Newbie with scanner lust...what to buy??

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan
  • Start date Start date
I

Ivan

After reading endless reviews both here and abroad, I've yet to decide which
dedicated film scanner to buy. I have some MF negatives, but mostly 35mm,
so for now there is no need for a multi format scanner. I have no immediate
commercial need for scanning negatives, but I'm anxious to get familiar with
working in digital and with PhotoShop. I love being creative and artistic
with photography.

I'm looking around the $750. US figure. I don't have the time or patience
for equipment and/or software problems. So I'm looking for proven
workhorses that are compatible with reliable software, such as vuescan etc.
I'm staying away from Minolta because of the constant questionable reports
I've heard about them.
I'm not even going to consider buying used. I assume that a good percentage
of the used scanners are for sale because they have not performed well, or
are worn.

Also, can I assume that scanners are shipped with instruction manuals that
are beneficial to the first time users? I don't expect to be making perfect
scans immediately, but I do expect to improve my skills quickly. Judging by
the amount of discussion in this NG, I get the impression that the
manufacturers expect users to solve their own problems.

Any suggestions of makes/models? I know this has been asked a million times
before. But this time I'm not asking "which is the best"....I'm asking
which ones are the least quirky and least likely to give me trouble.

Thanks, Ivan
 
After reading endless reviews both here and abroad, I've yet to decide which
dedicated film scanner to buy. I have some MF negatives, but mostly 35mm,
so for now there is no need for a multi format scanner. I have no immediate
commercial need for scanning negatives, but I'm anxious to get familiar with
working in digital and with PhotoShop. I love being creative and artistic
with photography.

I'm looking around the $750. US figure. I don't have the time or patience
for equipment and/or software problems. So I'm looking for proven
workhorses that are compatible with reliable software, such as vuescan etc.
I'm staying away from Minolta because of the constant questionable reports
I've heard about them.
I'm not even going to consider buying used. I assume that a good percentage
of the used scanners are for sale because they have not performed well, or
are worn.

Also, can I assume that scanners are shipped with instruction manuals that
are beneficial to the first time users? I don't expect to be making perfect
scans immediately, but I do expect to improve my skills quickly. Judging by
the amount of discussion in this NG, I get the impression that the
manufacturers expect users to solve their own problems.

Any suggestions of makes/models? I know this has been asked a million times
before. But this time I'm not asking "which is the best"....I'm asking
which ones are the least quirky and least likely to give me trouble.

Thanks, Ivan
Click to expand...

I'd wager Nikon V will be your eventual choice.

Mac
 
Charlie said:
Well, given the requirements that you listed, the Nikon V is a
"no-brainer" choice.... it's really the only choice.


Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/
Click to expand...


These are just my toughts. Buy a used Nikon off Ebay with Digital Ice
and with an interface you can handle. Save your money and you may
have enough saved to afford a flat bed that can handle your MF
negative.
I own both the Minolta Elite 2900 with Digital Ice for 35mm and a
Epson 3200 flat bed for prints, magazines, and MF negatives. It all
works great for me.

Good luck.
 
Charlie said:
Well, given the requirements that you listed, the Nikon V is a
"no-brainer" choice.... it's really the only choice.
Click to expand...

Anybody know of any major negatives :) with the Nikon V? I think I saw
it mentioned that it cropped a bit too much off the edges.
 
Anybody know of any major negatives :) with the Nikon V? I think I saw
it mentioned that it cropped a bit too much off the edges.
Click to expand...

Is this the one that doesn't multisample well due to poor positioning?
Just asking, since I don't remember for sure. If so, a Coolscan 4000
might be a better choice.
 
Is this the one that doesn't multisample well due to poor positioning?
Just asking, since I don't remember for sure. If so, a Coolscan 4000
might be a better choice.
Click to expand...

Sheesh, I was practically on my way out the door to pick up a Nikon V!!
 
I read somewhere (in this group, I assume) that Ed Hamrick's first
choice of a film scanner is the Nikon V. Not Nikon 5000. As you
probably know, he is Vuescan's developer and must have scanners
galore.

Ed Lusby
 
Sheesh, I was practically on my way out the door to pick up a Nikon V!!
Click to expand...

The V doesn't multisample anyway, with included NikonScan.
The 5000 does it in single pass.

If using VueScan, it does multiPASS scanning for multi-sampling with the
V, and registration might be an issue, but I'm not sure.

Right, y'all?

Anyway, you actually want to DO "multi sampling"?

And "out the door"?
Unlikely you can beat online pricing (B&H or Adorama) unless you live in
NYC?

Mac
 
And "out the door"?
Unlikely you can beat online pricing (B&H or Adorama) unless you live in
NYC?
Click to expand...

I'm in Canada though. Mail order even within Canada is an issue for me if
repairs are needed. If the unit is a lemon I'd like to just plunk it down
on the counter of my local photographic shop.
 
