A slide scanner or a copier

I am a complete newbie for digital photography. My problem is that I need
to convert some 600 transparencies into digital images. These are all
photomicrographs of human blood cells & tissues. I took them using high
resolution transparencies, Kodachrome 25, Agfachrome 50L & some older ones
with 16 ASA Kodak photomicrography film (is my age showing :-)). I use the
slides for teaching and presentation in meetings & conferences. The
digital images will be projected at high maginification, on 6 - 12 feet
(2-4 m) wide screens. So, I need to get their resolution as high as
possible.

I have got two different advices. One is that I should get a good slide
scanner with DPI 3600 and scan them all. I looked in the available ones &
it appears that PF3650Pro3 (marketed in UK by Jessops under their own
badge) is reasonably priced & has that degree of resolution. The other
advise is that I should use a good digital SLR with a slide copier to
convert the slides into digital images. Incidentally, my son has just
bought me a Canon 300D for the Christmas (according to him - to drag me
into the third millenium). I think I can fit my old slide copier to it
with a suitable T2 mount.

My questions are

(1) Which option would produce higher quality images ? Quality is the most
important point here as I have to use those images, with Powerpoint or a
similar program, for lectures, etc.

(2) Copying slides on a camera with a slide copier is a rather cumbersome
technique & I guess, would be quite time consuming. Jessops shop assistant
told me that their slide scanner can scan a slide in less than a minute.
If it proves reasonably painless, I shall probably convert some/all of my
other transparencies into digital images as well. So would a scanner be
the better choice for 600 slides ?

(3) For the copier option I shall have to get only a T2 mount worth £10.
For the scaner option it would be £280. Is the outlay worth for the
purpose ?

Thanks for the advice.

--

Gautam Majumdar

Please send e-mails to

For better quality ... get a slide / film scanner.

"RSD99" wrote in message
news:Cp_zd.18182$_62.18125@trnddc01...
For better quality ... get a slide / film scanner.


Yes...but he is in for a surprise...the salesman is not being truthful, I
suspect. Depending on the resolution it might take quite a bit longer to
scan the slides. With 600 of them to do it might take quite a while. In any
event he wants more resolution than the camera will give so why consider it?

Gene Palmiter wrote:

"RSD99" wrote in message
news:Cp_zd.18182$_62.18125@trnddc01...

For better quality ... get a slide / film scanner.



Yes...but he is in for a surprise...the salesman is not being truthful, I
suspect. Depending on the resolution it might take quite a bit longer to
scan the slides. With 600 of them to do it might take quite a while. In any
event he wants more resolution than the camera will give so why consider it?


Here's a $65 adapter for ($2,000) DSLRs:
http://www.panwebi.com/default.asp?sp=1177172
It's basically a cheap macro adapter. I wonder how bad that is for a
decent DSLR? It sure would be quicker & convenient to have matching file
sizes. My old slides aren't that great that I need 100MB tiffs of each
one. I remember reading the adapeters for a smaller digicam were really
bad losing a lot of range in the pictures. For the original poster, his
digital projector is only going to be 1024x768 unless he has a $10,000
projector budget.

Gene Palmiter wrote:

"RSD99" wrote in message
news:Cp_zd.18182$_62.18125@trnddc01...

For better quality ... get a slide / film scanner.



Yes...but he is in for a surprise...the salesman is not being truthful, I
suspect. Depending on the resolution it might take quite a bit longer to
scan the slides. With 600 of them to do it might take quite a while. In any
event he wants more resolution than the camera will give so why consider it?


Here's a $65 adapter for ($2,000) DSLRs:
http://www.panwebi.com/default.asp?sp=1177172
It's basically a cheap macro adapter. I wonder how bad that is for a
decent DSLR? It sure would be quicker & convenient to have matching file
sizes. My old slides aren't that great that I need 100MB tiffs of each
one. I remember reading the adapeters for a smaller digicam were really
bad losing a lot of range in the pictures. For the original poster, his
digital projector is only going to be 1024x768 unless he has a $10,000
projector budget.

digital projector is only going to be 1024x768 unless he has a $10,000
projector budget.

