Nikon Coolscan IV ED vs D2H

[www.flickr.comphotostmcc]

I have the opportunity to buy a D2H for $800 Canadian and I just found a

Coolscan IV ED for $100 from a friend. I currently shoot with an F5 and prime

lenses. How would blowups to 11 by 14 compare between the 4.1 MP of the D2H and

the scanned F5 images? Is it really worth it to be shooting film still? Is the

D2H 4 MP too restricting for prints? I can't keep the F5 as it would be used to

pay off the D2H. Any thoughts? Thank you!

[tri-x1]

I didn't have a dedicated film scanner (Canon 9950F) which is supposed to be pretty good but I discovered my scans from my F4 and F3HP couldn't be blown up as well as raw shots from a Nikon D100. So I could either spend a bunch of money on a dedicated scanner that will probably be obsolete in five years or less, or move to digital. I think 11x14 prints from the D2H should hold their own against Coolscan IV scans--at least the digital shot at reasonable ISO.

 

Some may argue the point but unless you can pick up a dedicated film scanner at going out of business sale prices, its not a good investment.

[lex_jenkins]

Tough comparison.

 

The D2H would hold its own up to 11x14, especially at ISO 200 with carefully processing.

 

Scanning a fine grain film like Velvia, Fuji NPS or TMX would probably beat the D2H beyond 11x14.

 

Depends on your shooting habits and workflow. If you don't shoot hundreds or thousands of frames a year, film might be better. A dSLR becomes more cost effective the more you shoot.

 

Personally, I find the digital workflow from digital cameras to be tedious. But the D2H is a good tool for high volume photography.

[RaymondC]

$100?! I say get it, those last time I checked 2nd hand were still $400.

 

 

11x14 is not really an issue for both really. Tho there may be some differences its not that sig. I think its if you want to shoot film or to shoot digital. Its not just pixels, film look more like film, and digital look more like digital.

 

I sorta use both, digital is more convenience and the walk and about not that grandest shot for my monthly meet up with my focus group with my photography club. For my real passion I may use film but that is slowing going to medium/large format. I don't shoot heaps so its ok for me economically.

[User_276104]

I have a Coolscan IV and have made 12x18" prints that look great. $100 is a great deal for this scanner - when I bought it, it cost $775.

 

Since you obviously must have a lot of slides, my vote goes for buying the scanner and maybe picking up a less expensive DSLR...and keep the F5 if you can.

[Ed_Ingold]

A D2h (4.1 MP) is surprizingly sharp, comparable to a D1x (5.5 MP) but with lower noise, better color and better ergonomics. An 11x14 inch enlargement is no challenge, but it is definitely soft (compared to a D2x) at 16x20 inches. You could squeeze a little more resolution out of fine-grained film and the LS-40 (IV), but it's not worth the bother.

 

I have not taken my F5 on the road since getting a D1x, nor when I added a D2h to my kit.

[jim mucklin]

I use to have that scanner and still have the D2h. I use to shoot a lot of Kodak Porta. At 11x14 I couldn't tell the difference. If it was on a tripod it was hard at 20x30. Only you can make the call. It depends on how much and what you shoot.

[StuartMoxham]

How much do you shoot and spend on film each year. It would not take long for the d2h to pay for itself if you shoot a reasonable amount. As the scanner is so cheap why not get both. You probably have some old negs and slides that you would like scan. As for image quality up to 11x14 I feel it would depend upon what you shoot. If you shoot landscape s with fuji velvia on a tripod then you may find the film prints to be better than the 4mp d2h. If you shoot more hand held at ISO 200 and 400 you may well find that the d2h is preferable. I am more than happy with my D1h 2.75mp and A4 size prints and even at ISO 1000 the prints still look nice.

[brooks_lester]

Negative film generally has much greater dynamic range. Slide film has its own unique

personality and a compelling way of conveying light, shadow, and color temperature. I

think film images have a much more subjective and emotional feel to them. The film

medium adds something to the image.

Digital, to me, doesn't convey anything beyond the image except a video-ish, antiseptic

look on most occasions. That being said, some folks get great looking images out of

digital.

 

I shoot DSLR and 35 SLR and P&S.

[tri-x1]

Brooks:

I was saying the same thing a year ago. But it simply isn't true any more. Digital now has as much--maybe more dynamic range that film.

 

If he has a lot of slides and can pick up the scanner for $100 to digitize his film, that's a good deal. But even the older D2H can equal his existing film if enlarged no farther than 11x14

[lex_jenkins]

The D2H has greater dynamic range than most slide film. However, wringing out that full range from NEFs takes work, especially from photos taken in very contrasty lighting.

