Scanner vs DSLR? Difference in quality?

[leon8]

If this issue has been thoroughly explored elsewhere, please feel

free to direct me to the thread - I couldn't find much. Otherwise, I

am seeking some advice.

 

Generally, what produces better results? A top notch scanner with top

notch slide film? (Say a Nikon CoolScan with Velvia?) or a top notch

DSLR (say, a D100).

 

The reason I'm asking is that I'm currently thinking about making the

jump to digital, but with the type of shooting that I do, I'm afraid

I'll destroy a fragile DSLR. I like to shoot while on hikes in

winter, and I never hesitate to use my Nikon FM2n in the worst of

conditions. However, I'm rather unhappy with my scans from my slide.

(I use a canon 2720). My instinct is to buy a better scanner - that

way I don't have to be paranoid in the field because I'll leave the

delicate digital stuff safely at home, but if the process of

transfering media to slide then to digital via a scanner is

inherently inferior that the process of imaging directly to digital

via DSLR, then I'd consider just buying a DSLR and learning to be

careful with the equipment. I really envy how DSLR shooters can just

shoot away and pop is straight onto the net, whereas I have to fiddle

with photoshop all day to get a somewhat decent digital image. On the

other hand, I can bring my FM2n places that I wouldn't dream of

taking a DSLR.

[eric_.]

Noel,

 

A scanner having a resolution of 1800 dpi equals a 4.5 Mp CCD in a digital camera. A better scanner like the Nikon Coolscan IV ED has a resolution of 2900 dpi, and even 4000 dpi extrapolated, plus 16 bits/color conversion instead of 12 bits/color conversion in a digital camera. This means that a good scanner beats every available digital camera in terms of resolution.

 

Eric

[carl smith]

If you want to compare a Nikon or Canon 4000 scanner to a 6 megapixel camera of high quality like a D100 or similar models, you'll have to realize some things about scanning and how the results acutally compare visually. Also, in some ways color negative materials scan better than transparency materials.

 

A 24megapixel scan doesn't necessarily provide a better image for working with than a D100 or D60. ONe major reason being that the digital cameras are producing first generation data and its being transferred directly to the computer. When you scan you introduce a whole new optical system with its own set of problems. Sure, the Canon 4000 is one of the sharpest scanners, but the detail out of it doesn't always give it the edge over some of the technically lower resolution cameras.

 

Another thing to consider is how much information does most film contain? Probably not 24 megapixels worth in 35mm.

[majid]

The D100 is not a top-of-the-line DSLR, it's an entry-level (a pretty good one at that, DSLR don't have a junky N55-type segment yet). In the Nikon lineup, that role belongs to the D1X, which is quite robust, although probably not quite as much as a F5 or FM2n/3a.

 

There is no consensus on film scanner vs. DSLR. DSLRs have very smooth, grainless images that can look better than higher-resolution but grainier scans. A good film like Provia can exceed the resolution of a Coolscan IVED, maybe even a Coolscan 4000, and thus have much higher resolutions than even a Canon EOS 1Ds or Kodak DCS 14n, but resolution alone is not the entire story.

 

A Coolscan IVED exceeds the resolution of most ISO 400 negative films, however, let alone a 4000, so if you want to use a scanner, for best results you will have to be very careful about your film selection and where you develop it.

[warrenlewis]

Noel, I shoot film and have A&I process it. For an additional $13, the negatives are scanned and each image is 4.5Meg. Probably not the most cost effective way, however for time vs quality vs capital expenditure, it works very well for me. I get a set of prints, negatives (which A&I uses for my exhibit quality enlagements) and CD's to email images, store them and use some for high quality brochures and other advertising mediums for our business. Just another option for you to consider.....Warren

[scott_eaton]

<I>My instinct is to buy a better scanner</i><P>Maybe your instincts are right? If the camera 'ain't broken', you like using it, and you're still getting great pictures, why replace it? Try fixing the problem.<p>I'm hardly going to persuade you to NOT go fully digital because it IS a much easier reproduction path, but I think your should try getting some of your images scanned via different sources first as a reference. There are great desktop scanners out there. The problem is finding one.<P>I also want to apologize for Eric's remarks, which are the typical hyperbole based on the absurd assumption that film is a medium with infinite resolution and grain/dye clumps the size of neutrinos. I spent the last hour cleaning up annoying grain in a 6x7 Provia 100F 2000dpi drum scan, so lets please grow up.

[ilkka_nissila]

A better scanner might be the ticket; I've had very good results with mine (although it's a mere LS-4000). If the slide is dirty then it's a pain but what is there to be done about it? (I do use ICE if I think the situation cannot be mended by hand). I certainly haven't had to fiddle hours in Photoshop to get any image printed up to A4 (larger sizes may produce more problems as smaller grains and dust become visible).

 

I've myself wondered if I should spend the money on a DSLR but the 6 MP models have been a constant disappointment to me when I've looked at the results reproduced in print. Flat, soft, dull, something that you'd never believe by listening to Scott. If the result is completely uninteresting (colours and tonality), what good is it if it's grain-free or was easy to transfer to the computer?

 

Another consideration is the cold. At least the "entry-level" DSLRs and also by the way the Canon 1Ds are rated for use in >= 0 C temperatures. It would be really interesting to know if battery power is the reason or if there is some part of the DSLRs that simply won't work in the cold. - We've had weeks of <-20 C and my film cameras with NiMH & lithium batteries run like no end was in sight.

[gary_ferguson1]

Noel, one of the most authoritative and widely quoted sources on just this issue is Norman Koren, you can read what he has to say at www.normankoren.com.

