Digital Camera vs. Good Scanner

TerrysSPF · #1 (**permalink**) 12-08-2003, 09:03 AM

This may not be the place to ask this question (maybe I should try a Camera forum), but I figure there are so many guys here (with experience in so many different areas.....besides Cobra's) that I would see what everyone's thoughts were on this subject. I'm hoping, with all the pictures floating around on this web site, I would get some feedback as to which is best for posting pictures here.

I've been thinking about getting a digital camera for quite sometime now, but have never been that crazy about the quality of the photo's. I understand you can get camera's with 5 to 6 MP now, but I still don't think they match up to a good 35mm SLR (which I already have), and they are by no means "cheap". I've seen some 5 MP cameras at decent prices, but to get one with the lens I want (I would want one that took good close-ups / wide angle type lens for shooting pictures of the engine, etc.), then the price goes way up.

My other choice would be to get a decent scanner. My father bought an Epson scanner the other day with a slot for pictures, and 35mm negatives. He sent me some photo's via e-mail and they looked pretty good. I also figure, with a scanner, I could post some of my past cars (that I only have 35mm shots of) and also post things like pages out of a book, magazine, etc.

Does anyone have any thoughts / experience using BOTH a scanner and digital camera? Anyone have pictures of their car on this site that were posted via scanner? Or, has anyone recently purchased a nice digital camera they are happy with and have some pictures posted here?
-Any input is much appreciated! Thanks!

mattr762 · #2 (**permalink**) 12-08-2003, 09:06 AM

I'm writing a response right now... I consider myself an expert on the matter since in a graphic designer. Please stand by...

A picture is worth a thousand words, so I'll start here:

35mm SLR (scanned in negitive):

Sony Digital camera (3.3MP S70):

As you can see the digital camera has more detail, has truer color is sharper and has less film grain. Even in printed form the digital looks better (Walgreen's developed 35mm vs Epson Photo printer).

Digital is the only way to go, if your posting pictures. Each time you add a generation you lose detail. The digital camera is only a second generation of the original and the 35mm would be a third generation. And film does not handle high-lights and shadows as well as digital.

www.dpreview.com is my favorite website for comparing digital camera. They have a very in depth review and have sample high-res pictures from each camera, so you can compare the quality. You can get a really good camera for $400-$500. There are 2 additional costs you need to think about. One is extra batteries and the other is a larger storage device (memory stick, compact flash, etc...)

I'd stick with the top brands to be safe:
Canon
Sony
Nikon
Fuji film
Minolta
OLYMPUS

Also, a good scanner will set you back more than a $1000. The cheap $100 scanners for sure will be worse quality than digital. When shopping for scanners don't get to suckered in high resolution. That is not the only number to look at. The dynamic range is very, very important also. This range measures how much detail will be captured within the highlights and shadows. The range is from 0 to 4 and a Good professional Epson $1200 scanner is rated at 3.6. If the scanners literature does not tell you the scanner dynamic range with it is very low and will produce poor scans. I used to work with a $50,000 drum scanner and it produced a 3.8 range.

Excaliber · #3 (**permalink**) 12-08-2003, 10:29 AM

Add to the list the OLYMPUS digital camera. In the $400-500 range, move it to the TOP of the list!

I'm on my third digital, now using a Canon EOS Rebel ($1,000 plus lens').

I needed something a little more "serious" than my $500 Olympus 10X optical zoom. BUT, I'm STILL wondering if the additional expense makes the Canon THAT much better!!

The Olympus rocks and photog tests show it to be about the best out there for the money.

Ernie

FLASH: Olympus just came out with an SLR digital with interchangable lens'. The competition heats up for Canon!

mattr762 · #4 (**permalink**) 12-08-2003, 10:58 AM

Sorry Excaliber, Olympus should have been on the list to begin with. I just forgot it. Sorry.

