Dear Leica, Please Make Us a Dedicated Scanner!

<p >A few years back, the folks on the L-Forum (Leica Users Forum) asked for questions for a Q-A session they were going to have with Leica management. I submitted the question you're asking, would Leica consider building a film scanner or partnering with another company to build a scanner for those who use M-series film cameras. My question was selected out of the hundred submissions they got and asked. Leica's response: they have no plans of offering a Leica film scanner or partnering with another manufacturer to build/sell a film scanner.</p>

<p>I wonder how many film cameras Leica actually sells a year? At £3100-£3600 for the off the shelf models, or about 4x the price of a decent M6, I'd hazard a guess it can't be that many! Are we even talking thousands, nowadays? And that's for a product where most of the R&D was done decades ago. Even without Jim's definitive statement, it couldn't possibly be financially viable for them to develop a scanner from scratch, and there's no high quality current model from anyone else they could re-badge (or we wouldn't be having this discussion). Whether we like it or not, Leica is primarily a digital photography company in 2014. But it would be interesting to see if someone with, say, a Kickstarter business plan could approach a company like Konica-Minolta with a view to licensing the technology and getting a modern scanner made. Probably equally unlikely, but crazier things have happened (Ferrania, the Impossible Project, etc.).</p>

Alex, I checked recently on used Nikon Coolscan 9000's and some were going for around $3000. Not

sure if the price is higher if you're in Japan, but you might check ebay.

 

I have a 9000 I picked up a few years ago when Nikon had stopped manufacture and retailers were at the tail end of their supply of new ones.

I've been mulling over the idea of selling it, but haven't made the decision yet. It hasn't seen that much

use. At any rate you might check again on them. I've had a Coolscan IV for a good 10 years and the

thing keeps running, so I kind of think if you got a lightly used one it would probably work without repairs

for a good long time. I use Vuescan now with both of my scanners since I got a new Mac a few months ago.

 

I also have a friend who shoots with Leica and Hasselblad and scans his stuff with a flatbed Epson.

As far as posting online his stuff looks great. I seem to recall that he said if he made prints with the files

they'd probably have to be smallish prints, but he doesn't print anyway. The few things he does want to

have printed I believe he sends out.

<p>I have a Nikon CoolScan IV for 135 and an Epson V750-M for 120 and larger. I've had no problem running the Nikon software on my Win 7 machine. Nikon software will not work on Windows 8, however.</p>

<p>I use custom film trays for the Epson and that makes an enormous difference as the OEM trays won't let the film lay as flat as it should. Also, I can fine tune the height of the custom trays.</p>

<p>The Epson is nice enough but, all things being equal, the resolution just isn't as good as with the CoolScan IV. This isn't too noticeable since the size of the 120 negs compensates for the delta in actual resolution between the two scanners.<br>

<br />Another beef with the Epson scanners: there's dust accumulating on the underside of the glass that has to be spotted out in post. As a matter of fact, they come out of the box with dust under the glass. I use a dust cover and still this stuff finds a way onto the glass. Then there's the out-gassing of the plastics which causes a haze to form on the underside of the glass. The haze is annoying but the dust is a real hassle on B&W.</p>

<p>I wish there was a Firewire to USB3 adapter so I could use a CoolScan 9000. If so, I would chuck the Epson in a heartbeat.</p>

<p>Robin, I agree with you. Leica could promote its film cameras by offering a dedicated film scanner. The times are ripe for it. It is the digital age but film is far from dead and needs to be digitalized. </p>

<p>The reality is that there are a plethora of dedicated film scanners on the market, as I noted before. This means there is a need for them. It may seem out of place when digital rules but the need is there. <br>

And Ray, before I go on, thanks for the information. And, of course, thanks to all for your input.</p>

<p>So I'll go on. I do not believe that film Leicas (or film Voigtlanders) are mere baubles for the monied and the pretentious. They are real tools and do something that digital cameras cannot do. (Just like my two modern mechanical watches perform certain functions better than electronic watches.) I can think of one thing. Film cameras don't have delicate and dust-prone sensors. In 2015 I'll visit the reopening of Himeiji Castle's main keep. I'll take my M 240 and my M7. I'll use my Zeiss wide angles on the M7. It'll be windy and I don't fancy changing lenses on my M 240. As much as I adore my M 240.</p>

