SLR + Scanner?

Andreas P. · Sep 8, 2000

Hi,

Well this question doesn't match especially the Sony forum but i hope
to receive some useful feedback.

I am thinking about to buy an Nikon F-90 and a scanner like (Nikon LS2000 or Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II ) to scan the dia positves
or the negatives.

So the question is: Which quality can i expect from those scans. Will they be significantly better
than i.g. the F505V raw images.

Any input would be most appreciated!

Best regards,

Andreas

(Canon D30 is still in my mind too)

Daniel Lauring · Sep 8, 2000

Mostly they will be better. Certainly they will have more resolution. But you will give up a huge amount of convenience and freedom. One thing about the digital, you get immediate results. Another nice thing, the shots don't cost you anything until you print them. In one session yesterday I took over 300 shots. That would cost at least $100 dollars to develop if it was film but I gave it nary a thought. With digital you can shoot with impunity.

Andreas P. said:
Hi,

Well this question doesn't match especially the Sony forum but i hope
to receive some useful feedback.
I am thinking about to buy an Nikon F-90 and a scanner like (Nikon
LS2000 or Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II ) to scan the dia positves
or the negatives.
So the question is: Which quality can i expect from those scans. Will
they be significantly better
than i.g. the F505V raw images.

Any input would be most appreciated!

Best regards,

Andreas

(Canon D30 is still in my mind too)

Pondria · Sep 8, 2000

I have been thinking about the same thing, too. I have a friend at work who has a film scanner. I don't remember all the numbers. But it is definitely the general consensus that film scanners generate better images than any digital camera today. Unlike camera, scanners have fixed optics and other hardware optimized for very limited condition. Now, here are the things that I don't like about the scanner+SLR.
1. I have to develop the film - waiting.
2. The software Twain drivers are usually pain to deal with.
3. It takes LONG to scan a frame ( I don't have number. the friend said so )

4. I am not sure how long the lamp or LED can keep the correct illumination ( color balance or whatever ). Is there any hidden cost for that ?

Let's keep studying. I'll talk to the friend again ! My perspective is NOT that one is better than the other. We probably need both DCam and {scanner+SLR} eventually. But then what about Digital SLR's like D-30 ?

Andreas P. said:
Hi,

Well this question doesn't match especially the Sony forum but i hope
to receive some useful feedback.
I am thinking about to buy an Nikon F-90 and a scanner like (Nikon
LS2000 or Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II ) to scan the dia positves
or the negatives.
So the question is: Which quality can i expect from those scans. Will
they be significantly better
than i.g. the F505V raw images.

Any input would be most appreciated!

Best regards,

Andreas

(Canon D30 is still in my mind too)

dw · Sep 8, 2000

andreas,

do consider the epson perfection 1200Photo(florescent lamp) or the 1600Photo(xenon lamp). Both can scan pos/neg very well and as far as my 1200P is concerned, the scanned quality is comparable with the S70 images. dw.

Andreas P. said:
Hi,

Well this question doesn't match especially the Sony forum but i hope
to receive some useful feedback.
I am thinking about to buy an Nikon F-90 and a scanner like (Nikon
LS2000 or Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II ) to scan the dia positves
or the negatives.
So the question is: Which quality can i expect from those scans. Will
they be significantly better
than i.g. the F505V raw images.

Any input would be most appreciated!

Best regards,

Andreas

(Canon D30 is still in my mind too)

Bob26076 · Sep 8, 2000

I have scanned both slides (positives) and negatives with my HP Photosmart Scanner. At 1200 dpi and above, I am able to see the grain in the film. 2400 dpi produces a 20 MB uncompressed image file from a 35mm frame that I process in Photoshop to adjust levels, remove defects, etc. 1200 dpi is normally fine for most images.

Bob in Michigan

Andreas P. said:
Hi,

Well this question doesn't match especially the Sony forum but i hope
to receive some useful feedback.
I am thinking about to buy an Nikon F-90 and a scanner like (Nikon
LS2000 or Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II ) to scan the dia positves
or the negatives.
So the question is: Which quality can i expect from those scans. Will
they be significantly better
than i.g. the F505V raw images.

Any input would be most appreciated!

Best regards,

Andreas

(Canon D30 is still in my mind too)

Viveck Bansal · Sep 8, 2000

Well nothing like an SLR but Digital has it's own charm after using Nikon 801 and F90x for long time I switched to sony 505v it's a great camera but once you have used SLR it's very difficult to work with this kinda camera be it 505 or 990 or anything like that now if you can wait for some time I would suggest to buy D30

atleast i am gonna do that

vB

Andreas P. said:
Hi,

Well this question doesn't match especially the Sony forum but i hope
to receive some useful feedback.
I am thinking about to buy an Nikon F-90 and a scanner like (Nikon
LS2000 or Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II ) to scan the dia positves
or the negatives.
So the question is: Which quality can i expect from those scans. Will
they be significantly better
than i.g. the F505V raw images.

