Nikon Coolscan 5000?

[johnmyers]

<p>I'm looking to buy a film scanner again and am in desparate need of advice. My old scanner was a Minolta-Dimage Scan Dual II from back in 2002. It was decent for it's time, but so very frustrating as well. The colors were hardly ever true and the focus was almost always soft. I spent on average 1-2 hours per scan-to-final-product getting it back to it's exact original as-on-slide/negative state. The main problem with the scanner was its softness in parts of the image and the inconsistancy in colors despite coming from similar scenes on the same roll. Getting two similar images to match one another was a...challenge.<br>

So now I'm looking for a scanner again, seven years later. I'm considering the Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED, but I refuse to put down that money if the scans will follow same suit as they did on my old scanner. So does anyone have any experience with this scanner? How does it handle mounted slides that may be slightly warped? Is it sharp across the entire image? Are the colors consistant with what the actual slide looks like under a light table?<br>

I am wanting to buy this because I want to use my film camera more, and I know I would if I had some way to get my images on my computer without the hassles I had in the past. I just want to be sure I'm using the money wisely. I can spend $1200 for a god of a machine or a bust, and I'd like to know which it is. Or I can spend twice that, and thus wait even longer, and get a D700 which may or may not take me away from film (at least color film, that is) completely.<br>

Any advice at all?</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>My 3 Nikon 5000 scanners work great and the sharpness is almost never a problem, as long as the original is sharp ;-). The average film curl in a well mounted 35MM does not seem to be a problem. Badly warped slides will certainly leave soft areas in a scan.</p>

<p>I use NikonScan and leave it set as mostly at the default settings.</p>

<p>I have found the color (or white balance) needs to be adjusted, post-scan, in PS, with a substantial portion of films. I scan mostly slide film that is more than 10 year old.</p>

<p>I have also found that it can be more difficult for me to get accurate color from negative film scans, than from slide film scans.</p>

<p>In my opinion it is not a realistic expectation to get perfect color from ANY scanner/film combination, "right out of the scanner". Post scan enhancements are <em>almost </em> always needed.<br /> If it takes you over an hour to get the scan the way you like, it, that's WAY too much time.</p>

<p>Since you asked John, I strongly recommend a FF DSLR over scanning film, but that's just my opinion. I'm sure others will disagree.<br /> For what you would pay for a Nikon 5000, you could pick up a great DSLR, <em>AND</em> save yourself lots of time behind the monitor, leaving more time for behind the camera. Not to mention the cost of film and processing.<br>

<br /> It's a no-brainer IMO. BTW, I shoot w/ a 5D but scan 35MM slides as part of my home office based business.</p>

[johnmyers]

<p>Thank you for the fast response, J. Harrington; I appreciate it. Yeah, by warp I just meant the normal film curl but couldn't find such an appropriate term as you have. Good to know about the colors still being a little off with even a top-of-the-line scanner. I always expect to do post-scan work, but my old scanner I suppose just made it take that much longer. I wish I could do a side by side comparison between my old scanner and the 5000 so I can really see if it's worth the money for the difference. I suppose the sharpness would alone make it worth it, since colors aren't too terribly hard to correct. I've been using my D50 but want the dynamic range of film, so I've been itching to bring out my N80 again...but scanner woes have been keeping me from that, as I like to have my images on my computer. So I was hoping a new scanner would solve that, or I guess I could save up for a full frame sensor DSLR and ditch film (save for B&W) years down the road...</p>

[macmoss]

<p>I have used both of these scanners, and I agree with everything J. Harrington says.<br /><br />Yes, the Nikon 5000 scanners are very good. I use an Imacon drum scanner, which is much better still, but ungainly, and was extraordinarily expensive, but will handle 4x5. <br /><br />The Minolta was a bucket of yellow stuff that is excreted from people's kidneys.<br /><br />As long as you don't need to do 4x5, I recommend picking up a Nikon 5000, but there are many around, and you could probably get a used one- even locally, with a trial- for not too much.<br /><br />Like J. Harrington, I also personally recommend a 5D as an alternative, going forward. There are lots of those around also, and they are workhorses for good reason. And issues of quality aside (please!) the freedom of unlimited shooting without buying and processing film has been creatively inspiring for so many of us.<br /><br />One recommendation for slides: IMHO it is NEVER a good idea to try to scan a mounted slide. Take apart the mount, scan it properly, and then put it into a new mount. It's easy.<br /><br />It's good to remind those who agree and have gone digital (at least as an alternative to 35mm) that those shelves of negatives and slides don't lose their artistic value just because of the advent of the digital era. Many of those near-misses can be scanned and Photoshopped into fine art if we take the time to do that! </p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm considering the Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED ... I am wanting to buy this because I want to use my film camera more</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For use with newly shot film, the 5000 is the best available for very practical reasons - it can scan an entire 40 frame roll entirely without manual intervention. You'll have to either buy the SA-30 strip feeder, or <a href="http://www.jumboprawn.net/jesse/cams/scanners/nikon-coolscan-4000-sa30/nikon-scanner-roll-feeder.html">follow these instructions to convert</a> the bundled SA-21 six frame feeder.</p>

