What will give me higher quality digital images, (1) a $500-$700 film scanner (such as HP S20) from a Cannon EOS (2) Nikon Coolpix 950

Thanks!

-- Chris Woodring (cwoodrin@ford.com), April 05, 2000

Answers

I'm sure you'll get others giving the opposite view, but in my opinion the filmscanner would be the best option. Mainly due to larger pixel image sizes (approx 3600x2400 vs 1800x1200), plus greater colour depth (although subjective), and the fact that you can scan your old photo negs and slides.

The big advantage of the digital is its flexibility and speed (no waiting for processing).

As i said, i'm sure others will give you a different story, the best bet would be to check out the sample images on this site and make your own mind up.

all the best

martin

-- Martin Ellis (inca@globalnet.co.uk), April 05, 2000.

Thanks Martin. I'm having a little trouble comparing the images to get an equal comparison as I proposed the question. For example, many of the images taken with the digicam are of posters, while the scanned images are scanned directly from the poster negative. I don't think this represents what I'm trying to compare. Per my proposed question, a more accurate comparison to the digicam image of the poster would be to take a film shot of the poster and scan the negative of this film shot.

-- Chris Woodring (cwoodrin@ford.com), April 05, 2000.

Chris:
While conventional photography continues to be significantly challenged it still wins in the race for detail. Even when converting to digital, images taken with film then scanned (with a good quality scanner) will result in higher quality. With the advent of 3.3 MP cameras however, this destinction may soon evaporate - for 35mm!
Here is a link to an interesting site. Look toward the bottom of the page when you get there:
Ed Hamrick's ViewScan Page
Now for anything larger than 35mm film - affordable digital is only at observational distance...

Des

-- Dan Desjardins (dan.desjardins@avstarnews.com), April 06, 2000.

I've aired my views on this subject before and been nearly linched by zealous digicam supporters, so I don't feel like repeating myself.

However to make the contest even more interesting, (or one-sided): I've recently seen Acers ScanWit film scanner advertised for just over $400 US. This makes the scanner/digicam price differential even more favourable to the scanner. I've been using my Acer for several months now, and I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that it's the equal of scanners at twice the price.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), April 06, 2000.

I questioned this myself, finally buying a film scanner two years ago, then last month buying a Nikon 950. My feeling is if I need a print of 8x10 or larger I would shoot film, otherwise I shoot digital. It's amazing to open up the shadows using curves in photoshop with the Nikon images. Incredable detail, far better than any film result I,ve seen. My only complaint about the 950 (and I'm sure most other digitals in this price range) is bad distortion with the lens. Not noticeable most of the time but can be a pain. Hopefully cameras such as the D1 will be within my price range within a few years as I would like to use my good 35mm optics. Take a look at the detail in this images foreground.

-- Kevin Oke (okephoto@gulfislands.com), April 07, 2000.

I was hoping to link this image, oh well. http://www.gulf-island.com/Gabriola/malis3.html

-- (okephoto@gulfislands.com), April 07, 2000.