Film Scanner vs. DSLR

[case87]

I posted a little something on this in the photo thread.. but that probably wasn't the best place to ask questions. Anyway, here's what's up: I've got a Nikon N70 that I like a lot. Problem is, I don't have easy access to a darkroom and would way rather go digital, for both editing and storage purposes. So I've been thinking about film scanners. The new Epson V200 looks pretty good and is only $99. However, I really know nothing about film scanners and kinda doubt the quality of anything that's less than $100.

My other option is saving up for a DSLR (would most likely go Nikon D40). If I did this, I'd have to wait a while, as I'm in school, don't have much income, and parents can't help. I could put together about 3 bills in the next few weeks from money I have now and shit, and then would have to save for a little while after that. The good thing about this is it would save time (no film scanning) and would mean I don't have to spend anything on film and developing (which would come out to around $7/36 shots I figure).

In summary, anyone have experienec with cheap film scanners like the one I mentioned? No reason to buy an expensive one, as then I'd just save up for a DSLR. So, get a pretty cheap film scanner and spend on film/processing, or save up for a DSLR? Note: If I get a DSLR, like I said, it would probably have to be D40 as they're pretty much the cheapest.)

[arem]

Cheap scanners definitely are not going to give you the same kind of resolution or image quality that a DSLR will give you. You will find that your colors aren't saturated enough, your blacks never really look black, and things won't look as sharp as they should either.

The other big disadvantage with scanners (no matter how expensive they are) is that any dust, fingerprints, or scratches on the item you are scanning will require fixing in Photoshop, and that process can take many painstaking hours per image. Avoid if at all possible,

[RAISED BY WOLVES]

It sounds like you don't care about the intrinsic qualities of film. In that case, I would say forget the scanner and save until you can get a cannon 20D. It's a decent DSLR, and it's used price will run you less than a G.

This reminds me that I want a scanner.

[wEstSidE]

what are the intrinsic qualities of film?

i use film!

[case87]

I mean I understand film has a number of qualities digital simply can't reproduce. However, for my purposes, I'd say you're pretty much right, the intrisic qualities of film don't really benefit me that much. Like I said, no access to a darkroom, and I'm not gonna need to enlarge any more than 8x10 or so.

[RAISED BY WOLVES]

what are the intrinsic qualities of film?

i use film!

YOU KNOW LIKE HOW FAKE SUPLEEME BOX SHRT?

SMTHING JUS DONT FEEEEERL RITE.

SAME 4 FLIM OVR DIGIRTAL

[aaronS]

u should find out if your school has a scanner and you'll be able to still shoot film while saving up for digital. And you should be able to get film processed for under 3 dollars a roll.

[case87]

shit... good idea. i don't know why i didn't think of that. and really? good places process for less than $3? All the places I've been to are like 4 almost. But anyway, thanks for the advice, it's looking more and more like I'll save up for a dSLR the more I read about it. I'm encouraged by the fact that,even though the D40 is the around cheapest I've seen, it still gets really good reviews almost everywhere I look.

[eplsoccer7]

www.kenrockwell.com Check out his reviews on the D40. I own a D50 and love it, you have to watch out for the D40 tho because not all nikon AF lenses work with that new model. You can get a D50 kit for about the same price off ebay and its a lil beafier in your hands(which I prefer) but the LCD isnt as big and theres a few small features that it lacks compared to the D40. But when it comes down to it, its all about the glass you buy not the body...

[min2max]

I just got the D40 and it's pretty good: compact, light, crisp big LCD, ultra fast controls / processor, intuitive interface. But it's obviously got it's cons, mainly the 3 point autofocus, i think canon has 9, anyways the AF is pretty slow (even compared to my 12 year old Nikon SLR). The Automatic modes also suck, you gotta go manual, but that might be the same on any cam!

The biggest drawback is the kit lens. i mean you get what you pay for. For some usage it might be ok, but if like me you do a lot of interior shots or dimlit / night shots, forget about using it without flash. Even at high iso the images are shaky. I compared night shots taken together with a pro buddy that uses a high end canon, and the results left me dazzled..

my point is like said above, it's all about the glass. the d40 is cool, i love handling it and it looks cool, but if i were you i'd try and just pickup the body with a better lens than stock.

oh and about lens compability on the d40, all nikon lenses will fit on the d40, but you will lose autofocus with older pre-DSLR ones..

[case87]

cool, thanks for the advice guys.

at this point my mind is pretty much made up that i'm gonna save for the D40. i was at target recently and they had one on display, and i really liked the way it felt and such. really light which i liked. didn't really like that it doesn't use a ring for aperture adjustments, but that's reallly not that big of any issue. autofocus seemed quick to me, maybe the one on my N70 just sucks for some reason? i don't mind manual focus either, so the lens thing isn't much of an issue for me. from what i can tell, the D40 will be just find for my purposes, ie i'm in college still so i don't need a pro model, and i'm not gonna need to print any bigger than 8x10 so the megapixel count is fine... anyway, thanks again for everyone's help. once i get some money stacked i may post about lens options...

[fadingblue]

I mean I understand film has a number of qualities digital simply can't reproduce. However, for my purposes, I'd say you're pretty much right, the intrisic qualities of film don't really benefit me that much. Like I said, no access to a darkroom, and I'm not gonna need to enlarge any more than 8x10 or so.

if youre still in school, doesnt your school have a darkroom/photo development place?

[case87]

if youre still in school, doesnt your school have a darkroom/photo development place?

yeah... it does. saying i don't have access to one isn't entirely correct (although i'm at home right now, which is a different city than school). i should have said i don't have easy access to one... cost is extra since its in the visual arts building, not that close to where i live, supplies are extra, and according to one of my good friends whos an expert at this stuff, its not that great. all that combined with the time factor (usually have a shitload of work when i'm in school, and i have a job), has pretty much just lead me to believe that's not my best option. i know some people feel there's no replacement for actually developing your own shit, which is true, just seems not to be the best option for my purposes.

[thomas_highstreet]

in reality, digital is the new consumer medium.

where before, 35mm served media and low end consumer as a cheap, fast and accessable medium, it has now been overtaken by digital.

however, if you looking at medium and/or large format film sizes, they stil offer higher quality and enlargements than digital (at this time), but, its expensive, and if you want to digitise, medium format scanners are v. expensive too.

i see very little point in using 35mm now, as you have little to no gain on a good digital slr.