<p>I did the conversion and it works dandily. The Nikonscan software also works well on full-auto. So, from start to finish a 36 frame roll digitizes (at 4000dpi, 16bit TIFF) in about an hour. Highly recommended. </p>

<p>This scanner is solely responsible for my expanding collection of 135 format cameras.</p>

<p>As for image quality, the 5000 is good enough to pull about everything there is on the film. With exception of very sharp, very high resolving emulsions like Acros and TMAX 100, films run out of spatial and tonal resolution before the scanner does.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>How does it handle mounted slides that may be slightly warped? Is it sharp across the entire image?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's good, on the few mounted slides I've scanned. However, look at the 9000 if you've more than a few mounted slides to digitize. The 9000 also opens up the universe of MF systems, and adds tremendously more fun.</p>

<p> </p>

[w_t1]

<p>Robert, wow I am going to try the conversion. Thanks for posting that - I never looked for the hack on that, I always assumed had to buy the SA-30, which I have almost a few times...</p>

[rsriram]

<p>I concur with everything the others have said so far, and as an ex-owner of the minolta scan dual-II, I'm amazed at the detail and sharpness of the scans my Nikon gives me today, compared to the old scans from my Minolta. If you use vuescan, this <a href="http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc15.htm#topic12">[link]</a> is one way to get consistent colour and exposure.</p>

[Raymond W]

<p>Hi John:<br>

I think the Nikon Coolscan 5000 is the way to go. I got mine for the same reason as yours. I wanted to use my film cameras more. It took me a little while for some trial and error and learning, and I am able to get great results. Since I scan only the selected few from each roll, the tasks are not that big. Ideally the 9000 would be better as I can then scan my 6x6 negs, but the price is a bit high. <br>

It is interesting to see the NEFs from the scanner is much bigger than those from my D200. And it is fun to show people prints and let them guess if it is film or digital.</p>

[johnmyers]

<p>Thank you all so much for the comments. You've all been a great help to me.</p>

[lester_till]

<p>"One recommendation for slides: IMHO it is NEVER a good idea to try to scan a mounted slide. Take apart the mount, scan it properly, and then put it into a new mount." "It's easy."<br>

"It's easy."<br>

At only 10 minutes extra time per slide in a typical 7500 slide collection, why that's only an extra 1250 hours. </p>

[macmoss]

<p>Re: Lester's comment, it's part of the larger quantity versus quality issue.<br /><br />In my workflow, I'm lucky to get 1 out of 50 or 1 out of 100 images that are worth scanning or extensively post-processing.<br /><br /> For example, yes, I have thousands of slides, more thousands of negatives, and many more thousands of digital images. But it is only a small fraction of these that merit attention for exhibition, or even for presentation to a client.<br /><br />Example: for a typical exhibit, there will be 8 to 20 images (from countless hundreds or thousands of attempts). Multiply e.g. that many slides by 10 minutes (fair enough) and that's an hour and 20 minutes to 3 hours+ total. Well worth it for much better quality results.<br /><br />OTOH, if you're just scanning to archive everything you shoot, of course remounting would be silly. So is transcribing and recording everything you say, or saving every newspaper you've ever read. People do that stuff.<br /><br />This relates to other topics, e.g. RAW versus JPG, P&S versus DSLR, how much Photoshopping to do, etc. But I suggest let's each do what suits our photo habits best.</p>

[angela_fischer]

<p>Before purchasing the Coolscan 5000, please check the threads on this site regarding light scatter, flare or blooming. I purchased my Nikon in 2006. On my high contrast slides, which are generally Kodachrome and 40+ yrs old, there are streaks from the light parts of the slide to the dark parts. There are certain slides that really cannot be scanned with any success at all. I ended up purchasing an additional flatbed scanner to handle my medium format and the high-contrast slides. The flatbed has nowhere near the resolution of the Nikon, but the slides turn out better since they are not streaky. From the threads that I have read on this subject (and there are MANY), it appears to be a design issue with the Nikon. I am not sure that they resolved this issue in subsequent models. If you purchase the Nikon, I would make sure that you buy it locally where you might get some support and/or can return it if needed.</p>

[h._mark_weidman]

<p>Angela, thanks for the comments. I already bought a Nikon 5000 and have successfully scanned over 300 slides. I have not had the problem you describe. My only issue is sometimes the digital files have so much detail that they emphasize the film grain, and sometimes, noise in the shadows. I mount the slides in plastic GEPE, black, full frame mounts, which hold the film relatively flat. I am using LaserSoft's Silverfast software, rather than the Nikon software. Color, contrast, sharpness, etc., are all very good. Did you ever send your scanner into Nikon for service? Perhaps there was something wrong with it. </p>

<p>Mark Weidman</p>