I read somewhere (in this group, I assume) that Ed Hamrick's first
choice of a film scanner is the Nikon V. Not Nikon 5000.
Click to expand...

If money were no object, I'd get the Nikon LS-5000, since it's basically
the same scanner as the Nikon CoolScan V (LS-50), but with single-pass
multi-sampling, a few more bits per sample, and can use the slide feeder.

However, if money matters and if these additional features aren't
important to you, I'd get the CoolScan V (LS-50).

Regards,
Ed Hamrick
 
ho said:
Is this the one that doesn't multisample well due to poor positioning?
Click to expand...

No. But it does require multi-pass multisampling since it isn't
supported directly by the scanner.
 
| > I read somewhere (in this group, I assume) that Ed Hamrick's first
| > choice of a film scanner is the Nikon V. Not Nikon 5000.
|
| If money were no object, I'd get the Nikon LS-5000, since it's basically
| the same scanner as the Nikon CoolScan V (LS-50), but with single-pass
| multi-sampling, a few more bits per sample, and can use the slide feeder.
|
| However, if money matters and if these additional features aren't
| important to you, I'd get the CoolScan V (LS-50).
|
| Regards,
| Ed Hamrick
|
|

Ed, why do you prefer the Nikon scanners?

Jean
 
Jean said:
Ed, why do you prefer the Nikon scanners?
Click to expand...

1) I like the LED light source - it (in my opinion) produces
purer colors than white light sources

2) I like the way Nikon acquires the infrared channel. Infrared
dust removal doesn't work as well (and takes longer to scan)
when it's acquired in a separate pass or acquired overlaid
with the RGB lamp. The infrared diode is able to pulse
on and off for every scan line in the Nikon scanners, just like
the RGB diodes, while Xenon lamps can't be turned on and off
at every scan line.

3) I like the way Nikon does film handling. Slides can be inserted
without needing to use a film holder, and the insertion of a
slide can trigger a scan. Strip film can also be inserted without
needing to use a film holder.

Regards,
Ed Hamrick
 
Thank you for your response, your reasons are very interesting!


| > Ed, why do you prefer the Nikon scanners?
|
| 1) I like the LED light source - it (in my opinion) produces
| purer colors than white light sources
|
| 2) I like the way Nikon acquires the infrared channel. Infrared
| dust removal doesn't work as well (and takes longer to scan)
| when it's acquired in a separate pass or acquired overlaid
| with the RGB lamp. The infrared diode is able to pulse
| on and off for every scan line in the Nikon scanners, just like
| the RGB diodes, while Xenon lamps can't be turned on and off
| at every scan line.
|
| 3) I like the way Nikon does film handling. Slides can be inserted
| without needing to use a film holder, and the insertion of a
| slide can trigger a scan. Strip film can also be inserted without
| needing to use a film holder.
|
| Regards,
| Ed Hamrick
|
|
 
Ed said:
If money were no object, I'd get the Nikon LS-5000, since it's basically
the same scanner as the Nikon CoolScan V (LS-50), but with single-pass
multi-sampling, a few more bits per sample, and can use the slide feeder.
Click to expand...

The Minolta 5400 also supports single-pass multi-sampling and has the
same 16 bits per sample as the LS-5000. Does the LS-5000 still have the
same shallow dof problem as the LS-4000?
 
Ed said:
3) I like the way Nikon does film handling. Slides can be inserted
without needing to use a film holder, and the insertion of a
slide can trigger a scan. Strip film can also be inserted without
needing to use a film holder.

Regards,
Ed Hamrick
Click to expand...
The Coolscan V or 5000 is not scanning full negative area, is it ? With
the strip film holder one is getting something like 3700dpi out of 4000
dpi (short side of film).
 
1) I like the LED light source - it (in my opinion) produces
purer colors than white light sources
Click to expand...

The key for me was that LEDs don't fade (or change) with time as other
light sources tend to do!!!

In order words, a consistent light source and one less thing to worry
about. That's why I, for one, only consider Nikon scanners even though
I have very mixed feelings about the company (to put it politely).

The only fly in the ointment are the Kodachromes but LS-50 does a much
better job than older Nikon scanners (in my case LS-30) although some
work is still required but at least there is sufficient dynamic range.

Finally, LEDs don't burn out like other light sources or, to be exact,
their MTBF is several orders of magnitude higher than other light
sources and an LED is bound to outlive both the scanner and the
operator... ;o)

Don.
 
The Coolscan V or 5000 is not scanning full negative area, is it ? With
the strip film holder one is getting something like 3700dpi out of 4000
dpi (short side of film).
Click to expand...

You are confusing your terms. The scanner scans at 4000 ppi (or as you
say, dpi). The exposed portion on the short side of a 35 mm negative
varies slightly depending on the camera (with mine it's about .93
inches). For my negative on an LS-V, I would expect at most 3720
pixels (.93 inches x 4000 pixels per inch = 3720 pixels).

Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/
 
Back
Top