# Digital Camera vs Slide/Negative Scanner



## anil (Oct 28, 2003)

Sorry if this has already been debated, but I searched and couldn't find anything.

I've been into photography for a while, and have quite a few negatives and slides taken with my satisfactory SLR. I enjoy doing lots of work in Photoshop, and when at school was able to use their slide scanners. Now that I'm done school, I'm debating whether to get my own scanner, or just wait up and save for a high-end digital camera. My worry with the digital camera is that I'll be constantly tempted to upgrade as better machines come out - wheras now, my SLR is a classic, and I'm fairly content with the quality of pictures it takes.

Any thoughts - experiences?


----------



## Rob (Sep 14, 2002)

You can look into getting your negatives and slides scanned from a lab. The cost is getting reasonable now.

I'm going through the same struggle. If you invest in a digital camera now it will lose it's value very quickly. The same goes for scanners. Until the technology starts to stabilize then it probably makes more sense to stick with film and get a service lab to do the scans on the ones you really want. The cost for 35mm scans isn't too bad. For larger formats though, it's another story.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I'm no pro when it comes to photography, and there has been a lot of debate between techies and old-school photographers on the matter, but I'm all for digital.

I watched a program where a photographer (the one who had a picture of Clinton giving Lewinski a hug during an event that was used on the cover of TIME, I think) had said that the idea of having a tangible medium for images makes it easier to keep everything you shoot -- digital cameras tempt one to delete, what are initially thought of as useless pictures, on a whim to save space. Chances are, he would have not kept the picture because the digital realm (at the time) would consume much larger storage space due to format sizes (you don't want to keep a mediocre-sized image, you want the best quality/size you can get.)

Film, for the most part allows you to capture a great image onto a relatively small area, whereas digital images inflate and require more space as they get bigger -- and the media you store it on is limited. Granted, technology is working on that so it's becoming a moot point. When you combine software into the mix -- cataloguing and organizing images into a database that can be searched and indexed where query results are given withing a second. Try doing that with contact sheets.  

Another consideration is deterioration -- film can loose it's luster but digital images will maintain quality until if/when the CD/DVD dies on you -- there are those who claim CDs and DVDs will rot after an approx. 10-year period (regardless of storage conditions) or so, loosing data but I have yet to come across that. I have music CDs that still play beautifully that are almost 20 years old.

Anyway, if you can wait, save for a really nice digital SLR -- there are new 8, 11 or 14 megapixel cameras (and anything between) out now that are getting more affordable. No film to develop; less cash to spend on consumables.

That's my .02¢, as long-winded as it is.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

I have the same problem. My solution is, I kept my film SLR and bought an inexpensive scanner and a digital compact zoom.
I use the digital for everything I can to save money, but sometimes I use the film SLR.
Meanwhile I'm saving for a digital SLR and meanwhile the digital SLR prices get cheaper.

Scanning is tedious and sometimes it's hard to get the results you want. The compact digital zoom (Canon a70) is no good at shallow depth of field. The film SLR is heavy. They're all worth little if I were to sell them on the used market. So there are a lot of compromises, but I feel good about saving and buying digital later. I just hope I get lots of gift certificates from Santa so that later becomes sooner.

Before you buy a scanner, consider the money and time you will have to waste on every frame of film that you shoot.

If you are used to an SLR, you may be tempted to buy a digital camera that is not SLR. Seriously, try them out before buying - you can't get shallow depth of field because of the small sensor sizes, and the electronic viewfinders (EVF) would take a lot of getting used to. And the entire camera will depreciate instead of just the body. So in summary I would not spend a lot of money on one of those "SLR-like" digitals. Unless you don't care about having a range of depth of field or any of the many ergonomic, artistic and quality advantages of the real digital SLRs.

FYI, in the low end of digital SLRs, there is the Canon 300D out now, the Pentax *istDS coming out in November, and the Olympus E-300 soon to be announced.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The photo scanners from Epson even the 3170 at $299 are getting very close results to a dedicated film scanner - my photo guy was quite shocked even off 35 mm slides.
Certainly a cheaper route.


----------



## thewitt (Jan 27, 2003)

If you have money to burn (or are a serious pro) check out my 'dream' set up: A Hasselblad with a digital back . I don't think you would need to upgrade that for a long time.

Wonderful cameras, great optics and stunning resolution.

Sorry if this makes it harder to decide (or easy but unaffordable), I just wanted to put a bench mark for "high end".


----------



## anil (Oct 28, 2003)

Thanks for the advice - I think I'll need to ponder it some more...


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

Haha! 13Mb file size in LOW resolution...










OK, here's my 2¢:

I long thought that a scanner was the solution. Wrong! This for two reasons:

- Incredible tedium of scanning in high quality mode
- Once you have played with the immediacy and quality of digital, it is very difficult to turn back

I have seen stunning results from the Canon 10D and Digital Rebel in large format print. These are fairly 'low end' digital SLRs

I have spent a full day training with a guy who used to run the Canon after sales service department. My conclusion is that film is currently more grainy and less reliable than digital in high quality mode. I know that Macnutt swears by slide film (still), but I would argue that for 99% of your needs digital has the upper hand.

I took my trusted SLR and a Nikon digital 'toy' for 3 weeks on holiday. Result: SLR: 1 roll; Coolpix: 500 pictures (minus the 500 I erased on the fly). There is no turning back...