<p>Jim, I know what you mean about Epson and dust. </p>

<p>Jim, are the film holders you mention the ones made by Better Scanning (http://www.betterscanning.com/) ?</p>

<p>I've been interested in those for my Epson 4490.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Paul</p>

<p>There are companies still making good film scanners that aren't crazy expensive, look up Reflecta's new film scanner or Epson's new multi-format scanners.</p>

I'm holding out for a Sultan of Brunei-like gold edition, housed in a handmade Bubinga wood presentation case, with the scanner gently

seated in supple Mirrabella gold metallic lambskin leather. Should Jeb win in 2016 perhaps one will be

created to celebrate the family dynasty?

Brad, I thought you already had one :-)

<p>Alex, Mike hit the nail on the head.<br>

I sell pro equipment at Western Canada's largest photo retailer.At one time scanners sold well...but the immediate years before Nikon discontinued their line (likely the best reasonably priced film scanners at the time) we were selling maybe 2 or 3 a year. In the early 2000's we were selling that many a week.Same with the Agfa Duo-Scan (one of which I still have, hooked up to an ancient desktop because of the scuzzy (SCSI) connectivity. Even though they were pricey ($2000+) we sold 20 or 30 a year. We had clear out the last ones at nearly 1/2 price because there was so little demand.We sell a couple of dozen of the Epson's per year now...primarily because at a price starting at $200 people who have a lot of hard copy (they are a flatbed as well as a film scanner) purchase them. We sell very few of the higher end ones because at $700 most people don't want to spend the money.One can only imagine what a Leica scanner would cost.</p>

<p>Paul, yes they are. They work great!</p>

<p>Whatever Mike happened to hit, Bob's contribution is valuable as a seller's viewpoint. I sense that there is another angle to this story. Bob can correct me where I am in error.</p>

<p>After Nikon and Konica-Minolta left the dedicated film scanner scene small independent companies like Plusteck and Pacific Image (which may be a distributor for a German company) and others moved in to fill the gap. They rely primarily on the Internet for their sales, not the traditional brick and mortar retailers. B&H and Amazon sell a full range of dedicated film scanners, as does Yodobashi Camera in Japan. Yodobashi probably have the scanners available at their Tokyo store. </p>

<p>One could conclude that the widespread and awful demise of brick and mortar bookstores shows that people have stopped reading. To some extent that might be true. But it would be more true that distribution has changed. Books are bought online more and more. I believe the same is true for the new generation of dedicated film scanners. The variety and steady introduction of new models suggests that the market is vibrant.</p>

<p>I ordered my Plustek OpticFilm 8200Ai dedicated scanner through a brick and mortar electronics store in Kobe. I had to wait something like 4 months for it arrive. I was told that demand was high for that model and the company was behind in production. Anyway, that's what I got when I grew inpatient. <br>

What would a Leica dedicated film scanner cost? It would depend on the features. Plustek's OpticFilm 120 is their most expensive item, going for 272,800 yen at Yodobashi. This is about what the Cool Scan 9000 used to go far I believe. It is not as versatile as as the Cool Scan 9000. So suppose Leica recreated the Cool Scan 9000 in its own image. I'd say they would want anything from $4000 to $6000. But wait. Leica is not into film MF, nor 35mm panoramic photography. So suppose they concentrated on a super 35mm dedicated film scanner. Maybe it would go for between $2000 and $3500. </p>

<p>What I just finished writing is speculation. My dandy OpticFilm 8200Ai scanner is tangilble reality. Since I got it, Plustek has expanded to Yodobashi Camera. Before it was being distributed by some minor import company, which is why I ordered it through the store in Kobe. Current information tells me there is a demand for dedicated film scanners. There is a niche open for a high quality scanner that Leica could fill if it wanted to.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Pardon my ignorance. What is a dedicated scanner? A scanner for 35 mm film that will scan only film shot with a Leica? </p>

<p>The Nikon scanners characterized as dedicated in this discussion will scan any film that they can swallow regardless of the camera it was shot in.</p>

<p>Dan, Alex meant a "35mm dedicated" film scanner, i.e. one dedicated only to 35mm.</p>