A piece of information I had long forgotten. So...that changes everything.
Save money and time and use the camera...it will still be too large for the
projector.

"paul" wrote in message
...
Gene Palmiter wrote:

"RSD99" wrote in message
news:Cp_zd.18182$_62.18125@trnddc01...

For better quality ... get a slide / film scanner.



Yes...but he is in for a surprise...the salesman is not being truthful,
I
suspect. Depending on the resolution it might take quite a bit longer to
scan the slides. With 600 of them to do it might take quite a while. In
any
event he wants more resolution than the camera will give so why consider
it?


Here's a $65 adapter for ($2,000) DSLRs:
http://www.panwebi.com/default.asp?sp=1177172
It's basically a cheap macro adapter. I wonder how bad that is for a
decent DSLR? It sure would be quicker & convenient to have matching file
sizes. My old slides aren't that great that I need 100MB tiffs of each
one. I remember reading the adapeters for a smaller digicam were really
bad losing a lot of range in the pictures. For the original poster, his
digital projector is only going to be 1024x768 unless he has a $10,000
projector budget.

While that may be true, it is ONLY a limitation if/when he is viewing the
image full-size. If he has a higher res image, he can, and most likely
WOULD simply zoom in on the image--which would allow him to see real detail
even on the projector as he looks at PORTIONS of each image more closely.

I do this all the time when viewing images on my own 1024x768 projector.
You can pan or zoom to portions ofthe image that you want to inspect. It is
very effective for this.

So... Larger file sizes are indeed useful...even on a limited res
projector.
-Mark

(3) For the copier option I shall have to get only a T2 mount worth £10.

Gautam-

Depending on the optics of your slide copier, it might produce comparable
results to the slide scanner. As others have suggested, it may be a lot
faster.

I highly recommend that you get the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens for your 300D. It is
inexpensive and is quite a good lens. However, if you use it with your slide
copier, the 50mm may not capture the whole slide. Because of the 1.6 crop
factor of the 300D, 50mm covers the field of an 80mm lens on a 35mm body.

Fred

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:35:39 +0000, Mark² wrote:

"paul" wrote in message
...
Gene Palmiter wrote:

"RSD99" wrote in message
news:Cp_zd.18182$_62.18125@trnddc01...

For better quality ... get a slide / film scanner.

Yes...but he is in for a surprise...the salesman is not being
truthful,I
suspect. Depending on the resolution it might take quite a bit longer
to scan the slides. With 600 of them to do it might take quite a
while. In any
event he wants more resolution than the camera will give so why
consider it?

For the original poster, his
digital projector is only going to be 1024x768 unless he has a $10,000
projector budget.

While that may be true, it is ONLY a limitation if/when he is viewing
the image full-size. If he has a higher res image, he can, and most
likely WOULD simply zoom in on the image--which would allow him to see
real detail even on the projector as he looks at PORTIONS of each image
more closely.

I do this all the time when viewing images on my own 1024x768 projector.
You can pan or zoom to portions ofthe image that you want to inspect. It
is very effective for this.

So... Larger file sizes are indeed useful...even on a limited res
projector.

Well, I shall have no control what so ever over the quality of the
projector and I am sure it will vary widely. I shall use whatever
equipment is provided by the organiser of the lecture, conference,
meeting, etc. But some of them do have the highest quality professional
equipment though. So, I would like to have the quality of my images as
good as possible within the financial constraints.

--

Gautam Majumdar

Please send e-mails to

Fred McKenzie wrote:

I highly recommend that you get the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens for your 300D. It is
inexpensive and is quite a good lens. However, if you use it with your slide
copier, the 50mm may not capture the whole slide. Because of the 1.6 crop
factor of the 300D, 50mm covers the field of an 80mm lens on a 35mm body.

If he wants to use a 50mm lens for copying the slides, he'll need an
extension ring for making the lens able to focus very closely (the 12mm
isn't adequate, I think - he'll have to go for a 25mm ring at least).

A slide copier has to drawback (due to the 1.6x magnification ratio)
that a big part of the original slide will be cropped out.

Best regards from Athens,
Nick Fotis