Any input would be most appreciated!

Best regards,

Andreas

(Canon D30 is still in my mind too)

Pondria · Sep 8, 2000

Daniel Lauring said:
yesterday I took over 300 shots. That would cost at least $100 dollars
to develop if it was film but I gave it nary a thought.

Just checking, are you sure that it cost $100 just to develop ( NOT printing ) ? I feel that it should cost less for the Film cost + Development.

Andreas P. · Sep 8, 2000

Viveck Bansal said:
Well nothing like an SLR but Digital has it's own charm after using
Nikon 801 and F90x for long time I switched to sony 505v it's a great
camera but once you have used SLR it's very difficult to work with this
kinda camera be it 505 or 990 or anything like that now if you can wait
for some time I would suggest to buy D30

atleast i am gonna do that

Viveck,

Thanks for your input. I will take it as a recommandation at least to try
an SLR.
Regarding D30. It is also the question of the money.
D30 + Sigma 50-500 would be around 4000 USD (german prices).
That's a lot.

Best regards,

Andreas

Andreas P. · Sep 8, 2000

Bob said:
I have scanned both slides (positives) and negatives with my HP
Photosmart Scanner. At 1200 dpi and above, I am able to see the grain
in the film. 2400 dpi produces a 20 MB uncompressed image file from a
35mm frame that I process in Photoshop to adjust levels, remove defects,
etc. 1200 dpi is normally fine for most images.

Bob,

So what do you prefer'?

Best regards,

Andreas

Andreas P. · Sep 8, 2000

dw said:
andreas,
do consider the epson perfection 1200Photo(florescent lamp) or the
1600Photo(xenon lamp). Both can scan pos/neg very well and as far as my
1200P is concerned, the scanned quality is comparable with the S70
images. dw.

Yes, of course the from me mentioned scanners only are examples.
Following your results the quality isn't better?

Best regards,

Andreas

Andreas P. · Sep 8, 2000

Jeong,

Member said:
I have been thinking about the same thing, too. I have a friend at work
who has a film scanner. I don't remember all the numbers. But it is
definitely the general consensus that film scanners generate better
images than any digital camera today.

Well but are these from you mentioned filmscanners affordable?

Member said:
Unlike camera, scanners have fixed
optics and other hardware optimized for very limited condition. Now,
here are the things that I don't like about the scanner+SLR.
1. I have to develop the film - waiting.

Yes. This also would be a con for me.

Member said:
2. The software Twain drivers are usually pain to deal with.

I think this is beaable

Member said:
3. It takes LONG to scan a frame ( I don't have number. the friend said
so )

I have heard this too!

Member said:
4. I am not sure how long the lamp or LED can keep the correct
illumination ( color balance or whatever ). Is there any hidden cost for
that ?

Well, this had to be figured out.

Member said:
Let's keep studying. I'll talk to the friend again ! My perspective is
NOT that one is better than the other. We probably need both DCam and
{scanner+SLR} eventually. But then what about Digital SLR's like D-30 ?

I am very interested to see the results of your studies. Until now i have only
seen the results of a collegue who showed me the scans of a scan service.
They looked a bit dull.
(D30 still seems to be an alternative, although a bit expensive)

Best regards,

Andreas

Andreas P. · Sep 8, 2000

Member said:
Mostly they will be better. Certainly they will have more resolution.
But you will give up a huge amount of convenience and freedom. One
thing about the digital, you get immediate results. Another nice thing,
the shots don't cost you anything until you print them. In one session
yesterday I took over 300 shots. That would cost at least $100 dollars
to develop if it was film but I gave it nary a thought. With digital
you can shoot with impunity.

Absolutely true. It seems the most logical consequence is indeed to have both.

Best regards,

Andreas

Aitch · Sep 8, 2000

Andreas P. said:
Hi,

Well this question doesn't match especially the Sony forum but i hope
to receive some useful feedback.
I am thinking about to buy an Nikon F-90 and a scanner like (Nikon
LS2000 or Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II ) to scan the dia positves
or the negatives.
So the question is: Which quality can i expect from those scans. Will
they be significantly better
than i.g. the F505V raw images.

Any input would be most appreciated!

Best regards,

Andreas

(Canon D30 is still in my mind too)

I use scanners on a daily basis and for convenience you cannot beat a digital camera.