<p>Dan, the definitions on the web are mostly awful. Here is something good from All Things Photography: <a href="/bboard/">com http://www.all-things-photography.com/dedicated-film-scanner/ </a><br /> And I quote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Both a film scanner and flatbed scanner operate using a light source and sensors that scan through the transparency. A dedicated film scanner utilizes a transmissive light source while a flatbed scanner uses a reflective light source.<br /> A transmissive light source is a direct linear light source that reflects through the transparency. A reflective light also shines through the transparency, however it is contained or diffused under the glass bed of the scanner and reflected off another surface. This is the lid or top surface of the flatbed scanner.<br /> The result is greater density and clarity scanned from the transmissive light from a film scanner. Current higher quality flatbed scanners offer transparency and negative holders and often include an additional light source on the lid to mimic the transmissive light.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Karim, in the first post in this discussion Alex lamented the high price of used Nikon 9000 scanners. The 9000 scans 120 film.</p>

<p>Alex, thanks for the explanation. Yes, our language changes and grows. Or perhaps people just make things up.</p>

<p>I gave up on finding a quality scanner at an affordable price. I built myself a luxurious darkroom shed for a lot less money, and now I just do wet prints, which is far more satisfying than overseeing a scanner. The finished print is also a good deal more attractive than a screen image. The obvious downside is that I can't share photos online, but my chief reason for taking photos is to stick them on my own wall and enjoy them. I would like to be able to digitally 'rescue' negatives that have been damaged through bad storage, but not at the price of a Coolscan.</p>

Johnathan, get a flatbed. You can scan your prints and post them. Also the flatbed could save your damaged negatives

better than a dedicated scanner. A flatbed acts much like a diffusion enlarger head. I had a negative that was horridly

scratched and no match for Konica Minolta. Photoshop did not work. Then I scanned with a Canon All in One. Presto.

Most of the awful scratches were defused out. I could touch up what was left in Photoshop.

<p>Jonathan, you are Lucky to have an extra room, and a lot of empty space on your walls. For an European living in a city, like me, a Hasselblad would be a much cheaper option, but still without the fun of wet printing. Also wet printing should not deprive the world of enjoying your photos, a regular scanner is more than enough for the web, and namely for Photonet</p>

<p>I have had a Nikon 9000ED for years now, bought it new when they were still being made, great scanner for sure. But...I have realized why Nikon stopped making them and why I might even sell it. DSLR scanning with my D810 is now on par with the 9000ED and is fairly convenient. <br>

For years I had hoped to see more scanner options come out but I now realize why there are not, I could easily sell the 9000ED and take that money to have an elaborate lightbox X-Y stage built and use my D810 and 60 macro to get great scans with lots of dmax. Film scanners are no longer the future, DSLR scanning is...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ian, it's relative. Check out the prices for drum scanners.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually there was a thread on digital darkroom not long ago showing some quite surprisingly affordable drum scanners. See this ridiculously long thread.<br>

http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00clKe</p>

 

That's weird, I wouldn't think a DSLR and light table could pick up as much information off the film as a

good scanner, but then again, I've heard it mentioned a few times.

<p>Yes, I could see that Ray. Something like a really good macro lens. Camera mounted on somehting that would allow you to raise and lower it and keep it steady. A way to keep the film flat on the surface (tape?) and a lens hood that would put the size of the negative so the camera would be capturing only light coming from the negative, let's see, the cost? Probably can get a good scanner for the same, but at least you'd be able to dismount the camera and use it for other things. Hmmm.</p>

<p>Yes, I mentioned this avenue back a few days ago (9/23 at 9:44 am) and was afraid of thread drift. But now I see this technique mentioned again, so we may be on to something. My budget and equipment led me to a less expensive setup but the principal is the same... using a camera as "scanner". Of course, strictly speaking we're not scanning, it's more like the old film days when we had slide copiers. My setup was not as high res as current DSLR's would permit... I was using an old D70 borrowed from a friend and the venerable Nikon Micro-Nikkor f/3.5. I may look for a used D90 and that may be about all I need.</p>

<p>Let the thread continue!</p>

<p>Regards to all,</p>

<p>Paul</p>

<p>Interesting discussion. Wonder if I could use my Leica M 240 for scanning.<br>

Thank you for the link, Ian. Since the linked discussion is meandering and long-winded, could you possibly summarize the relevant points? These would be: Name of drum scanner? Who makes it? How much is it? Is it still available? Will it work with the latest computers? Your readers will appreciate it.</p>