TerrysSPF · #5 (**permalink**) 12-08-2003, 11:41 AM

Thanks for the info guys! I'm going to check out the website that Mattr762 suggested. I just purchased a digital camera buyers guide (from a mag called Digital Photographer's) and have been going through it. I also went to WOLF Camera thismorning and did some shopping. The pic's my dad sent me via scanner were decent, but I don't think they are "good enough" (especially for showing off your chrome!). I looked at scanners also, and you're right, I may as well spend the $$$ on a digital camera for what you have to spend on a good scanner. I was considering a Canon CanoScan FS4000US Film scanner (4000dpi w/ 3.4 dynamic range) for $600, or a Canon flatbed scanner 9900F w/ built in 35mm adapter for $380. These are discounted prices that my wife gets through work (between 30 to 60% off). Then, when I went to WOLF Camera, I found a couple camera's that I liked and thought they took pretty good pictures. They have Excal's Canon Rebel there for about a grand, but I didn't want to spend that much $$, although it is tempting because the 35mm I have is a Canon and I was told the lens(s) I already have would work with it. The ones I'm considering are the Minolta Dimage A1 (or last years model called the 7Hi); the Olympus E-20; Olympus C-750; and the Canon G5......that is getting good reviews but I didn't like the fact that you can see the blur of the lens while looking through the eye piece. Most of these camera's are more $$$ than I wanted to spend, but I looked them up in the Camera magazine I bought and found them at pretty good prices thru the "discount warehouse" stores in there.

I started to just go through peoples photo galleries on CC looking for some clear pictures, and then I figured I would send them a private e-mail asking what kind of camera they have! Some of the best pictures I've seen are in James Baldwin's gallery. SUPER clear shots........and his old ERA was sweet! I think I asked him a long time ago about his camera and I believe he told me it was a "Nikon" (which usually means "big bucks"!).
........Hey, you get what you pay for, I guess!

DonC · #6 (**permalink**) 12-08-2003, 12:32 PM

Terry:
As with just about everything else, you get what you pay for.
If you want a digital camera with interchangeable lenses then you're looking at Canon or Nikon. If you're looking for a fixed lense camera you have a lot to choose from.
I'd second the recommendation to look through the DPReview.com site no matter what you decide.
Prices on the digital SLR's is getting lower but still at least twice what you'd pay for a film body.
In the digital end, EOS Rebel with lense (about 28-85mm) has a street price of about $800, next step up would be the Canon 10D without lense about $900. Can't speak to the Nikon side of the house since I use a Canon.
Just like Cobras or any other hobby, they can take over your life. It's up to you how much time and money you spend on either.
Whichever way you decide to go spend some time researching the cameras and camera/lense combinations.
Most importantly figure out how much you want to spend on a realistic basis and then go from there.
Once you get it spend time learning to use it. The beauty of digital is that you can experiment to your hearts content and it doesn't cost you anything. Initially you will be shooting anything and everything until you get settled in. Again, 1000 shots in a month and finding 2 keepers, not a problem. The only thing you've spent is you time to take the pictures and look at them. With a film camera I cringe to think about how much money I used to spend just learning a new lense let alone a body.
In general, once you've made a decision stay away from the brick and mortar retailers. Do some web surfing for the best prices and you'll save a bundle.
DonC

Jamo · #7 (**permalink**) 12-08-2003, 12:48 PM

The digital Rebel's probably the best deal (price and features) out there if you want a true SLR and interchangeable lens capability.

I've had more than a few cameras...used a Sony D707 the last several years...a great prosumer camera.

After watching Turk and his pro Nikon digital SLR, I decided to take the jump albeit a rung lower on the ladder price-wise. Since I have Pentax 35 equipment, I went with their *1st SLR, which is fairly new and compares to the Canon and Nikon models in the same range...all three a little faster than the Olympus. The mfgs are all leapfrogging each other though, much like the computer industry. My collection of lenses and flash now work on the digital and the 35 bodies. I'm still in the learning process with the *1st.