With the scanner you are going to have to decide whether to use transparency or negative film and not only do you have the cost of the film but also the processing. Some scanners are better at scanning negatives whilst others are better at scanning transparencies. It is a good idea to check out one of the scanning mailing lists before purchasing a scanner.

The majority of UK newspapers tend to use colour negative film rather than transparency film, it is easier to have it processed at a one hour lab in any city and it means you have negatives ready to scan and images to transmit within the hour.

As regards quality images at the present time you cannot beat a good quality 35mm camera and a decent scanner, despite this I tend to prefer the convenience of the digital camera and the quality is good for reasonable sized prints.

I have the best of both worlds a good 35mm SLR system (plus access to scanners) and a Sony digital camera.

Harry

Andreas P. · Sep 8, 2000

Aitch,

Thanks for your input. I interpret this as another opinion who is
recommanding the use of both systems?!

Best regards,

Andreas

Daniel Lauring · Sep 8, 2000

True. I was basing it on producing color prints.

Pondria said:
Daniel Lauring said:

yesterday I took over 300 shots. That would cost at least $100 dollars
to develop if it was film but I gave it nary a thought.

Click to expand...

Just checking, are you sure that it cost $100 just to develop ( NOT
printing ) ? I feel that it should cost less for the Film cost +
Development.

Bob26076 · Sep 8, 2000

I'm currently looking at digicams (F505V?) for the convenience. The 35mm frame is 24 x 36 mm. This produces a file that is 3400 x 2268 pixels at 2400 dpi (sorry for the mixed units) or 1700 x 1134 at 1200 dpi. A 2400 dpi 35mm image will contain approximately 7.7 million pixels. Until digital cameras reach this level of resolution, film will continue to hold the edge.

The convenience and instant results of the digital camera allow the user to confirm that he has gotten the image he was trying for without waiting for film to be processed.

I have posted a scanned image at the following URL (I hope this works):

http://www.zing.com/album/?id=4293650737

It is a JPG compressed image (PS Level 7) from a 20 MB original (2400 dpi). If you enlarge to 100%, you can see the flies buzzing around the bear's ears. I used just Photoshop Autolevel and no other processing on the original.

Bob

Andreas P. said:
Bob said:

I have scanned both slides (positives) and negatives with my HP
Photosmart Scanner. At 1200 dpi and above, I am able to see the grain
in the film. 2400 dpi produces a 20 MB uncompressed image file from a
35mm frame that I process in Photoshop to adjust levels, remove defects,
etc. 1200 dpi is normally fine for most images.

Click to expand...

Bob,

So what do you prefer'?

Best regards,

Andreas

Andreas P. · Sep 8, 2000

Bob,

Thanks a lot for your efforts uploading your scan.
(BTW: Nice shot). The size of the imaging is impressing. Well, you also

can see the JPG artefacts (I think there is a possibility to get rid of them in photoshop).
The best would be an comparison digicam rawimage compared to SLR.

Best regards,

Andreas

Dscmax · Sep 8, 2000

My position is similar to that of Pondria. In the beginning I thought that the better solution should be good SLR camera + film scanner (also useful to digitize my old slides and negatives), then considering that:
1 the quality of current digicams it's not so bad - we all know
2 I'm a computer-dependent

3 I'm not to much interested in having prints but more interested in collecting many images and in storing in a small site (I mean a CDR)
I decided to buy the F505V.

By the way I must admit that an SLR camera is something completely different in respect of a prosumer digicam wich I still define a wonderful toy !

Regards,
DscMax

Dscmax · Sep 8, 2000

As a compromise - taking also into account the price - why don't you (Andreas) buy an Olympus E10 ? It's not expensive as a Nikon D30 and it's very similar to that a true camera and not similar to an high level toy !

Reagrds,
DscMax

kdixey · Sep 8, 2000

I find that the quality of scanner makes a big difference. A cheap desktop
scanner is quite a different beast than a high quality transparency scanner.
Typically, dedicated slide and transparency scanners will have much better
detail and a higher dmax than a flatbed scanner.

Overall, I have to say that I prefer SLR+scanner for best quality but digicams are
very conveneint for certain applications.

kevin

DscMax said:
As a compromise - taking also into account the price - why don't you
(Andreas) buy an Olympus E10 ? It's not expensive as a Nikon D30 and
it's very similar to that a true camera and not similar to an high level
toy !

Reagrds,
DscMax

SLR + Scanner?

Veteran Member

Daniel Lauring

Guest

Pondria

Guest

Well-known member

Member

Viveck Bansal

Guest

Pondria

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Aitch

Guest

Veteran Member

Daniel Lauring

Guest

Member

Veteran Member

Dscmax

Guest

Dscmax

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Keyboard shortcuts