Scanner or Digital Camera - Which to buy first?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Imaging Resource Discussion : One Thread

I am interested in accessing my photos in digital format. I currently use a 35mm slr but am thinking about a digital camera. Am I better off getting a scanner and scanning my regular photos/negatives/slides or should I buy a digital camera?

If I get a scanner do I need to buy a specialized photo scanner or can I make do with a cheaper flatbed scanner.

Katherine

-- K. Crosbie (kcrosbie@nf.sympatico.ca), March 04, 1999

Answers

Katherine, I'm faced with the same decision, although I already have a scanner, and I've been using several different digital cameras. One thing for sure; if you want to get the same quality images and versatility of shooting, you'll spend thousands of dollars on a digital camera that can match what you can do with your SLR. I only use my digitals (low to medium-priced models) for things that I wouldn't expect more than point 'n shoot quality from. They're handy for quick website updates and record photography.

As far as scanners go, you can use a pretty cheap flatbed scanner and get decent looking scans of your existing 35mm prints. If you want to scan slides or negs, you'll have to get into the $1,000 range to get professional results.

-- Mike Henderson (mhenderson@matric.com), March 04, 1999.


Professional results for $1,000? Not unless your idea of professional is newspaper reproduction. Not even the Nikon Coolscan at $2,000 has the Dmax to reach deep into the shadows and pull out details. The desktop film scanners are good enough for newspapers, newsletters, and web sites. If you want excellent results you'll need to spend $16,000 or more. If you want the best results, you'll need a drum scanner. The best option there is to go to a service bureau with your best shots. Of course, this assumes you want to manipulate the images in PhotoShop then output them to a high-end digital printer. If you're just looking to put together a web site a $1,000 film scanner will do fine.

None of the consumer-grade flatbed scanners are good enough for 35mm film. You may get an occassional slide to scan well enough for a thumbnail view. Color negatives will be a crapshoot even for thumbnails. Forget about trying black-and-white with a flatbed scanner.

The latest digital cameras are approaching point-and-shoot 35mm camera quality. If you're trying to shoot landscapes wait another two generations (about 18 months at the current rate). If you shoot sports you'll have to spend big bucks or wait a while longer than the landscape shooters. I just sold my Elan II and plan to purchase a digital camera for my point-and-shoot stuff. I'm keeping my medium format gear and getting my slides scanned for digital output.

The answer to your question depends largely upon how you want to access your photos in digital format.

-- Darron Spohn (dspohn@clicknet.com), March 05, 1999.


If you are working from negatives, even the photosmart scanner will give you better details than any flat bed scanner. There are professionals that are using the Polaroid SprintScan Plus to scan their images for later reproduction to 70mm duplicate transparencies for submission to stock agencies. I am using a photosmart scanner with a third party driver from http://www.mecc.co.jp/lenik/psmart.htm. I am fairly fussy and am getting better images from my slides than I can get prints from my slides at a custom lab. (Check out my website at www.clrtech.bc.ca~/jonathanr). These images were all scanned from a photosmart scanner

Jonathan

-- Jonathan Ratzlaff (jonathanr@clrtech.bc.ca), March 06, 1999.


Suggest go with a scanner first if you want to work with your existing photos. Other tips give scanner suggestions. I have an inexpensive scanner and am learning some of the photo manipulation methods with existing shots & packaged software for under $100 US. But I don't see that the "reasonably" priced cameras are past the point & shoot stage compared to 35mm SLR gear. To get comparable digital to 35mm SLR with typical hobbyist lenses, etc, is still big big bucks for most of us. Even the top non-pro digitals by Nikon, Minolta etc are in the high 3 figures ($US)and still get you very limited zoom range, etc.

-- Craig Gillette (cgillette@thegrid.net), March 08, 1999.

AM GOING THROUGH THE SAME THING, DID YOU READ THE HP PHOTO SCAN REVIEW AN INTERESTING PARAGRAPH PASTED FOLLOWING

As always with Imaging Resource reviews, we encourage you to let your own eyes be the final judge: Look at the sample images, download them, print them out on your own printer, and decide for yourself how well the PhotoSmart Scanner would meet your requirements! At the risk of sounding like perpetual cheerleaders for digital imaging, we were very impressed by the HP PhotoSmart Scanner! We gave it a fair number of knocks above on various topics such as workflow and color/tone adjustment, but on balance, it's a good scanner at any price, and an absolutely exceptional one when you consider that it can be had new for only $299! (This price includes a $100 rebate from HP that's valid for units purchased through January 31, 1999.) As we've pointed out before, while they can't compare with digital cameras for convenience, the combination of a film camera and inexpensive film scanner completely blows away the image quality of even the best digital point & shoot cameras, at least as of this writing. (In late summer, 1998.)

THE VISIONEER PAPERPORT ONE TOUCH IS GREAT FOR 3X5 PHOTOS AND UP, TO THE WEB FOR UNDER $200.00 AND SOHO USE, GOOD LUCK IN YOUR SEARCH.

-- DEVIN DRISCOLL (MDGOME@AOL.COM), March 08, 1999.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