Scanner vs digital camera

Discussion in 'Beyond the Basics' started by zedin, Oct 22, 2005.

  1. zedin

    zedin TPF Supporters Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Irvine, Orange County, CA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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.
     
  2. DocFrankenstein

    DocFrankenstein Clinically Insane?

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    1,646
    Likes Received:
    6
    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?
     
  3. zedin

    zedin TPF Supporters Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Irvine, Orange County, CA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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).
     
  4. DocFrankenstein

    DocFrankenstein Clinically Insane?

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    1,646
    Likes Received:
    6
    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?
     
  5. zedin

    zedin TPF Supporters Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Irvine, Orange County, CA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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.
     
  6. Mumfandc

    Mumfandc TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    205
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    New York City, Chelsea
    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.
     
  7. DocFrankenstein

    DocFrankenstein Clinically Insane?

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    1,646
    Likes Received:
    6
    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.
     
  8. jadin

    jadin The Mad Hatter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,740
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Down the Rabbit Hole.
    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.
     
  9. Marctwo

    Marctwo TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2005
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    B'ham, UK
    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.
     
  10. jadin

    jadin The Mad Hatter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,740
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Down the Rabbit Hole.
    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.
     
  11. Marctwo

    Marctwo TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2005
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    B'ham, UK
    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. ;)
     
  12. Patrick

    Patrick TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    562
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Xenia, OH
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    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.:)
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

digital camera vs scanner

,
scanner versus digital camera
,

scanner vs digital camera

,
scanning photos vs photographing them
,
scanning versus photographing
,

scanning vs photographing

,

scanning vs taking a picture

,

scanning vs taking picture

,
scanning vs. photographing photos
,
taking pictures vs scanning