taquin_nombril

Hey Eric,

I agree absolutely about the Hyperzooms ;-). Just making the point not to pre-judge a lens (or indeed anything else) by its label!

Here's another discussion thread with interesting comments on the same subject:

<A HREF="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=5515772">http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=5515772</A>

I agree with Edward. Try it with a blower. If you use the compressed air version make sure you do a preliminary blow (away from the camera) to relieve some pressure first. What you don't want is for the force of air to be so great that it flips the mirror up and blows hard onto your curtain (I learnt that the hard way ;-)).

The alignment of the mirror is important and if you can get rid of it with blowing or very gently swabbing, I'd send it in.

I have an LS-4000 and an S2PRO, and like you debated about the improved efficiency that a DSLR would have given me.

What you have forgotten to add in your equation is the time, expense and space needed to manage those rolls of film AFTER you have scanned them (I presume you don�t throw them out).

Add that in and consider: even with less efficient RAW conversion software, would that make a difference to your ENTIRE workflow both in terms of time and cost?

Don't take our word for it - if you believe in "professional" reviews in photography magazines, check them out. As recently as a couple of months ago I have seen the Tamron 90mm f2.5 SP Macro being the preferred lens in that class. Last month saw a magazine preferring the Tamron 28-300mm XR LD Aspherical Macro Ultra Zoom f3.5-6.3 to other hyperzooms.

I personally have used both the Sigma and Nikon 105mm Macro's as well (and I perform extensive sharpness tests on all my lenses). The Sigma gave better sharpness across a broader range of f/stops, focusses slightly faster at macro distances with my S2Pro, and I much prefer its bokeh. No prizes for guessing which one I sold.

Hey Tim,

Seems unlikely that the LEDs would have anything to do with the distortion. The spatial relationship between the CCD assembly, the lenses and the film platform is important. Since you seem to have got the CCD assembly back in its general position, I'd suggest that the lenses are probably the next thing to experiment with as you probably did not touch the film stage.

Just in support about what you have done - I would have done exactly the same thing myself (ex-warranty like yours, of course!). The knowledge that you gain from knowing how the machine works puts you in a better position to solve problems with the machine, or even makes you a more appreciative user.