Scanner $99 for a nice Epson V200 (or whatever number it is now) Photo Scanner.

DSLR Camera $550 and up (with kit lens $750 and up), good 100mm f/2.8 (internal focusing so the lens to object distance stays the same) macro lens $599, stand $100+, Stand with lighting $250 and up, it takes up space, is complicated, and takes much longer. After you take a photo, you have to process it, by opening the image with software and editing. (however there are ways to shoot directly to a computer with live-view, which could make it easier.) If so, add, you need a computer connected to the camera... Easily $1300 and up!

Being that I am a photographer and have everything except a copy stand, however at least a dozen tripods or camera holding devices. I use the scanner 99% of the time.

Yes, it's true, in some situations and for some materials, the camera will be much better. Hologram logos, fine lines, maybe some colors, art prints, objects that are not flat... and you won't be taking a scanner on vacation to use for family photos.

But for cost and easy, fast results, I'm still convinced that a scanner is functionally better.

Someone with a pocket camera, (most do close-up and some version of macro now) a light tent and a couple of slave flashes (or spiral tube lights?) could shoot irregular shaped objects for about the same cost as a scanner. The main complication with cameras is learning how to get the lighting right.

Then the fun begins with creative editing and lighting.