Digital Camera Vs 35mm + Decent Photo Scanner

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

I have been hoping to get a digital camera for a long time(Cannon S10) Since I am not very well off, I 've been thinking the alternative of getting an amateur 35mm SLR camera + a decent scanner e.g. Epson Perfection 1200 Photo scanner. Could someone give me some suggestion!!

-- Albert Chan (albert163@cmmail.com), February 02, 2000

Answers

The 35mm SLR plus dedicated scanner option will beat an affordable digital camera hands down at the moment, in terms of flexibility and quality.

(Before all you digicam bods start flaming.. How many digitals can take a 400mm or even 24mm equivalent lens and give 2400 x 3600 dpi resolution? How about 1600 ISO sensitivity? Shallow depth of field? Or what about a simple thing like a polarizing filter then?)

I would consider stretching your budget to a dedicated film scanner though, rather than the 1200 dpi Epson. The HP photosmart S20, or Acer Scanwit are not that much more expensive.

My advice would be to have a demonstration of the Epson before you decide, or see if you can get it on a sale or return basis.

Good Luck,

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), February 02, 2000.


I've long held the view that film + scanner is the way to go for both quality and cost. But when I did get a good digital camera recently, I couldn't believe how much fun it was, how much new life it injected into my photography. Film is a pain. If you do go the scanner route, you'll want a reasonably high end film scanner; Nikon, Minolta.

Another thing to consider is the cost of the film you'll save over the (relatively short) life of the digital camera. If you shoot a lot, and don't need it to be high resolution, you'll save a lot by going digital. I've shot over 700 exposures digitally since Christmas. I would have exposed maybe 60 frames of film. I've had more fun.

-- John Lehet (justme@well.com), February 02, 2000.


The digital camera can train the non-professional photographer much easier than that of the conventional SLR. You can view your picture right after you took it and erease it if it is no good.. Try several pictures until you like it and keep it. It is more fun to take pictures with the digicam. ( kleung@att.co.kr)

-- Kenneth Leung (kleung@att.co.kr), February 02, 2000.

If you're only doing flatbed scans from 4x6's and not worrying about quality, then go with the film setup... but if you're serious in going into film scanning, you'll encounter dust spots that you need to correct, the amount of time needed to scan each image and more and more hassle! I take less and less of film pictures now and more digital just because, like the previous poster, it is simply just more fun! You get the results right away and I post them up on my webpage for all my friends to view. To date, I have had my camera for little over 1/2 a year and have taken 3k+ pictures (of that probably 100 are good for viewing :)) Of that it would be about 100 rolls so let's say 2.50 a roll of 36exp and 5.00 processing, which comes out to about 750 dollars in developing them. Of course I would be reluctant to take that many candid pictures just to save on the cost of film/development, but then I miss out on a lot of pictures I would never take!

-- Keat Lim (keatlim@my-deja.com), February 02, 2000.

If your photographic needs can be contained within the capabilities of a point and shoot and you are satisfied to make quality and editing decisions from the camera LCD screen, then you might go digital. But don't forget to include memory, batteries, convenience, etc. in your considerations.

There are several areas in which a reasonable 35mm setup still beats digital. The "information" captured by film still exceeds that captured by the typical consumer digital camera, even the latest high end consumer cameras. The technical photographic capabilities of a reasonable and comparably priced 35mm SLR setup still exceed those of price comparable digital when you need a wider lens selection, faster speeds, lower light, etc. As noted before, the zoom range of most consumer digitals is quite limited compared to 35mm with a varied selection of lenses, rental sources for special needs, etc.

Cost features keep changing but if you are away from home, you need expensive memory and/or a laptop to keep going digital. Along with the battery charging and convenience factor. Either film or digital can require a serious investment and serious work if you want serious results. Neither is magic.

-- Craig Gillette (cgillette@thegrid.net), February 02, 2000.



A comparison of the amount of information in an image; digital camera ~2.7 M pixels cheap film scanner 8Mpixels, informtion on a silver image, 20-30 Mpixels, eye, 150 M pixels plus. This information came from a Minolta rep. Check out this site www.hamrick.com for another comparison between film and digital. The file size gets way bigger so you will not only need to look at a good scanner, you will also want a CD-writer as well as a photo quality printer

-- jonathan ratzlaff (jonathanr@clrtech.bc.ca), February 02, 2000.

Is the system you want to buy for Professional use or Personal use? If it is for personal use, I would opt for the digital camera. Invest in a a good camera, and it will pay for itself in the long run. If it is for Professional use, I would opt for the SLR system. Your end result is of higher quality and better archival.

dave

-- David Erskine (davide@netquest.com), February 03, 2000.


you can get great results with a conventional flatbed scanner, but a dedicated film scanner will give you better physical output. digital tech. is still far off from film, although the results of 2 megapixel cameras now are very nice. like a post obove noted, you definately have more control over your subjects and creativity with a traditional camera. however, if its convienience you're after, you cant beat the digital. i have been "seriously" been taking photographs for about 6 months now, the learning curve is not as complicated as many may think. i doubt that i've taken over a thousand pics in my first 6 months, but out of the total i have taken, i would say that well over 100 are "viewable". in contrast, while those using strictly digitals are learning digital technology as they go, i am learning traditional film techniques, from which most guidlines for digital are derived. and, since i am also using a scanner and photoshop, i am becoming as familiar with the digital end as one uses only digital. so- you wont be missing out too much if you go the traditional route, in fact, you'll twice as much in half the time. good luck! Jerry

-- Jerry Hazard (hazard01@earthlink.net), February 04, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