daniel_katz2

<p>Anyway thank you for all your answers - you've been a huge help! If anyone has a Pentax 6x7, 67, or 67II with a SMC Pentax 105 2.4 - please PM me as I'm looking for one and would be open to trading for my drum scanning services.</p>

<p>Thank you Steve - you've been a huge help! Can't wait to get a Pentax 67 with a SMC 105 2.4 lens now! :)</p>

<p>Thank you Steve! That's all I wanted to know! None of the other Medium Format Pentax lenses should have it either then?</p>

<p>Someone from the other forums said that it was only the Super Takumar. That the newer lenses shouldn't have any Thorium... I guess a good way to know is to buy one and buy a geiger counter to test it!</p>

<blockquote >Hello All!<br /><br />I've been doing photography for 15+ years now. I shoot 35mm, Medium Format and Large Format. For most of my fashion and portrait work I use a Hasselblad 501C currently but am looking to get a Pentax 6x7, 67 or 67II with a 105mm F2.5 but I read on this site <a href="http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Radioactive_lenses" target="_blank">http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Radioactive_lenses</a> that the Takumer 105mm f2.5 is made with radioactive Thorium glass.<br /><br />My question is whether this is for ALL the 105mm f2.5 lenses or only the older Takumar branded ones (the newer ones that just say Pentax are not radioactive)? When did Pentax switch over to non-thorium lens elements? How can I know which ones don't have it? Were there any other lenses that were radioactive?<br /><br />Also I am debating between buying the three different Pentax camera's. The II is obviously more expensive but I want a really bright WHITE viewfinder. I can't stand it when they have the split finder and the yellowing. Do all of them have that? Thank you!</blockquote> <blockquote >The reason for switching is that I really love the Bokeh, Contrast and look you get with teh 105mm F2.5 Takumar, it's very similar to the 110MM/F2 Hasselblad Zeiss lens. I could buy a dozen Pentax 67 camera and lens combo's for the price of the 110 zeiss hasselblad combo!</blockquote>

<blockquote> <p>For $1,999 at B&H you can get a Plustek Optic film 120, which is a new contender, and may do the job for you. I have not used it personally.</p> </blockquote> <p>I don't know if you've read the rest of the posts. But I think we've established that my budget is in the $500 range, and that for $2000 you can get a drum scanner, or a used Imacon Flextight II, or a used Nikon D8000 (possibly D9000) or for much less other scanners. Really don't think the Plustek Opticfilm 120 is worth it, especially considering all the better options you can buy and how these Plustek scanners don't keep their value well! Thanks for the suggestion though.</p>

<p><strong>UPDATE II: </strong>I've now found and purchased a couple of drums, Kami drum mounting fluid, Kami tape, and a sheet of mylar from the graphic arts store. I will try to scan my first image this weekend and post it here.</p> <p>Is the Kami Mylar a lot sharper than normal clear mylar you buy in the art/graphics store?</p> <p>I've seen many videos on how to wetmount with a mounting station, but I haven't got one. The Scanmate 5000 has a built in mounting station at the bottom, but I haven't seen any videos or photo instructions on how to use it. The user manual is not very helpful either... Can anyone point me in the right direction about this?<br> <br> Thank you!</p>

<p><strong>UPDATE: </strong>I've received a Scanview Scanmate 5000 for next to nothing, it was practically given to me, with cables, all the manuals, discs, and even a few spare halogen bulbs with reflectors. Kind of disproves the theory that some of you had about me not being able to afford a Drum Scanner. In fact, I bought a Polaroid Sprintscan 120 a couple weeks back, and it cost me way more than the drum scanner. The Sprintscan is an OK scanner, but doesn't have the sharpness, contrast, etc... I was looking for. I will use it for now, it's better than I thought, definitely better than my Artixscan flatbed, maybe not as good as the UMAX Powerlook 3000 I had, although close...<br> <br /> The reason the Scanmate was so cheap is that it's missing drums and a mounting station. It DOES have a built in mounting station, so that's not too much of a problem, although it seems to be not as good as a real one.<br> <br /> If anyone has an extra drum or two (and/or a mounting station), I would be happy to trade some of the halogen bulbs with reflectors for them, at least as a partial trade.</p>