If you can afford it...and you already have some lenses/flash for one mfg...go the digital SLR route that the mfg offers. They are all fairly close price and feature-wise, and you will save a ton of money. But make sure the lenses and flash will work. Some mfgs don't have complete crossover.

Excaliber · #8 (**permalink**) 12-08-2003, 12:52 PM

The first two pics in my gallery were taken with the Olympus using the 10X optical zoom and the "Sport" setting. Of course the resolution in the gallery is not as good as from the camera, there still impressive pics.

I haven't been to the track with my Canon (will use the 70-300 mm lens) but it better be AS GOOD or better than that Olympus or I'm going to be crying the blues!

Main problem with the Olympus? To slow between shots and not enough "lens" without using that digital zoom thing.

Ernie

DonC · #9 (**permalink**) 12-08-2003, 02:32 PM

Ernie:
Just remember that when you're using AI Servo mode to take at least two shots to allow the camera to "catch up" with the subject.
DonC

Sizzler · #10 (**permalink**) 12-08-2003, 03:37 PM

I really don't think it's "vs" at all.

Nowadays, you need both, digital camera AND scanner.

Personally, for me, the digital camera is a 4 megapixel Exilim with a 256mb SD card. It's small, slim, light, and fast. It's not my main camera. I don't give a tinker's dam about 10x zoom. That's what the 35mm is for with the one-legged tripod. 3x optical zoom and 4 megapixels are all I need for email photo's, ebay photo's, point-and-shoot-quick photos. It's for carrying around in the pocket and taking quick, probably throwaway pictures.

Don't forget, even Walgreens will write your 35mm prints to a CD for you nowadays. And for all those old, pre-CD photos, you need a scanner. Mine isn't some gazillion $ drum but it scans nicely enough for the computer.

I pretty much think of the digital camera as for producing picture FILES only. Remember, if you want to print those digital pictures, you'll need to invest in a good printer and the special paper stock needed as well (or I believe Walgreens will print from your CD).

Gotta know and understand the point of things.

Jack21 · #11 (**permalink**) 12-08-2003, 05:33 PM

Today, digital is where it's at. Todays digital cameras go from your camera, to your computer, to your printer, and the results are phenomnal! But...you have to have the investment in hardware, rather than photofinishing shop expenses and fees.

The premier camera makers, Canon, Nikkon, Olympus have phenominal digital cameras at respectable prices if you shop around c/net, and the like.

And the premier printer makers, HP, Epson, and the like have unbelievable photo quality printers tp print out your digital shots.

That being said, from my own personal experience, the printer folks make great printers (HP), and the camera folks make great cameras (Canon), but not vice versa. Perhaps someday that will change.

btsai · #12 (**permalink**) 12-08-2003, 06:08 PM

Terry -- what specifically have you been disappointed with from the digital photos you have seen? Do you mean on-line or printed out?

If it's on-line, then the person making the post has a lot to do with the final outcome. If it was a low rez photo, a poor photo that was scanned, they tried to up-size a small, low-rez photo, etc,. then yes, it won't look great.

If you are comparing print outs, then the output size (final print size), resolution and paper make the biggest difference. If you have a 2MP picture, they say the biggest you can get a clear printout is about 4" x 6". 3 MP, 5" x 7", and 4MP 8" x 10". I have some 8" x 10" shots I took with my 4MP digital camera that 9 out of 10 people can't tell isn't a film-produced photo.

As long as you have a decent printer, by far the biggest factor is the PAPER. I can't stress this enough. When I first started messing around with this stuff a couple years ago, I went out and bought samples of several types of ink-jet photo paper. Some with better with some printers than others. (E.G. -- Epson printers are usually pretty specific about using Epson paper). The amount of glossiness and the brightness make a big difference.

Good luck!

