Now it's the 5000 gone as well...

http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/discontinue/digital/index.htm



Dang!

Looks like soon all we'll have left to scan 35mm is the dreadful 7500 el-cheapo ebay scanners and the even more awful flatbeds!


Someone needs to make a scanner out of a dslr sensor and be done with the dearth of quality 35mm scanners once and for all!

I'm tempted to get a second hand A900 with a macro lens and use that in future... If my cooscan V bytes the dust, I'm gonna do it for sure!

Well, I'm sorry, I don't speak Japanese and can't read Kanji. Same dilemma with Kisuaheli Reverse.

Do you have an identical web site in either German, English or Spanish for me?

On the other hand I don't think I will have a reason to panic. One LS 5000, one LS 9000 and a truckload of the finest mechanical cameras for 35mm and 6x9. All tools are CLA'd once a year, and Nikon Europe still does the service for the 5000 and 9000. And if they should cease the service, there are some excellent service technicians all over the world.

IMHO the scanners will last longer than 99.9% of the plastic digicams that hit the market this year.

And if worst comes to worst there are the nice Imacons waiting around the corner.

jens san ... my Kanji is a little rusty now, but seeing it in the same list as known discontinued products is a telling sign.

Anyway, onto the point ... personally I'm not stressed as I have a LS-4000 anyway. For 35mm I'd prefer to use my digital anyway (well aside from my small stash of HIE which won't last for ever either). I genuinely feel that after about 3000dpi (to pick an arbitary upper value) that scanning 35mm reveals more noise alongside any extra details than I find in good taste. At that point (2900) I find the Epson scanners perform quite adequately.

Now I'm not saying that I don't like my LS-4000 but I am saying that I don't envisage capturing images more on 35mm with 120 and 4x5 being more important to me (and as formats get larger the Epson flatbeds become more acceptable). Not to mention that my humble aging 10D yields images much nicer than 35mm (so 5D and better will be just better).

Nuno ... thanks for finding that one

Nuno

given that its still on the world site

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/scanner/scoolscan_5000_ed/index.htm

I wonder if its just dropped from Japan? I know that 35mm isn't where "its at" in Japan anymore (although bigger formats like 4x5 and 120 sure are).

we'll have to see

Pellicle,

currently there is no new development for scanners for obvious reasons. But Nikon still manufactures these great scanners - not on a constant basis, but in charges which obviously don't last long to feed the market.

Nikon Europe doesn't make any statements officially, but inofficially it's a fact that they still produce the scanners = hardware. The software development came to a standstill some time ago, they are pointing their customers to Silverfast and VueScan.

Currently the demand for good scanners is huge. In Europe - especially Germany - many publishing companies are investing into Imacon scanners, even the larger agencies are 'rediscovering the old medium'.

But I can't agree with you on the point of the 35mm scans. It all depends on your workflow, your hardware (meaning excellent cameras and lenses) and your know how and experience.

Just recently there had been a shoot out between the Canon 1Ds Mark III, the Nikon 3Dx and a 35mm camera. Unfortunately they didn't use a slide film with fine grain, but a negative film for comparison. Anyway, the results have been stunning: even the 24 MB digicams didn't show more detail than the 35mm camera.

One of the photographers I'm cooperating with is shooting with a 5D. He is faster, yes, but the images don't show a better resolution or better colors.

As long as there will be film I will keep my hardware in best shape and have it serviced. You can't replace a fantastic precision tool with some electronic gadgets. Just my humble opinion and experience.

Jens

jens g.r. benthien said:

Currently the demand for good scanners is huge. In Europe - especially Germany - many publishing companies are investing into Imacon scanners, even the larger agencies are 'rediscovering the old medium'.

Click to expand...

I seem to see that, I just sold an LS-IV for way more than I thought I'd get. (don't see the point of having that and a 4000)

But I can't agree with you on the point of the 35mm scans. It all depends on your workflow, your hardware (meaning excellent cameras and lenses) and your know how and experience.

Click to expand...

