buying a film scanner or saving money for a d-camera

Hi, I'm struggling trying to understand what I should do. First of all I'm not

a professional. I have a canon eos3 by which I've shot a few B&W films. I

still like to shoot b&w films and some color slide thou. I develope myself b&w

thou, while processing films is not a problem, it is printing them as I have

to set up my dark room in the bathroom and this causes me to delay a lot the

moment I can see the result - in positive - of my shots. So a film scanner

would be comfortable, it would allow me to use my images on internet as well

and printing them digitally in the future. I also have a few old slides to

save and more b&w films - about 40 films -.

 

I've read some tests and reviews and Nikon coolscan 5000 looks the better film-

scanner I can afford but it's very expensive anyway. I 've seen i would pay at

least 950 euros for a used one. I can find it new at 1200 that is too much.

The doubts are these: is it worth it? I mean: would I achieve so much worse

results from a Nikon coolscan V ls 50 for my needs - I like to get the best

quality I can so e.g. I never use zoom lenses, only prime. but I'm not a

maniac: the quality must only support the meaning of the image; and i'm not

rich too :) -.

 

The second doubt depends on the fact that next spring canon will probably

start selling some new and cheaper ff cameras. at the moment I think the

quality of digital sensors is inferior than films expecially because most of

the information on bayer's sensors is interpolated and not true and because of

the vignetting due to non telecentric lenses whose difect is emphasized by

today's sensors. But I'm still trying to understand if the quality I could get

from a velvia scanned by a coolscan 5000 it would be better than one obtained

directly from a ff camera like eos 5d. I have a love/hate for digital cameras:

i love the comfort of viewing immediately the result and use the image on

internet, or printing them with a little post production; I hate pixels and

reduced format cameras and interpolation.

 

so what to do? buying an used coolscan 5000 and going on shooting slides, and

maybe reselling it while it still has some value?

 

buying only a coolscan V and saving money for a digital camera?

 

renounce at all the purchase and the comfort of previewing my b&w negatives

which i'm sure i'll keep on shooting?

 

Thank you for the patience :)

Guido: I think you are trying to rationalize an emotional decision. Do you like shooting film? If so, buy the scanner. If film makes no difference to you, buy the digital camera.

 

Be assured this is not an image quality issue. If it were, you'd be spending half as much money and shooting MF or 4x5 and getting 4X or 8X the image quality.

 

The key is acknowledging this relates to our personal preference then following our heart.

<P><i>I've read some tests and reviews and Nikon coolscan 5000 looks the better film- scanner I can afford but it's very expensive anyway. I 've seen i would pay at least 950 euros for a used one. I can find it new at 1200 that is too much. The doubts are these: is it worth it? I mean: would I achieve so much worse results from a Nikon coolscan V ls 50 for my needs - I like to get the best quality I can so e.g. I never use zoom lenses, only prime. but I'm not a maniac: the quality must only support the meaning of the image; and i'm not rich too :) -.</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>i looked up a couple reviews online and i couldn't see the difference between a v and a 5000. the differences seem to be in features, not final image quality. even if there is a slight difference in some tests, how large are you going to print normally? 8x10? maybe 13x19? you'll be fine. if you need a better scan for a larger print a lab can help you. how often will you print >13x19 where you might see the quality difference?</P>

<P></P>

<P>heck, if you normally print 8x10 you can save even more money and get a used 2700 ppi scanner on ebay.</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>The second doubt depends on the fact that next spring canon will probably start selling some new and cheaper ff cameras. at the moment I think the quality of digital sensors is inferior than films expecially because most of the information on bayer's sensors is interpolated and not true and because of the vignetting due to non telecentric lenses whose difect is emphasized by today's sensors.</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>color film only out performs digital in one respect, max lpmm, and then only because the comparison is typically a 35mm frame of film vs a aps frame dslr. but the dslr does better in terms of color, noise, and contrast. typically much better. dslr output is excellent.</P>

<P></P>

<P>b&w film has a little more of a resolution edge and more latitude. but having bought one of the professional b&w conversion plugins i really don't see the point in fussing with b&w film. the range of options in the plugin (Imaging Factory Convert to BW Pro) would require me to carry a full set of color filters and use a darkroom to match. for what? a couple stops of extra latitude? i can get more than that by shooting and merging two frames digitally.</P>

