is it worth buying a new slide scanner to replace a Minolta Dimage II?

[Bill Marshall]

Hi

Having been a landscape photographer for about 22 years I have a large
number of slides - mostly FujiChrome 100 or Sensia with some 50 /
Velvia - taken with a Contax 159MM.

Some years ago I bought a Minolta Dimage II for about UKP299 and at
the time was reasonably happy with it although the speed and amount of
post-processing to get rid of dust was always a nuisance. However
since going digital with a Nikon D80 (how I miss my Zeiss lenses) I
look at the slide scans and think too many of them are poor against
the new shots. Even using Vuescan software I find the greens are poor
and there seems to be a graininess that isn't there when they are
projected.

So my question is, has film scanning technology moved on enough to
make a new slide scanner worthwhile? Any thoughts or recommendations?

TIA

Bill Marshall

 

[CSM1]

Hi

Having been a landscape photographer for about 22 years I have a large
number of slides - mostly FujiChrome 100 or Sensia with some 50 /
Velvia - taken with a Contax 159MM.

Some years ago I bought a Minolta Dimage II for about UKP299 and at
the time was reasonably happy with it although the speed and amount of
post-processing to get rid of dust was always a nuisance. However
since going digital with a Nikon D80 (how I miss my Zeiss lenses) I
look at the slide scans and think too many of them are poor against
the new shots. Even using Vuescan software I find the greens are poor
and there seems to be a graininess that isn't there when they are
projected.

So my question is, has film scanning technology moved on enough to
make a new slide scanner worthwhile? Any thoughts or recommendations?

TIA

Bill Marshall

If I were to buy another film scanner today, the only ones I would consider
are the Nikon Coolscans.
http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Film-Scanners/index.page

For top of the line 35 mm slides the best choice is the
Super COOLSCAN 5000 ED

If you have medium format (120 film) the Super Coolscan 9000 ED is the way
to go.

None of these scanners are cheap. The Coolscan 5000 ED is MSRP $1,999.95
USD. You can find it a bit less at the big photography stores. In the USA
B&H Video. I don't know the stores in the UK.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/310477-REG/Nikon_9238_Super_Coolscan_5000_ED.html

 

[David Blanchard]

You can get a coolscan 5000 for about $1,000. You can get a refurbished
LS-2000 for about $300+/-. The 2000 is slower, SCSI and lower
resolution but it's still 10 megapixels (the 5000 is more like 26
megapixels, but one really has to question, with MOST actual 35mm
images, if even 10 megapixels isn't more detail than is really present
in the film). With most images, you won't be able to tell any
difference between the two scanners.

I own both the LS-2000 and the 5000ED. The difference between these
two is significant enough that I have rescanned almost everything that
was originally scanned with the LS-2000.

The differences are especially noticeable with Kodachromes but since
the OP mentioned Fujichromes, this might not be an issue.

(But you did say "With most images..." so we are probably saying the
same thing.)

My experience also suggests that ICE (i.e., dust removal) on the
5000ed is better than that on the LS-2000.

I would recommend the OP purchase the 5000ED instead of the LS-2000.



-db-

 

[Bill Marshall]

Thanks guys, your comments are much appreciated.

Looks like a 5000 ED is around UKP750 which is just about within
budget so I'll look closely at this since it would be a one-time way
of getting a large number of slides archived and usable.

As regards software, is Vuescan still regarded as the best available?
With my old Minolta I've noticed that it seems to give speckles in the
shadow areas compared to the Minolta software, but is better on colour
balance. I solved the speckles by multiple pass scanning but obviously
this slows things down. Reviews I've come across so far seem to think
the Nikon software could be better so do I stick with Vuescan?

Thanks again for your valuable advice and experience on this.

Bill Marshall

 

[CSM1]

Thanks guys, your comments are much appreciated.

Looks like a 5000 ED is around UKP750 which is just about within
budget so I'll look closely at this since it would be a one-time way
of getting a large number of slides archived and usable.

As regards software, is Vuescan still regarded as the best available?
With my old Minolta I've noticed that it seems to give speckles in the
shadow areas compared to the Minolta software, but is better on colour
balance. I solved the speckles by multiple pass scanning but obviously
this slows things down. Reviews I've come across so far seem to think
the Nikon software could be better so do I stick with Vuescan?

Thanks again for your valuable advice and experience on this.

Bill Marshall

My personal opinion, the Nikon software is far better than VueScan will ever
be.

 

[Silicon Sam]

I have to repeat something I said in a previous post:  EVERY LS-2000 is
at least 7 years old, some are 9 or 10 years old.  The only valid
comparison of an LS-5000 to an LS-2000 would require an LS-2000 that had
been recently serviced.  I service them, over 100 per year, and the
optics on most of them have the clarity of waxed paper.  But it's just
dust and grease, and it's easily cleaned .... once you tear the LS-2000
down to nearly the very last screw, clean EVERYTHING (optics and
mechanism), relubricate the mechanism and reassemble it almost from
scratch.  [I do that, by the way, and the cost is $95 + $20 for return
shipping.  I sell both the service and completely refurbished scanners

I own both the LS-2000 and the 5000ED.  The difference between these
two is significant enough that I have rescanned almost everything that
was originally scanned with the LS-2000.

The differences are especially noticeable with Kodachromes but since
the OP mentioned Fujichromes, this might not be an issue.

