danielleetaylor

<p><em>Not at all. Orphaned does not equal worthless and/or useless.</em></p> <p>Not at all. But the 35mm CoolScans are going for $250-$500 on eBay. The MF one for $1,000. If there were parts and service, fine, but when there's not...that is a gamble.</p> <p>If you already have a DSLR or mirrorless camera, you can get a macro lens (dual use), light box, and copy stand for those prices. Once setup that might actually be faster to work with, and it's not limited to 35mm.</p> <p>I'm not saying no one should ever buy another CoolScan. Just pointing out the options.</p>

<blockquote> <p>They have not produced an sensor with the dynamic range of film yet.</p> </blockquote> <p>Imatest shows current DSLRs at 12.5-13.5 stops. That's equal to or better then Portra.<br> Matching the human eye? I think that will require sensors that read out 2-3 frames in one exposure. Either read rows at different ISOs while sacrificing some resolution (Magic Lantern can do this now), or read out the sensor electronically 2-3 times at different ISOs while the shutter is open.</p>

<p><em>The fact Nikon doesn't manufacture Coolscans anymore does not mean that they are not still as good as they were when Nikon still did.</em><br> With no service or parts support, it does if you buy a used one and it breaks. I'm not saying to not buy one at the right price, but...if you have a DSLR or MILC and macro lens, the addition of a copy stand and a light box will do as good if not better.</p>

<p>I doubt any scanner available today...save a $13k Flextight...is as good as the CoolScan was in terms of IQ. But the CoolScan is an old machine with no support.<br> A DSLR, macro lens, and light box can be used to produce very high quality scans. With a good copy stand it might even be faster then a CoolScan.<br> http://petapixel.com/2012/12/23/why-you-should-digitize-your-film-using-a-camera-instead-of-a-scanner/</p> <p> </p>