<P></P>

<P>bayer does not mean that "most of the information" is interpolated. it might surprise you to know the human eye works the same way. vignetting is a misunderstood issue. if you have a lens that vignettes on ff digital, it will do the same on film. it might be a little worse on digital, but i think it tends to just be more noticeable because digital has such incredible contrast to begin with. but then with digital you can quickly correct vignetting in post.</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>But I'm still trying to understand if the quality I could get from a velvia scanned by a coolscan 5000 it would be better than one obtained directly from a ff camera like eos 5d.</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>no. 5d's compare favorably with the next larger film size (645).</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>buying only a coolscan V and saving money for a digital camera?</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>that is what i would do in your shoes.</P>

Have you ever used a scanner to digitize your negs and slides? If not, you should definitely find one to use and give it a go before you make this decision. Personally, I think scanning takes all the fun out of photography. DSLRs saved the hobby for me.

 

The problem with the MF/LF argument is that to get the most out of your pictures you still need to scan them (or have both Ansel Adams' darkroom skill and resources).

Save up the money and buy a DSLR - scanning is a PITA. It is slow and it takes some time to get the hang of it and after the initial euphoria it does get old real fast.

I shoot and scan film on a Coolscan IV and I am very happy with the results. Arguments can be made in favor of either medium (film vs digital), but to better film's output you'll need a very capable digital camera and not some lower end SLR. Remember that output from a 4000dpi scanner results in a ~16MP image, and with the right lenses, film and exposure you can come away with much usable detail--more than any 8MP digital will give you.

 

Having said that, I intend to buy my first digital SLR soon, most likely a Nikon D200. This camera will be to supplement my film camera, not replace it. I may wait until Canon unveils their new cameras before I make up my mind. Even if I decide not go the Canon route, Nikon may well lower the price of the D200 if it feels threatened by Canon's new offerings.

 

To answer your question directly, if money is no object, buy a scanner. Bear in mind that, at some point, E6 processing may well go away or become prohibitively expensive. That may take quite a long time, but I expect it to happen. If you normally shoot print film and B&W, then this may be of no concern to you.

 

If money IS limited, wait a bit and see what Canon has to offer this spring. There may be something in their lineup that will appeal to you and make your decision much easier. You may also want to pursue a used Coolscan IV, which can be had for even less money. Some of these units were bought to scan a photographer's film library and then retired, making them very good bargains (assuming that the library did not consist of tens of thousands of frames of film).

 

Good luck.

Four years ago I was in a similar situation. Not only do I have all of my own slides and negatives from 40+ years of shooting, I also have my father's and grandfather's collections. I bought a 2800 ppi film scanner. Recently I picked up a Kodak 3570 scanner to handle the medium format negatives. The 3570 is a very versatile scanner, but it is slow and it requires a SCSI port. (I have an old Mac G3.) I have long been sold on the value of a digital intermediate. I might shoot on film and have prints made on photo paper, but my pictures look much better when I use Photoshop in between.

 

This year I "went over to the dark side" and acquired a DSLR. I still shoot film for special occasions, but I now rely on the digital camera. The biggest limitation I find is that a fast normal lens (35mm f/1.4) to use for low light situations is expensive. I had hoped that a slide copy adapter would allow me to use the camera as a film scanner. I don't have that working to my satisfaction and still use the film scanners.

 

If you want to continue to use your existing film images I recommend a film scanner. If you can't afford both a scanner and a DSLR, the scanner and your existing film camera is a more versatile combination.

I'd opt for the V over the 5000 and take the money you save to buy a used DSLR.