<p>I just lost out my bid on a Scanmate 5000. He had almost agreed to sell it for $700 (INCLUDING SHIPPING) as a best offer, but someone sent an offer above mine (probably at around $1000) a few hours after me. Such a bummer. If anyone has any drum scanners (at least 4000DPI) to sell me (I would settle for an Imacon Flextight, or a really high end flatbed such as a Screen or Scitex as well) let me know! Kind of desperately in need of one for a wedding shoot I did a couple of weeks ago and still haven't scanned. I hate most lab scans with those minilab machines. Thanks for all your guys's help and hopefully someone has something for me! :)</p>

<p>Also it looks like the Scanmate 5000 has a built in mounting station... http://www.terrapinphoto.com/drumscansaga/like_new.jpg This means I can mount one drum, while the other is scanning, and I don't need another mounting station? Is it bad for vision/health in terms of standing by and looking into the drum scanner (does it emit and electromagnet radiation or anything as a microwave or CRT TV would?)</p>

<p>The Scanview Scanmate 5000 manual says it's 3x12bits of colour. This means 36bit colour, not 48bit. Will this matter THAT much? I mean, it's still going to look a lot better in terms of colour than a flatbed or even an Imacon with 14 or 16 bits per channel? Also the Dynamic range is only a 4, but the Imacon and Canon's and others state 4.6 or 4.8... However, a Drum Scanner with 36 bits of colour and 4 dynamic range, will be better than even an Imacon with 48 bits of colour and 48 of dynamic range? And either way I can save as a 48bitt tiff correct?</p>

<blockquote> <p>For $1,999 at B&H you can get a Plustek Optic film 120, which is a new contender, and may do the job for you. I have not used it personally.</p> </blockquote> <p>I don't know if you've read the rest of the posts. But I think we've established that my budget is in the $500 range, and that for $2000 you can get a drum scanner, or a used Imacon Flextight II, or a used Nikon D8000 (possibly D9000) or for much less other scanners. Really don't think the Plustek Opticfilm 120 is worth it, especially considering all the better options you can buy and how these Plustek scanners don't keep their value well! Thanks for the suggestion though.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I was curious to see what that Flextight II that Andrew linked to went for--$2184, and it's sold "as is" and maybe without all the accessories.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes the flextight seems to be out of the picture at this point...<br /></p> <blockquote> <p>o where does that leave us? I go back to thinking that for medium format film, the next quality / price step up from the V600 may be a Nikon 8000. Complete and working for $1200<br /></p> </blockquote> <p>No thanks, I can get the same or better quality with a Polaroid Sprintscan 120 with glass holders. One sold on eBay recently for $330... the Leafscan will probably do better too at $165 or the Pacific Image Primefilm 120 that sold for $550 on eBay recently. I don't really see a reason for buy the Nikon 8000 or even 9000 when one can get a Drum Scanner for that price.</p> <blockquote> <p>Yes, I see the drum scanners for $1450 and $1750--good links, Robert--but obviously those are big steps up in price, size, and complexity to use.)<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>How is $1450 a big step up from $1200? You can find drum scanners for less than $1000 even, which is less than the 8000 and has way higher resolution, sharpness, dynamic range, etc... Sure it's bigger but I wouldn't say more complex to use... I think the mounting might take time to get used to but other than that it doesn't seem complicated to use compared to those Nikon's and in fact drums allow for better batch scanning capabilities.<br> I think it's rather ludicrous to spend money on a dedicated film scanner that costs as much ore more than a drum scanner...</p>

<blockquote> <p>a bit above your baseline price - but might give you some idea on what options you have if you do decide on drum scanning...</p> </blockquote> <p>Thank you. That's really helpful. How do these compare to the Scanview Scanmates? For some reason the Scanmates sell for a lot less than other brands but they seem to be good quality and Made in Denmark. They also have a nicer form factor and look and are smaller than others. Will 5000DPI really be enough for archiving 16mm, 35mm, and medium format negatives and will the Scanmate do it just as well as some of the others you listed? Thank you!</p>

<blockquote> <p>Go for it.</p> </blockquote> <p>Is there anything I need to know in terms of Calibration, Maintenance, etc... How often does it need to be calibrated and the tubes changed, etc... Besides just cleaning the drum is there any other maintenance I will need to do? I could use pure mineral oil and clean the negs with pure glycerin soap and then hang to dry or pat down dry with a special towel?</p>