevitable.


----------



## Marctwo (Oct 23, 2005)

When you record (music or light) to digital, you are losing the analogue qualities straight away.  With analoque recording you record those analoque qualities and lose them when you transfer to digital.

Your use of vinyl to represent analogue is like using McDonalds to represent beef.


----------



## Patrick (Oct 23, 2005)

I own several Digital camera's including a D70.  I also love to shot B&W film and scan the negs with my Coolscan.

Yes..while it may not make sence to some.... I enjoy it. I like the process and as wierd as it seems the smell.  With film I get to experience the "magic"   And to me that's all that matters.  

BTW...I still like listening to records too on my turntable.


----------



## nealjpage (Oct 23, 2005)

Are you scanning the negs just to archieve them? Or to play in Photoshop? The only time I scan mine is when I need to use them for a school paper/PowerPoint/etc. And even then I use a HP flat-bed scanner with a neg attachment. Works fine for what I use it for.

Oh, and I too listen to music on LP.:mrgreen:


----------



## Patrick (Oct 24, 2005)

No, I just scan for a print.  I don't scan the whole roll.  I figure those negs will be ok for longer than my digitals.  No flamming!  My thought is that after I die SOMEONE will have to keep up with tech for me.  I've found too many boxes of pics/negs tossed up in the attic after they've passed I don't expect any different when my time comes.  
Acouple years ago after my grandmother passed I found hidden in the basement some negs that my uncle had taken in Europe during the "big" war (WWII).  Took em to my local pro lab and had prints made.  I doubt any backup DVD's of mine will last 65 years in the attic if something happened to me tommorow.


----------



## jadin (Oct 24, 2005)

Don't rely on cd's dvd's to last. Any writeable re-writeable cd's dvd's you make yourself have a surprising short lifespan. One's you buy are usually more permanent.

One of the best ways to save digital is to use the internet. This should last a lot longer. For pay sites as long as you pay for it. The best part is that it's not near you. If a fire destroys your home, your photos are fine. If a hurricane destroys the whole neighborhood, your photos are still probably safe.

One thing we'll see in the near future is more and more archiving done with the internet.


----------



## Marctwo (Oct 24, 2005)

anon. rep said:
			
		

> Lighten up dude


What's so heavy?  

Zedin started this thread looking for advice regarding a potentially expensive purchase.  I think it's only fair that any persuasive analogy used should be accurate - this is someone else's money we're talking about.

If you don't like what I said then put your reasons in the thread so everyone else can learn from it.

Anyway...

I wouldn't trust CD/DVDs with a shopping list but they're far more reliable if you burn them slower than their max speed.

Agreed about the internet archives - so long as they're using multiple servers.


----------



## zedin (Oct 24, 2005)

And I still don't know which to buy =p

Trying out the scanning at Costco.. they supposedly can do a high quality scan that blows up fairly large.. We will see since I had them do 10 various slides.  If it turns out fine then they might be a cheaper alternative to buying a scanner since I would need to scan around 200 slides at them to equal the cost of buying a scanner.


----------



## Marctwo (Oct 24, 2005)

That may well suit your needs so it's certainly worth trying.  However, I think you'll generally get better results by scanning yourself.  How much better depends on your Costco results, I guess.


----------



## Patrick (Oct 24, 2005)

Marctwo said:
			
		

> That may well suit your needs so it's certainly worth trying. However, I think you'll generally get better results by scanning yourself. How much better depends on your Costco results, I guess.


 
agree, not to mention you'll have more control.


----------



## the nightfly (Oct 25, 2005)

From my experience, a scanner good enough to produce high-quality images from 35mm is going to cost at least as much as a good D-SLR.

Of course, if you have tons and tons of 35mm slides and negs that you don't want to lose, the decision may already have been made for you.


----------



## Patrick (Oct 27, 2005)

Take him with a grain of salt, but sometimes he's right on.  From the Ken Rockwell site:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm#examples


----------



## jadin (Oct 27, 2005)

There's a huge flaw in ken's arguments. He's comparing a full frame digital to a 4x5 camera. That's the same as trying to compare a 4x5 to 35mm, they aren't even in the same league. You'd have to wait for digital to get a much larger sensor to even attempt this comparison.

Let me make this perfectly clear, the cameras he compared was a 16.6 megapixel camera against a 4x5. To do a proper comparison he would have to use a 209.3 megapixel camera.

Two-hundred and nine!


----------



## Patrick (Oct 27, 2005)

True, But I see a big difference here just between my D70 and scanned 35mm Velvia on my coolscan.  No comparison, Velvia almost always wins.


----------



## ThomThomsk (Oct 27, 2005)

My first post here, and I'm prompted to reply because I have a similar issue myself. I've had a Canon 10D for the last year or so, but I've gone back to film for a load of reasons that I won't go into unless anyone is interested.

Anyway, I've got years worth of 35mm negs and slides that I'd like to scan for web use, and I'm going to be shooting film for as long as it's possible to do so, which means that a film scanner would be really good to have. From reading reviews on various models I'm leaning towards the Nikon Coolscan V. I may sell the 10D to fund it (and avoid domestic trouble over my spending habits, again...).