4X-8X the 'quality', Bob? LOL. How, pray tell, did you arrive at this figure? Do you mean that bigger is better? What if we're shooting 35mm and printing 8x10? I love how people just love to tack numbers on to express totally subjective opinions! MF is a pain to use compared to 35mm- you have to load giant film backs in the dark, carry several of them if you want to shoot a bunch in a day (heavy, time consuming, expensive), not to mention that the cameras are larger and fairly unwieldy compared to most 35mm SLRs. Lenses are slower for MF, too... yeah, the film's bigger, but the 'quality' is really a subjective determination, and the photographer has much more to do with that than the film format used. MF is certainly better suited to making wall-sized enlargements, but most things you print in your bathroom aren't nearly as demanding of high absolute resolutions because they're not going to be big enough to need it. I laugh when I see the MF mfs response to everything: "You'll never have high quality anything until you spend three grand for a basic Hasselblad system and take out a second mortgage to lease a drum scanner..."

As for the OP: if you just want to proof and use your scanned images from film on the internet, most of the scanners out there today will do that for you. There are flatbed options from $150 and up, to the more expensive film-only scanners, that will suit basic needs just fine. If you're still printing optically, this will be your best option. If you want to make decent prints from scanned files, I've heard the film scanners have a slight advantage, though professional scanning services might be your best bet for the best results in your final product, especially printing large.

 

I wouldn't expect to see a ff sensor for anywhere near the price of the film scanner anytime soon. Surely prices will drop eventually, but if you read Canon's white paper on full frame sensors, they basically say that you should expect to pay much more because making the sensors in that size uses a lot more resources and costs a lot more in the first place. The technology will improve in the future, but for now Canon has pioneered the process and they have no competition in the FF 35mm format digital market... you can move up to MF 'back' systems starting around $12-20K used, if you're ready to invest some serious cheese. Anyway, I like my 20D, but it sounds to me like you would rather stick with film, so that's what I suggest you do. Go, buy the film scanner, and be happy while you wait for that 72MP FF digital sensor for $2000 (coming in summer 2014). Don't forget to have a good time while you wait, and don't let the medium format guys convinnce you that you can't be a good photographer or get 'high quality' results without giant film... it's bollocks.

Garrett: I think what I said was that he should shoot what he wanted. And yes, the 4X-8X print quality was a subjective number. Certainly there are advantages to 35mm, MF, LF or digital. That's why I shoot a35mm, MF, and digital currently. Everything in photography is a compromise, but I'll still stand by image quality from a larger neg. And yes, I see the difference in an 8x10 from 35mm vs. MF. Does it matter? Maybe, maybe not; but this is one of those factors entering into the compromises.

 

MF does not require "giant film backs that you load in the dark and must carry many". MF uses 120 roll film which is loaded in the daylight.

 

Also, if you will look you will realize that MF cameras cost much less than digital cameras today. Mostly because most MF gear is used. Some of my MF gear (Bronica SQA) sells for about half the price of your D20. Other (Mamiya 7) is about the same price. Oh, weight is about the same as most DSLRs.

 

Now I'm not contending that MF is for everyone or for all occasions. I will say that MF and LF has a price / image quality ratio that is unbeatable. Now that's just one of many factors. But Guido's primary concerns seemed to be cost and image quality.

 

And I stand by my original recommendation to Guido: if he likes film then shoot it and scan, if he doesn't care, then shoot digital.

Buy the Coolscan V and be happy. In a few years, you can get a full frame dslr at a fraction of the price they are now. Your film gear gives you top quality now anyways. Particularly BW and slide films.

First of all I thank everybody who answered. I would like to specify a couple of things: the vignetting issue due to the microlenses over each sensor pixel is not some allucination but something that leica knows well: they've just designed a telemeter model with shifted microlenses near the edges of sensor in order to get light rays straight again and exploit their whole energy. Films grain is 3dimensional so it's less sensitive to the angle the light falls on it. CCD and cmos have a lower linear response than grain so the smaller energy that arrives on them, due to the insufficient microlenses refraction, determines a more consistent light fall-off on the corners that means vignetting. sure it's first of all a lenses phisical issue but ff sensors make it worse. by the way i'm sure canon will take this in account for next sensors as leica.

 

Secondary: yes money is a relevant aspect of the question. otherwise I would have no dubt :)

 

Finally: i've read on some internet test that nikon coolscan V has a lower actual resolution than the one declared - that is about 3500 instead of 4000 dpi - while 5000 has not. And I wonder if 2 bits less per color - 6 bits in the final image = 1/32 the colors 5000 can register - are so visible.