(But you did say "With most images..." so we are probably saying the
same thing.)

My experience also suggests that ICE (i.e., dust removal) on the
5000ed is better than that on the LS-2000.

I would recommend the OP purchase the 5000ED instead of the LS-2000.

-db-

I have a Coolscan V now, but I recently sold a Coolscan III and
LS-2000 on ebay. I took them apart and cleaned and lubed them up
before I sold them. I was amazed at the amount of crud on the mirror
on both of them. Yikes!

 

[David Blanchard]

Thanks guys, your comments are much appreciated.

Looks like a 5000 ED is around UKP750 which is just about within
budget so I'll look closely at this since it would be a one-time way
of getting a large number of slides archived and usable.

As regards software, is Vuescan still regarded as the best available?
With my old Minolta I've noticed that it seems to give speckles in the
shadow areas compared to the Minolta software, but is better on colour
balance. I solved the speckles by multiple pass scanning but obviously
this slows things down. Reviews I've come across so far seem to think
the Nikon software could be better so do I stick with Vuescan?

Thanks again for your valuable advice and experience on this.

Bill Marshall

I've used both NikonScan and VueScan on both my LS-2000 and
5000ED. Both work well but my current preference is NikonScan. Since
you get NikonScan with the scanner ... and you already have VueScan,
it's simple to use and compare both.

-db-

 

[Phil Ardussi]

Barry,

On the 5000ED using the auto slide feeder, how do you avoid hanging slides
during the process? I like to set mine up with a stack of 50 or so at night,
go to bed, and frequently wake up the next morning with only some slides
scanned and the others hung up in the feeder. Kind of frustrating.

Thanks.

I have to repeat something I said in a previous post: EVERY LS-2000 is at
least 7 years old, some are 9 or 10 years old. The only valid comparison
of an LS-5000 to an LS-2000 would require an LS-2000 that had been recently
serviced. I service them, over 100 per year, and the optics on most of
them have the clarity of waxed paper. But it's just dust and grease, and
it's easily cleaned .... once you tear the LS-2000 down to nearly the very
last screw, clean EVERYTHING (optics and mechanism), relubricate the
mechanism and reassemble it almost from scratch. [I do that, by the way,
and the cost is $95 + $20 for return shipping. I sell both the service and
completely refurbished scanners on E-Bay.]

I own both the LS-2000 and the 5000ED. The difference between these
two is significant enough that I have rescanned almost everything that
was originally scanned with the LS-2000.

The differences are especially noticeable with Kodachromes but since
the OP mentioned Fujichromes, this might not be an issue.

(But you did say "With most images..." so we are probably saying the
same thing.)

My experience also suggests that ICE (i.e., dust removal) on the
5000ed is better than that on the LS-2000.

I would recommend the OP purchase the 5000ED instead of the LS-2000.



-db-

 

[Phil Ardussi]

Thanks, Barry. I have the SF-210.

There are 3 variants of the Nikon auto slide feeder for the Nikon film
scanners:

-SF-200 (made for the LS-2000)
-SF-200(s) (made for the LS-4000)
-SF-210 (made for the LS-5000)

All 3 feeders work with all 3 scanners.

The SF-200 (beige) and 200(s) (light gray/silver) are identical except for
the color of the plastic.

The SF-210 has a mechanically adjustable "gate width" and this does
significantly reduce the jam rate: The SF-210 is a more reliable unit
than the SF-200 or 200(s).

If you do a web search, you will find a lot of "hacks" that accomplish the
same thing on an SF-200 that the adjustable gate did in the SF-210. They
are real kludges, they are not pretty, but they do work (generally they
involve using an old credit card or piece of sheet metal to custom adjust
the gate width to match the thickness of the slides being scanned). You
will also find some other "hacks" (the "battery" trick) that even further
improve the SF-210 (as well as the SF-200). There are plenty of web sites
out there with photos and instructions.

It's actually possible to convert an SF-200 to an SF-210 by replacing all
the parts that are different (or not present) with SF-210 parts.
Unfortunately, while it's possible, it's expensive (almost $100) and you
get a somewhat strange looking "two-tone" unit because the SF-200 and the
SF-210 are molded from different colors of plastic.

 

[David Blanchard]

That's why when people tell me that "my xxxxx scanner outperformed an
LS-2000" ..... I know that while the statement may be true, it wasn't
because "your scanner" is actually better than an LS-2000, but, rather,
it was because of the condition and age of the LS-2000 that you are
doing the comparison to.

The quality of a good scan from a clean and properly working LS-2000 is
STUNNING.

I agree that a clean scanner is important and I regularly cleaned my
LS-2000 (but probably not to the degree of service that you provide).
And, yes, an older scanner might not perform up to original
specs. These are all valid points.

Nonetheless, the 5000 has 14 bits A/D while the 2000 has 12 bits A/D
conversion. This suggests that the 5000 might be better at extracting
information from the shadows than the 2000 -- and that has been my
experience -- especially with Kodachromes. This probably is not as
important with other film types. But since most of my archive is
Kodachrome, this makes a difference. The OP, on the other hand,
indicated he was going to scan Fujichromes.

Also, the 5000 uses a newer version of ICE.

Ultimately, the OP needs to consider whether to buy an older model or
a newer model. The 2000 is SCSI while the 5000 is USB2 and this might
be the main criterion for a decision.

-db-