If I were in zedin's position I'd go for the scanner and continue to save for a dSLR some time in the future. Digital technology is moving so fast and prices are dropping quickly, so in a year or two who knows how much more you'll get for your money. You will take many more pictures with a dSLR, with a marginal cost per image of absolutely zero, but will they be *better* pictures? That depends on the kind of photographer you are.


----------



## jadin (Oct 27, 2005)

Patrick said:
			
		

> True, But I see a big difference here just between my D70 and scanned 35mm Velvia on my coolscan.  No comparison, Velvia almost always wins.



Your D70 would have to be a 14 megapixel camera to compare with 35mm (based on the D70's sensor). The D70 is only 6.


----------



## Patrick (Oct 27, 2005)

jadin said:
			
		

> Your D70 would have to be a 14 megapixel camera to compare with 35mm (based on the D70's sensor). The D70 is only 6.


 
So Ken's comparison was correct?
Even with 35mm?

Who makes a 14 MP DSLR that the vast majority of users can afford?


----------



## jadin (Oct 27, 2005)

Patrick said:
			
		

> So Ken's comparison was correct?
> Even with 35mm?



Ken compared a 16 MP to a 4 x 5 camera, which should've been the 209 MP.

He didn't even bother comparing the 16 MP to 35mm because "He doesn't use 35mm". Even though that would have been a _much_ more accurate comparison.



			
				Patrick said:
			
		

> Who makes a 14 MP DSLR that the vast majority of users can afford?



Noone. Unless you consider 3 grand affordable.


----------



## Patrick (Oct 27, 2005)

So I'm safe to say unless you can afford 3 grand for a camera your gonna get better results from a decent film scanner (seeing he used a non high priced flatbed)?

I just can't see film being dead until (excluding P&S's) DSLRs have the life span and the quality of film.

Don't get me wrong I love my DSLR.


----------



## jadin (Oct 27, 2005)

Film will never die. No matter how insanely good digital gets.


----------



## John Orrell (Oct 27, 2005)

There's always the option that if you don't shoot a great deal of film you can get the lab to transfer the negs/slides to CD when they're developed.  Here in the UK this only adds the equivalent of a dollar or two to the developing costs (I guess it's the same in the US).  Depending on your film throughput it would be quite a while before you've spent as much on that process as you will spend on a scanner outright...probably in excess of 100 rolls!


----------



## uberben (Oct 27, 2005)

i doubt film will ever die, however it will get more and more expensive as demand drops.  At least thats my thoughts.


----------



## zedin (Oct 30, 2005)

Well I have in the past gotten the slides scanned to CD somethimes.  At the place I go it is $5 however recently they have been lower resolution and nothing you can make even an 8*10.  When asked I was told the old guy used to scan at too high a resolution.  So get get a roll scanned now at a 5meg file per pic is an extra 10 bucks.  So in total between film, developing, and scan it would be around 20-25 dollars per roll.  Well doesn't take rocket science to figure out after 20 rolls the scanner would pay for itself.  And it wouldn't even need to be 20 full rolls.. just enough pictures from 20 different sets of film since some of the pictures just are not worth getting scanned (not that I know that until I look at slide).

Didn't have much luck at Costco.. while the scans are high resolution there was a ton of noise espeically in the black.  My flatbed would do better (until it broke that is =p).

So currently leaning towards the Minolta Dimage 4 (found here).  It is just too expensive to get a decent scan done in a store on a slide by slide basis and the one store that does it for a resonable price did not produce very high quality.


----------



## Patrick (Oct 30, 2005)

zedin said:
			
		

> Well I have in the past gotten the slides scanned to CD somethimes. At the place I go it is $5 however recently they have been lower resolution and nothing you can make even an 8*10. When asked I was told the old guy used to scan at too high a resolution. So get get a roll scanned now at a 5meg file per pic is an extra 10 bucks. So in total between film, developing, and scan it would be around 20-25 dollars per roll. Well doesn't take rocket science to figure out after 20 rolls the scanner would pay for itself. And it wouldn't even need to be 20 full rolls.. just enough pictures from 20 different sets of film since some of the pictures just are not worth getting scanned (not that I know that until I look at slide).
> 
> Didn't have much luck at Costco.. while the scans are high resolution there was a ton of noise espeically in the black. My flatbed would do better (until it broke that is =p).
> 
> So currently leaning towards the Minolta Dimage 4 (found here). It is just too expensive to get a decent scan done in a store on a slide by slide basis and the one store that does it for a resonable price did not produce very high quality.


 
I've heard some good things about that scanner and you can't go wrong with B&H.  I would however look into to buying a copy of VueScan.  IMO it gives more control and better results than the software (excluding drivers of course) that comes with the scanner.


----------



## Marctwo (Oct 31, 2005)

I'll second that.  Vuescan is a must and offers far more control over your scans than anything else I've tried (including SilverFast :thumbdown: ).


----------

