posted on September 25, 2002 09:03:48 AM new
Well, this morning its confirmed - my scanner has died after 4 years of faithful service. I scan mostly paper items and was wondering if a digital camera would reproduce paper images as well as a scanner, if so which one would you recommend. Any suggestions would be appreciated, thanks for your time.
posted on September 25, 2002 09:14:37 AM new
I sell postcards and movie posters. I use a Sony Mavica because I love the ease of using a Floppy disk.
But, a new scanner costs less than $100 for a very good one and my Mavica cost over $300 for a cheaper model.
You can get an even cheaper camera, but my RCA digital is still laying in its box after trying one time to download the pictures to my computer, save them and then attach them. I paid $99 for the RCA and the same week gave up on it and went out and bought the Mavica. (I kept the RCA for a backup but have never used it so am sorry I did). The floppy is so much easier.
I stopped using a scanner because I can work so much faster with the digital.
[ edited by lindajean on Sep 25, 2002 09:18 AM ]
posted on September 25, 2002 09:30:56 AM new
If you had said "I ONLY do paper;" I would say go with the scanner. But if you are going to do other 3D types of objects, then go with a GOOD digital. Don't get a cheap camera, (Re: lindjean) you will be sorry. I have an Olympus D-450 Zoom & can do anything with it. I just sold "first day covers" & the pics were sharp & easy to read. Another advantage of the camerea is, you can take it anywhere. Try that with a scanner. LOL
posted on September 25, 2002 09:44:00 AM new
A new scanner can go as little as $30 these days. A new 2.3 megapixel digital camera can go as low $150 , buy one of each.
posted on September 25, 2002 09:54:00 AM new
I've noticed that with flat items a scanner works best. With a digital camera, if you use a flash, it can create a light spot on the object. If a flash is not used, the lighting has to be good or it comes out dark.
posted on September 25, 2002 10:32:09 AM new
I would go with the digital camera first. I have a Sony Mavica also. I began with a scanner & there was so much I couldn't do. By the time I paid for pictures I had developed, & wasted the time waiting for them and had to retake some of them I would have been better off just biting the bullet & getting the camera. What a waste of time. I had spent more money than I realized that I could have put toward the camera. I definitely made more $$ on my auctions once I got the camera too. That being said I would still get a scanner. It is just better for some occasions. I got a great one for my son's speech therapist. It was a $100 Visioneer scanner that I got for $15 through Staples online by paying attention to rebates. Wait til you find a deal for the scanner - they'll be tons of deals near Xmas.
posted on September 27, 2002 10:34:42 PM new
If I were you I would get the scanner. I use an HP 6200c for anything that will fit on it. I probably take over 90% of the pictures I use on ebay with it and I hardly ever have anything flat. If the cover won't close I just throw something white over it.
Don't get one of those cheap rebate deal scanners. I tried that first and it was worthless. You can get a used HP 6200C on ebay for less than $50 sometimes. I am sure that there are a lot of better ones too, I just don't know which ones.