 

All your answers have been useful to my decision. Now I have to think for a while.

Perhaps the optics in the V are not as good as the 5000. But most of the difference is two things: (1) specsmanship (claimed higher D-max), and (2) much higher markup on the "professional" version due to deliberate crippling of the V.

 

The D-max numbers on scanners are such nonesense. Perhaps the 5000 has slightly better D-max than the V, but not by the ratio of the difference in the specification.

 

As for crippling, the V does not accept the slide feeder and roll feeder for reasons of what is known as "market segmentation". Charge the people who want to be able to use these accessories more, even though it doesn't change the cost of manufacturing the 5000 one bit. The V is "software crippled" to not use those accessories.

I don't know why people keep asking others about what THEY should shoot with. Only you know what you like better.

 

But I always say, if you have to ask what to use in the first place, go for digital, its more practical.

 

Film is for people who find it irreplaceable either for aesthetics

or its analogue/physical nature.

 

I find it irreplaceable for both reasons. I find that films "faults" and distortions of the image, are not something you can emulate with digital (which looks a bit cleaner and more accurate) , plus I always considered art as something simple, natural, analog and intuitive, and electronics are something rigid and artificial.

For me digital photography is like robots playing symphony.

I don't even like digital printing from film. Feels like I've taken away the random mistery of crystals of the emulsion and dumbed it down to simple ones and zeroes.

Same way I prefer real painting to digital painting. A digital brush can't make mistakes, can't leave random variations in paint. Even the simulated randomness of Corel Painter is not like the real thing.

 

As ridiculous as they are, these are valid reasons to shoot film.

The whole amateur photography thing is one big psychosis anyway, so any reason to do anything is a good one. No rules here. Because in the end it really serves no other purpuse but to please your own mind, so that same mind is the only thing setting standards.

 

Use film if you really want to

 

If you are thinking professionally, well that's a different story, use what pays off better, of course.

JOHN: this is indeed an important aspect. fortunately i have a very few slides in frames: most of slides are cut in stripes of 6 pictures. What is D-max number please? dpi?

 

BOB: Actually some months ago I was tempted by the idea of purchasing a second hand MF camera, at least for landscape and portraits. but I would had to buy lenses as well and a new optic for the enlarger. Lenses i'm using with eos3 I will use on a digital canon as well. so it would be a too much expensive solution thou very attractive.

Here are a few more links for you comparing the resolution of full-frame digital with scanning backs and medium format and large format film:

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml

 

Older article on MF vs 35mm digital:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

 

Don't underestimate the workflow advantages and convenience of digital. Shooting more and doing it cheaply will probably make you a better photographer. Long-time slide photographers (National Geographic, etc) are largely abandoning film for the Canon 5D and similar cameras.

Do both cover both worlds.

 

Larry

I still shoot color and black and white film, but I have my own darkroom and live where there is easy acess to materials. I still have cheap digi cam, expensive film scanner, flatbed scanner, lazer printer for letters, and Kodak dye-sub printer for color which I think is wonderfull.

 

Without the fully equiped darkroom in my home, digi would be the way to go. And cheap scanners are worthless.

 

Don`t wory about full frame sensors, unless you will want prints over 11x14 inches. Do get a decent digi cam, not a cheapie. Sensor size is like film size, bigger is better until you can`t move with the camera or can`t afford it. MP count is not that significant.

 

I would think a Nikon D200 or Canon equivalent would be the way to go.

 

If you like black and white prints, read up on printers/inks good for that. I will never buy an ink printer where the nozzles are built in. That leaves out Canon and Epson. Get something where the cartridge has the nozzles and you get new ones each time. Google cleaning cycles. See the problem people have.