Yes, I understand. Its really balanced on a razors edge. I think there is no clear winner with each having advantages of their own.

I recently shot 2 scenes side by side with an EOS 630 + EF 24 f2.8 and EOS 10D with Tokina 12-24 at around 18mm both at f8

I have scanned the negative with Epson 4990 Nikon LS-4000 and I have had professional drum scans of the negative to a little over 4000 dpi

My results indicate that outright detail is very close. Negative handles higher contrast gracefully but digital handles subtle tones and their details better.

As long as there will be film I will keep my hardware in best shape and have it serviced. You can't replace a fantastic precision tool with some electronic gadgets. Just my humble opinion and experience.

Click to expand...

well I think you are being prejudiced in your view and run the risk of allowing that to be deceiving you if you do not consider the 5D and such precision tools, as far as 'gadgets' I guess that my electronic light meter is a gadget too ...

35mm film of course has a few advantages, if I was photographing high speed sports I think that the EOS 1 RS (with its pellicle mirror) has no equal for accuracy of AF and speed of aquistion. You might be changing rolls quickly though at 10 frames per second ;-)

well I think you are being prejudiced in your view and run the risk of allowing that to be deceiving you if you do not consider the 5D and such precision tools

Click to expand...

I don't think so. I've had many chances to use the Nikon D3, Canon 5D and others. Too many knobs, too deep menus, manuals thick as a bible if printed.

Sure, a lightmeter is driven by electronics, but nothing I'd consider being a gadget because it serves just one single purpose: metering the light. On the opposite a digicam has some 59 metering spots (which one to choose?), several AF points (always using the one I don't want to use), the knobs and wheels are too tiny for my hands and fingers, I can't read the menu without my glasses (but I can feel the clicks of the aperture ring and exposure time know of my 35mm cameras, so working without glasses is second nature).

Just today I could use a Panasonic Lumix LX3. Great camera, really, but the buttons are made for baby fingers! Even my tiny Minox 35 GT is better to use, no menu, nada. Delivering more than 20 MegaPixels - a 'full frame sensor' . Loaded with a Provia 100 F or Astia 100 and the slides scanned with the Nikon the images feature a better resolution, better colors, tonal range. OK, the Minox doesn't have a Zoom, my Rollei 35s doesn't have a zoom (fun cameras), but hey, my legs and feet are in good shape, so what the heck...

My Nikon F4s and FE2 with MD-12 do what I want them to do. No sensor hassle with dirt, dust, dead pixels. No AF either. The slides are - obviously - sharper and even better than those shot with a Minox.

Not to mention my Fuji Pros, the Arca Swiss - not hundreds of manual pages, just unpack and use them. Aperture, exposure time, focus - that's it.

The only drawback: the turnaround of the E-6 lab.

But let's stop here, it doesn't make sense if you don't need the perfect prime lens or perfect images with easy archiving features.

A 3Dx is around 6.000 for the body only and doesn't deliver better results than my current cameras. So why should I trash money and value as well as the haptical experience and know how for a new camera that will be outdated in one year or even less?

That is all techie stuff, I know, but it's part of my business. Nothing is worse than having a shot I can't enlarge to meet the customer requirements if he should change his mind a week later. Digital results are still too small, and digital will have a long way to go before I'd switch.

It all depends on how much one wants to make 35mm "work" for them.

Here are some examples.

This is a small crop from a full size 5DM2 Canon image in the dpreview site.
This is a small crop of one of my Astia 35mm images, same size, same scan resolution.

I don't know about others, but I can read the small print in my crop and I can't read what's on the cap of the guy in the 5D2 image.
That to me means simply and very clearly: my 35mm image has MORE detail than a 5D2
And the 5D2 is one of the latest dslrs anyone can get!

Here are the Dead Link Removed and a downress of Dead Link Removed.

These things are very subjective, I accept that.
But I doubt anyone will classify the colours in the 5D2 preview image as saturated.
While the ones in my image are exceptionally so.