 

His chief conclusions are that measured in MTF terms the very latest generation of 11-14 mega pixel 35mm DSLRs are matching or slightly exceeding the images obtainable from a first rate and sharpened 4000 dpi scan of Provia.

 

However, putting MTF aside and considering the final "look" of the image I'd argue that ultimately digital and scanned film are just different, and there comes a point where comparisons collapse. To evaluate water-colour paint against oil using the citerion of which can deliver the finest detail is to miss their essential characters. Ask yourself first if you prefer a digital look or a traditional film based look.

[henk]

Noel,

 

What do you expect to gain from it? If you have an answer to that question go ask a DSLR user who likes hiking in winter(if you can find one :-/).

 

I doubted i would turn to digital, so i bought a filmscanner, just a simple one which is enough for web display. I still prefer wet prints over digital prints so i wont switch to that yet. In the rare case i really need a good scan i let the lab make a master scan with a drum scanner. This way i can use all the different possibilities. Mayor point is that scanned film does look different compared to a DLSR shot. Personally i prever the film scans because they look less artificial. Weak point in film scanners has always been the scanner lens IMO (hope they will improve those).

 

Greetings,

[carl smith]

It's definately a big decision to make. You make a big jump buying a digital camera, but a film scanner offers a way to digitize what you have and continue to make with a camera you hopefully already know and love.

<br><br>

If you don't need the greatest of speed and are willing to work the scanner to get the best possible quality then I'd recommend the Canon FS4000US for scanning 35mm. It has the best lens out there of any affordable desktop 35 film scanner. I've written a review, and I don't know if I posted anything about it or not in this thread but this is the <a href="http://www.rit.edu/~cgs2794/comparison.htm">link</a>.

<br><br>

You'll have to make a compromise between the different scanners obviously. But your biggest decision is whether to get a DSLR or a scanner. I went with the scanner over the summer and am glad I did. Going to a DSLR for the majority of your work can be quite limiting unless it does everything you need.

[larry n.]

It's a tough call. If your ultimate goal is to display your images on a screen, you can't beat the convenience of a DSLR. On the other hand, I understand your concern about taking a D100 into the field. That's why I kept my F100, and I'm still waiting for an affordable scanner that can match a digital camera.

 

The problem with scanners, even the most expensive conventional scanners such as the Coolscan 8000, is that they lack dynamic range. You need dynamic range to scan slides. Drum scanners have decent dynamic range, but they cost more than a car and only highly-trained people can use them. Then you have "virtual drum" scanners that cost around $15,000 and are almost acceptable. When one of these puppies drops down to $1,000, that might get my attention,

 

Good luck, and let us know what you decide.

[ilkka_nissila]

I'm using LS-4000 and have no problems with the dynamic range of the scanner. The shadows come out beautifully. I use mostly E100SW and Agfa RSX 50, which are fairly low contrast films (at least compared to Velvia). The shadows don't always look exactly the same as when projected, but what's the point if the output is printed media, which can never reproduce the dynamic range of the slide anyway? Only by reducing contrast which results in a lifeless reproduction. Of course, I take care to use light which has adequate qualities for picture-taking (ie. low-contrast light for slide film, for high-contrast light I would consider C-41). Of course, Velvia will give just about every scanner without dedicated profile trouble, but I have fortunately had enough sense to avoid it.

 

BTW. drum scanners are the conventional technology, and CCD scanners are the newcomer. And the LS-8000 is an entry-level medium format scanner (which is noisier than the LS-4000 according to ColorFoto tests), so it's not really something to make a big deal about.

[george_vincent]

1) Can the D100 handle the rigors you need to put it through on your wintery hikes? I can't answer that one. But there are definitely issues with digital in extreme conditions, let alone the specifics of the D100 body.

 

2) Scanning vs. DSLR. I shoot film with an N90s or F100 and digital with the D100. I scan with the Coolscan 4000. This is my opinion: I hate scanning. I've been doing since the 4000 came out and I find it frustrating in that the scan never looks like the slide, period. Not only do I spend countless hours scanning the slides, but then hours in PS trying to make the scan look like the damn slide. It's never the same. I've also not been fond of the scanner itself. The autofocus doesn't always work correctly. It's very moody. Now, the scanner can create these massive 120mg TIFF files if you are crazy enough to scan at 14 bit. Add the 16x pass to get better detail and the whole process becomes a lifetime of work.

 

Images from the D100 are what they are and are quickly brought into PS for editing. 1) Nothing looks as good as the slides 2) The D100 images look better than the scans 3) scans reworked never beat 1) and 2)

 

The only advantage I've had with the big scans is printing big, beyond 11x14, which I don't do that often.

 

I use film for when the D100 just doesn't cut it (e.g. continuous shooting, long exposures/low light, super wide). Otherwise I prefer the D100.

 

Just my opinion. You need to get the answer question #1 first, though.

[suchismit1]

Grainy skies are the only thing I dislike about scanning film. However

if you can avoid sharpening the blue channel, and perhaps even blur

it just a tad, you will get outstanding results from even the lowly

coolscan IV. Of course thats assuming you use a sturdy tripod, whose

usefulness a great many amateurs underestimate.<br>

 

I really don't see the point in spending mega bucks on a DSLR that

offers lower resolution and can't hold its value. If you want

quality enlargements, shoot film and scan. If you regularly put a

lot of images on the web, just get a quality digital p&s.But if you are fanatical about image quality, then spend $300 on an affordable 4x5, and another $300 on a quality flatbed. When you see the prints you will fall off your chair. <br>

 

-Tim