"I will never buy an ink printer where the nozzles are built in. That leaves out Canon and Epson. Get something where the cartridge has the nozzles and you get new ones each time. Google cleaning cycles"

 

This is a personal preference but I think a bit outdated. HP does allow you to easily replace the heads. However newer Canons and Epsons clog less frequently and use much less ink than their predecessors did. For black and white I recommend a cheap Epson with MIS B&W bulk inks. It's so cheap to refill (4 oz for $15) you don't worry about losing a bit of ink when you change cartridges. The cost of the printer isn't much more than the cost of replacing a HP head.

http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/

http://www.inksupply.com/utr2.cfm

 

Here's a wiki faq on the new Canon pigment printer the IPF5000 including a comparison of costs and clogs.

http://canonipf5000.wikispaces.com/FAQ

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/canon-ipf5000.shtml

The Canon has user replacable heads, but at a cost of $600.

is there anybody else who has an opinion on nikon 5000 and nikon V 50 and which one is worth?

I think get a film scanner b/c the lab cost will add up, you can digitise your former film photo film and slide film, and those you use in the future. How are you going to upload a slide film onto email or online? So slide film is still valid to be with a scanner.

 

I think the 5000 model has more power to lift shadow areas with its higher A/D feature and Dmax. But the V model is no sloutch.

 

For me is I get a V coolscan as they are good enof for me, as I have present film and past film and a dSLR b/c they are v convenient as well and quality wise they are equal to film if not better but it does require a skill in computer post processing such as what you need for a scanner, the scanner is not able to spit out something without any intervention for "great results".

 

The 9000 and 5000 is the same, but the 9000 allows medium format film to be scanned. The 5000 allows a feeder attachment (additional cost) to batch 50 slides I think and a uncut 40 roll exposure (again additional cost), strip holder for loose film or curled or damaged film is also available (additional cost). What you get with the 5000 or V is just a singular slide film feeder and a 6 frame feeder, bit like how you insert your bank card into the bank machine kinda thing, its not a metal/plastic film clip holder thing.

sorry, what is Dmax?

<P><i>First of all I thank everybody who answered. I would like to specify a couple of things: the vignetting issue due to the microlenses over each sensor pixel is not some allucination but something that leica knows well: they've just designed a telemeter model with shifted microlenses near the edges of sensor in order to get light rays straight again and exploit their whole energy.</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>leica rangefinders are in a different situation than a dslr. with any slr, the rear element can't get any closer to the plane than the mirror which would slap it otherwise. not so with a rangefinder.</P>

<P></P>

<P>so yeah, leica faced an extreme situation.</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>Films grain is 3dimensional so it's less sensitive to the angle the light falls on it. CCD and cmos have a lower linear response than grain so the smaller energy that arrives on them, due to the insufficient microlenses refraction, determines a more consistent light fall-off on the corners that means vignetting. sure it's first of all a lenses phisical issue but ff sensors make it worse.</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>the theory is fine and good, but it doesn't play out to the degree you think in reality. it's hard to tell any difference between vignetting on 35mm and vignetting on ff when you're talking about slrs. and in practical use, aps digitals usually have the least of all because they're using less of the image circle.</P>

<P></P>

<P>and it really is moot when you can correct it totally in photoshop with one command.</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>Finally: i've read on some internet test that nikon coolscan V has a lower actual resolution than the one declared - that is about 3500 instead of 4000 dpi - while 5000 has not. And I wonder if 2 bits less per color - 6 bits in the final image = 1/32 the colors 5000 can register - are so visible.</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>can you point to a test where the crops showed a clear difference between the two? or any perceivable difference? if not then you will never see the difference in a print which will be much less of an enlargement than what you see on screen when people do these kinds of tests.</P>

<P></P>

<P>if you find a test with a large difference you know will be readily apparent in print, by all means, spend your money. otherwise why spend your money because someone on the internet had a theory?</P>

<P></P>

Mike: I can't point a comparison test at all! I haven't find any site testing both the scanner for a comparison.

Dmax

 

http://www.normankoren.com/scanners.html

 

 

I think if I wanna shoot digi I do that, if I wanna shoot film I do that irrespect if scanning is a chore or dust controls and stuff. I think for my level the V Coolscan is good enof, if I need more I just drum scan it, consumer printers are limited by A3 size, anything larger gets more expensive and larger such as 50kg in weight for a 17 inch wide size, one up from a A3 size.

 

Quality, I read all the time digital is better than a 35mm via a Nikon Coolscan. But film is good too, for real world output no difference unless you nit picking.