[benny_spinoza]

That's a great deal on a dedicated Nikon film scanner. But what about the scanning software? SilverFast is a de-facto standard...and that will cost you about $400. So when making a comparison, also include the software price. Me personally....I would go with the scanner. But I'm a film guy, and love using my F6. I've looked through my friends DSLR, and I hate the small finder, so I wouldn't give up my film camera. Besides, after scanning 50 year old Kodachrome, the archival properties of film really hit home.

 

The dynamic range of color negative film is about 10 stops. Does the D2H have the same ability? If not, there is more to the story than only resolution.

[lex_jenkins]

VueScan is a fraction of the price of Silverfast and, arguably, more than good enough. I wouldn't even consider buying Silverfast until I had exhausted the capabilities of VueScan.

[benny_spinoza]

Lex....many people who have more skill than I get great results from Vuescan. I just don't have the time to master some of the more advanced methods, and find SilverFast fool proof. I have been using Vuescan for about one year. But find that for some mixed lighting, I couldn't get the color balance to work out. And for badly faded Ektachrome, Nikon digial ICE worked much better than Vuescan. I tested SilverFast on many negatives exposed under mixed lighting, and it was much better. But as you suggested, Vuescan is a terrific price. And for those who can master the advanced methods, it can give great results.

[steve_renwick]

Tom, a Coolscan IV ED for $100 is well worth it, whether or not you get a DSLR.

 

Lex and Benny -- I'm still using the original Nikon software on my IV ED. I've seen a number of references to other programs in the fora, albeit without much description of their advantages. What advantages do Vuescan and SilverFast offer?

[jeff_z.]

Steve, I echo your response, and am a bit mystified about using the other software.. I

bought the same scanner new, and still use the Nikon software with no problems at all,

and regularly sell images made with it. I did update it for free on Nikon's site a couple of

years ago; haven't checked in several months now, but I think that was the last update

for it. Now that I'm thinking about it, I'll have to check to make sure:)! Over a year ago, I

was scanning with a G3, OS9 Mac, and it used to crash frequently, but since getting an

OSX machine that is much more powerful, I don't think that's happened even once! Scan

times seem to be improved, also.

 

I'm still thrilled with the results; for images made on slow speed Kodak positive and

transparency films with proper technique, I am very satisfied up to 10 by 15, and I'm

critical. I've never really wanted to make anything bigger than this, and haven't in a long

time- not saying it's not capable. I agree, a great scanner, especially at that price

provided it's in good condition.

[newindustar]

I have both the D2H and the Coolscan IV. Generally I would say A3 is pushing the limits of the D2H, partly because of pixelation but also because it shows it crosshatch noise when enlarged too big. Any kind of enlargement requires RAW and low iso settings. I tried the latest v5 Geniune Fractals and it reacted very badly with D2H mid iso noise.

 

The Coolscan IV for is beautiful for negs but usually can't handle dense slides. The V700 seems better in lighting such slides. I prefer enlargements beyond A3 with the Nikon scanner over the D2H with some judicious use of noise removal in sky and smooth areas.

 

I just scanned some "Memories" iso 200 neg film from the 99 cent store shot with a Konica Auto S2 and they were the most luscious scans I have seen in some time even with all the medium format I have scanning on the Epsco V700. Lately my favorite 35mm films non-pro films are at the 99 cent store and are not Kodak or Fuji. That must be some glass on the Konica as it out resolved both my Bronica S2A 75mm Nikkor and Mamiya 645 shooting the same subjects. That was handheld while the medium formats were on tripod with cable release at f16. That Konica lens may be better than my Nikkors. It certaintly gives a beautiful "look".

 

 

Some of the medium format advantage is lost by the Epson scans but it still makes me consider the possibility of greater resolving power of 35mm espicially coupled with the Coolscan IV.

The D2H could never give such a beautiful film look although it can give very excellent digital looks. The D2H seems to excel close up and poorly at distance. It is stunning with the 55 AI Micro Nikkor at the macro length.

 

Scanned Fuji 800 from the drugstore gives better iso 800 performance. The high iso noise on the D2H is really bad. Noise Ninja cannot deal with it above 400 or so.

 

I am finding the limitation with the V700 is the resulting electronic color noise that manifests when the scans are adequately sharpened. Bear in mind I turn off all sharpening and digital ice and most of the color correction in Epson scan to avoid scanner noise as much as possible.

 

Genarally I have no reason to sharpen the Coolscan IV scans as they are already sharp in it just brings up grain.