I would argue that the upcoming Canon D20 is going to be very hard to beat. Something may come along that is slightly better and slightly cheaper (or even much cheaper), but the performance is already outstanding. So you are now facing a commercial decision, not a technical one.

A final word on saving pictures: it is actually very easy to keep many pics in digital. My iPhoto library has gone from nothing to 2-3k pictures in no time at all. Certainly wasn't the case with film! The favoured backup medium is DVD-R. If you are worried, make two copies of each and send one to your grandmother... Apparently DVD is not affected by the self-destruction scare affecting CDs: all DVDs are still relatively expensive and therefore there hasn't yet been a temptation to cut corners. In case of doubt, look for 'archival' standards.

'hope this helps...


----------



## Visual-Q (Dec 14, 2003)

I do a substantial amount of photoshop prepress; colour correction , retouching etc., and I have been researching Digital SLRs.

Based on numerous downloads of full res samples from reviewer sites I would highly recommend the Canon Digital Rebels 300d through to the new 20d as a good choice.

I have looked through samples till my eyes went buggy for substantial signs of noise, digital artifacts and overall quality and they appear to be stellar performers capable of yielding professional quality results with appropriate help from photoshop.

The higher end cameras are still better of course, but the rebels are impressive nontheless and I've pretty much worked on files running the full gamut including Phase Ones.

Now I just have to decide which one I am going to buy... Canon that is... one can only dream about Haaselblads...


----------



## HappyDude (Jul 24, 2004)

A couple points to think about:

- It really depends on the end purpose of the shots. Are you outputting them in large format, regular photo sizes, or web use? 

- Professional scanners are a lot better for output because they have quite a bit larger dynamic range, and can be calibrated to your liking. Desktop scanners are crap, and can never achieve the same colours as professional scanners or even high end digi-cams. Most consumer-grade scanners use interpolated data anyways, degrading quality even more.

- Output method is generally the bottleneck. Why bother tweaking and editing colours if the imaging device cannot output the info? 

Most prepress and scanner operators will agree that digital is still inferior, but because I don't think you're doing any commercial photography, it doesn't really matter in this case. My suggestion is to go digital because you will have to eventually. Either that, or order those photo CDs that developers offer when you get prints. Those are generally decent quality.


----------



## kent (Oct 18, 2003)

Digital vs. Film - argh! 

High-end digital cameras are astonishing, but I don't think the image quality can be compared to that of high-end film cameras. Digital is a far more convenient format in every way, but the image quality is just not there by comparison. Having done LOTS of experimentation: film (good film e.g. Fuji Velvia), combined with a very good lens and camera cannot be matched. Even at low res, film simply looks better: the grainy look on a low res print has a better aesthetic than pixilation. I just enlarged a 35 mm neg (ISO 400 Tri-X-pan) to 20” x 29” and the results were stunning. The other issue is that digital cameras are really slow. Only until recently has Nikon been able to replicate the functionality of their film-based flagship the F5 (capable of 8 frames per second!) in their DX2 (which is also more than double the price of the F5). I get so frustrated with the speed of my high-end Nikon digital (point and shoot) and in the time it takes me to take 5 pictures, I’ve could have taken 36 on one of my film-based Nikons. I use both a Nikon F5 and F100 and both produce images that are FAR superior to my digital. Nikon just released the new F6 last week so film can't be "dead". I have never used a D2H so - I can't compare the next generation of exotic digital SLRs to cameras like the F5. I also have a Hasselblad and of course it's hard to find a camera that can produce a better image. With that said, the film format is NOT a convenient medium and most images taken today end up on a computer for one reason or another (a problem with an analog format). Additionally, good film is really expensive. Here’s what I think is the perfect photographic setup for the serious amateur or even pro. 1) A pro-level digital SLR like the Nikon DX2 for all high-speed work (athletics, moving objects, fast composition) – where the more images you take, the more likely you are to get THE image you want. This camera will also enable you to work digitally as well. 2) A high-quality film camera like a Hasselblad for landscapes and amazing image quality. 3) A film scanner for scanning your current collection and to work in digital with film – when necessary. If you had limited financial resources: a film scanner with a Nikon F100 or F5 would be fantastic or the ultimate, but outrageously expensive … as “the witt” suggests: a Hasselbald with digital back. Film scanners are readily available on eBay and are a fraction of the cost of a decent digital SLR e.g. Nikon D1X. If you get a 35 mm scanner, make sure you get the bulk-loader attachment, that way you can cook dinner while your scanner scans 25 images in a row! 

Also, for anyone interested in researching digital cameras this is the best site I’ve found: www.dpreview.com

One more thing: you mention upgrading. The good thing about film cameras is that they're as good as they can possibly get -right now. Digital SLRS/cameras are changing every few months. Case in point. Nikon released their flagship digital the D2H about 10 months ago - last Friday, they released the DX2 to replace it - yikes ... just as bad as computers. By comparison, Nikon released the F5 in 1996 and just replaced it last Friday with the F6 -eight years later.

[ September 22, 2004, 12:13 AM: Message edited by: kent ]


----------



## Visual-Q (Dec 14, 2003)

I think the point is this guy doesn't want to spend many thousands of dollars but wants a reasonably good mix of price/performance in the prosumer range. That being said I still like the digital rebel series. 

If you can afford a pro level digital then great and of course film is always awesome if the photographer knows how to use it, but you have to have an equally awesome scanner or forget it. I'd rather have a decent digital than lousy desktop scans any day.


----------

