Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/01/29

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] Moderately OT: Scanner or Digital Camera?
From: "leirex@access4less.net" <leirex@access4less.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:12:46 -0500

Martin,

  I have been in the same dilemma for more than a year now, still cudgeling
my brains what is the best option.  I am glad to learn that I am not alone.
  This is what I am going to do.  I will get one decent scanner and a
decent digital camera.  Reason is 1)I eventually need a decent scanner
anyway as I have a slew of negatives and positives all over my home that I
would think of archiving electronically.  2)I also eventually need a decent
digital camera as it takes a little too long to post pictures on line using
film shots.  It also costs a little too much too, I guess. 
  Here is what I am thinking of getting.

Scanner: Epson 2450 
   Flatbed scanner technology has been bettered a lot and this scanner is
reviewed and rated top-notch even to satisfy some professionals.  I can
also scan some documents if needed, which is an advantage to film scanner.  

Digital Camera: At least 4 Mega-pixel p&s with 4x or longer.  Memory media
is important here as I am also worried a little about being made obsolete
too soon.   My choice was narrowed down to at least CompactFlash or
MicroDrive (CompactFlash II) which is even better.  This CompactFlash
excluded everything other than the Canon, Nikon and Minolta.  My choice is
either Minolta S404 or Canon S40 (or G2, G3 etc.)  The Canon generally
costs about $200 more than the comparable Minolta for no specific reason. 
This boils down to the Minolta S404.  One other thing that I like about the
S404 is it uses you-can-find-anywhere AA batteries.  Of course, NiMH
rechargeable batteries are recommended.  I totally excluded the Prosumer
grade digital cameras.  They are way too overpriced and strictly for
professionals and destined to be obsolete soon after any p&s digital
cameras.  Anyway, I would not print any images shot by a digital camera.

Let me know your decision.

Regards,
David Lee

Original Message:
- -----------------
From: Martin Howard mvhoward@mac.com
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:14:13 -0800
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Leica] Moderately OT: Scanner or Digital Camera?



The Internet is a great way to keep in touch with people.  Posting 
photographs on the Internet doubly so.  However, at the moment, I find 
myself with lots of friends, but no way of getting photographs onto the 
Internet.  If money were no issue, then it wouldn't be a problem, but 
one of the things that makes life so fun and challenging is that money 
is always an issue... ;)

Right now, I have no digital camera, nor any scanner.  I'm trying to 
decide what I should do about this, and I'd like to hear how you have 
addressed the same issues.  At the moment, my options appear to be 
these:

A) Get a "cheap" digital camera.  Since I'll pretty much only be using 
it for web stuff, I could get away with buying something like a 
point-and-shoot.  The high-end ones, like the PowerShot G3, seems like 
an interesting alternative that has the advantage that you could do 
more serious things with it too.  Major disadvantage is that it's going 
to be obsolete pretty damn quickly (18 months? 24 months?)

B) Get a "prosumer" digital camea.  This means something like a Nikon 
D-100 or Canon D-60.  Interchangable lens SLR that would also work with 
35mm film bodies.  Advantages include better quality, more versitile 
equipment, and will become obsolete less quickly (since I can use 
lenses on several bodies).  Lots of fun with new toys.  Major 
disadvantage is, of course, cost.  Figure on $2,000 for the body, plus 
lenses.

C) Get a film scanner.  I pretty much am never going to make digital 
prints -- I use my Leica's and Bessa's for that.  I prefer shooting 
with them (small, useful, lots of lenses, accessories, etc).  So, I was 
thinking that maybe I should just shoot film and get a reasonably 
decent scanner instead.  All the advantages of doing my own 
development, along with not having to buy a new camera outfit.  But 
what about cost?  I'd not want to spend much more than about $800 on a 
scanner (since it'd have the same lifetime disadvantages as a 
point-and-shoot digital).  Can you get decent quality for that?

Any thoughts?  What did *you* do?  A, B, or C?

(And for our Swedish audience, the answer: "På A svarar vi nej, på B 
svarar vi D-100, och på C vet vi inte" is not considered an acceptable 
answer... ;)

M.

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html