Scanner vs digital camera

[Marctwo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

Noone. Unless you consider 3 grand affordable.

 

[Patrick]

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]

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

 

[John Orrell]

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!