Ben

Spend some time experimenting with camera resolutions and print outs, and I think you'll be surprised at how well things work. Matt is right

Alex Donghi · #13 (**permalink**) 12-09-2003, 02:40 PM

mattr762
What I would like to know is how you got those images posted????
PS I use a sony at 1240x960 resolution. Anything higher seems to be wasted as it takes up too many bytes and the quality of the print seems the same

Ron61 · #14 (**permalink**) 12-09-2003, 03:15 PM

Mattr762

I too would like to know how you got two pictures in the same post and both are over the 30K limit. I thought you could only put one picture in a post and it was limited to below 30K.

Thanks,

Ron

computerworks · #15 (**permalink**) 12-09-2003, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ron61

Mattr762

I too would like to know how you got two pictures in the same post and both are over the 30K limit. I thought you could only put one picture in a post and it was limited to below 30K.

Thanks,

Ron

easy... they are not ATTACHMENTS.

Attached images are limited to one per post and have the 40k size limit.... these are the pictures that you specify with the Attach File button at the bottom of the Post reply page.

Matt's pictures are LINKED IMAGES. He has them uploaded to his own website and is IMBEDDING the address of those pictures in the post using the Image Tags (IMG button above the Your reply area of the New Post screen.

You can link to as many images as you want in a single post... the actual pictures are not on our server... the image tag lets you "point" to the pictures on another host.

You can use the IMG tags to point to pictures in your Gallery on CC... that is how you can show more than one image in a post.

Ron61 · #16 (**permalink**) 12-09-2003, 03:44 PM

Ron (CW)

Thanks for the explanation. I hadn't even thought about that as I just looked at the pictures and their size.

Ron

Excaliber · #17 (**permalink**) 12-09-2003, 04:26 PM

Matt's web page is worth the trip! I love that idea of turning a lap top into a "hanging on the wall" active picture display!

http://www.mattrandolph.com

Can you change lens on that S-70 Canon camera your using?

Ernie

mattr762 · #18 (**permalink**) 12-09-2003, 05:36 PM

What Ron said.

I'm hosting the files from my own website. It's good to be me! Oh wait! I don't have a Cobra yet. It sucks to be me!

Ernie, No I can't change the lenses. But I do have a wide angle and telephoto attachment lenses. And thanks for the compliment on my website.

Excaliber · #19 (**permalink**) 12-09-2003, 06:57 PM

Hmmm,,,,,, I never thought about using such a thing on a "stock" digital camera. Are those "generic" lens you can adapt to some or most digitals?

I was thinking about getting a lens "doubler" for my Canon. I'll look and see what it would take to use on the Olympus.

Ernie

(,,, now I know what to do with the 3 old lap tops I have laying around the house,

)

TerrysSPF · #20 (**permalink**) 12-09-2003, 07:32 PM

Sizzler: You made some good points, thank you! The photo's that I'm talking about that are poor quality are pretty random (I don't want to mention names here!). They include some pictures that my sister sends me (so it's not just from peoples photo gallery here!). She has a Sony digital camera but I'm not sure how many megapixels it is (it's old though). Some people's photo's look awsome, while others you can barely tell what kind of car they have! I'm guessing it's more the quality of the camera vs. the photographer (although that may come into play). I plan on using a digital camera for internet only......I have a pretty good 35mm that I use for home photo's, but I do have a nice HP printer that's supposed to be able to print high quality photo's.
I guess I could use a scanner as well (boy.....this is getting expensive!). I have a lot of 35mm shots of cars I've owned in the past that I would like to include in my gallery. I'm sure you guys can't wait..........they're mostly Chebby's!! I did own a nice GT-350 back in the 80's, though (wish I still had it today! $$$). I just need to find the photo's
I took some photo's of my SPF the other day and had them put on a CD. When I bring them up directly from the CD to my PC, they look pretty good, but when I try and send them via e-mail, they get washed out. I'm sure that has more to do with AOL than anything else though. I hear they lower the resolution on purpose to make photo's easier to send! Ba$tards.
Ron: can I transfer the photo's from my CD to my gallery here on CC? Most everything you said on your previous post was greek to me.