And that is with a film - Astia - that conventional wisdom classifies as "low saturation, good for portraits". Nothing could be more wrong!

Like in anything: the devil is in the details. I don't do standard "scan-print" on my scans, as pellicle well knows.
They get some serious post-processing.

Then again, so does ANY dslr image: it can't be viewed any other way, by definition of RAW and Bayer filtering! So I'm not really giving film an unfair advantage.

But I won't dismiss 35mm film against the 5D2, unless we're talking about 3200 ISO.
As for any other dslr prior to the 5d2, I can put my 35mm images against any of them and not come out the worst for wear...

Does that mean 35mm is more practical than using a 5d2? No way! The latest crop of dslrs is fast, produces good quality imagery and can produce dramatic results particularly with low lighting.

Does it completely replace 35mm? I don't think so.

Does it even approach MF?
Here is a link to more on precisely that subject:
Dead Link Removed

Does that mean 35mm is more practical than using a 5d2?

Click to expand...

For me: yes, definitely.

Batteries won't die while you are preparing your most important shot on an assignment.

You don't have dead pixels or dust on a sensor. No need to wait 3 weeks to have the DSLR cleaned.

My medium format cams are not as practical, but hey, that's a totally different world and I don't shoot sports or events...

On the other hand: what does 'practical' mean? It depends on your experience, your preferences. I for example prefer to invest more time into preparing the shot than sitting in front of the computer for hours to tweak the pixels to 'paint' an image.

On my Nikons I have shift (raise/fall) lenses - nothing available for the DLSR with crop factors so far.

Architecture with a DSLR? The biggest jokes I've ever heard and seen many times.

A Honda is no Ferrari.

Hi Jens

firstly when replying if I don't address a point it means I agree with it

jens g.r. benthien said:

On the other hand: what does 'practical' mean? It depends on your experience, your preferences. I for example prefer to invest more time into preparing the shot than sitting in front of the computer for hours to tweak the pixels to 'paint' an image.

Click to expand...

I spend as much time working on my film images in front of the computer (more actually) than I do my digital ones.

I don't do CGI or rendering so I'm not really painting with my image, I'm adjusting tonals in the same way as I would if I was picking a grade of filter.

On my Nikons I have shift (raise/fall) lenses - nothing available for the DLSR with crop factors so far.

Click to expand...

ok if you are limiting your arguments to crop format sensors I can perhaps understand more of your sentiments. But as the owner of Canon equipment the 5D would be my benchmark of minimum. Have you used a TS-E lens? I've had both the 24 and the 90. Wonderful gear If I was not using 4x5 for this sort of work I would not have sold them and be using them with a 5D or better body instead.

Architecture with a DSLR? The biggest jokes I've ever heard and seen many times.

A Honda is no Ferrari.

Click to expand...

well I agree ... and honda makes better cars. Only formula 1 racers and poseurs (normally) drive a Ferrari (and most can't drive then well anyway ;-)

now if I had a business of almost any kind I'd rather have a honda than a Ferrari.

I thought I'd round out my thoughts on 35mm colour film on my blog. Since I made the statement that I believe that digital SLR can do better than scanned 35mm I thought I'd publish my findings here.

Now since I'm not religious about this topic I'd value any evidence to the contrary to my findings as I still have 2 EOS film bodies and some nice EF lenses lying around. For now however they'll be relegated to IR black and white as my 4x5 and Micro 4/3'rds G1 (with FD lenses) seems to do better for colour than anything I can do with 35mm film.

I was going to add some stuff using more exotic slide films there too, but given

• its about 10 euro a roll
• I'm poor right now
• the weather stinks

it'll have to wait for a little while (but I'm keen to try it

Chris, you must try new Astia.
It is so much better than anything else film at the moment, it's not even funny!
(and Superia 400, the humble consumer film, is one of the best if you prefer that ISO range)

nsouto said:

Chris, you must try new Astia.

Click to expand...

shall do, and I'll publish my findings. I'll say from the outset that I doubt it will improve significantly over Provia RDP-III

As Arnie would say, I'll be back