rsriram

Juan, no, 35mm scanners won't scan 6x6, you need a medium format scanner or a flatbed with an MF attachment.

<p>I use a third party tripod collar for my 100/2.8 macro USM. I think it cost me $20. It feels very rugged and is made of metal. Never had a problem with it. Paying ripoff prices for Canon's lens hoods and tripod collars is where I draw the line. </p>

<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>

<p>Congrats on taking the leap. My first scanner was a Minolta SD-II. After suffering for a month with the Minolta bundled software, Vuescan saved the day. </p>

<p>I have to concur with Ahto about Nikon's software producing (very) slightly more detail than Vuescan in my experiments with both on my Coolscan V. Not sure why, but even with ICE4/IR cleaning set to "off" Nikonscan appears to have a very slight edge. I've tried this on a few different films with considerably different grain structures - from RVP through Press 800 and RMS at ISO 1000. However, Vuescan's workflow and controls are so much better, I just can't torture myself any more using nikonscan. </p>

<p>The AF is first generation and AF tracking flat out sucks. I had a 630 which was used for IR film. It did good ok still subjects in good light.</p>

<p>The Nikon can be brutal. I use multi-pass scan on Vuescan with my Tri-X or APX negs and the grain is not as prominent as a single pass scan. I sometimes get good results if I flip the film over with the emulsion side up. </p>

<p>Go here [<a href="http://ca.konicaminolta.com/support/americas/scanners/dimage-scanners/dimage-scandual/software_drivers/index.html">link</a>]<br>

There are drivers for Win 2000. I have heard reports that that this has worked on XP too.</p>

<p>How's the image quality compared to the 1D3? Any samples to compare?</p>

<p>This is strange. If it worked initially, what changed to make it not work now?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/820707">http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/820707</a><br>

Scroll halfway down for 5D vs 7D samples. Though unscientific, my experience has been the same. The 5D images I have always appear to resolve more detail and have that "pop" compared to the very slight mushiness or softness from my 1.6 crop DSLR. </p>

<p>I have and use the 100/2.8 macro it's easily the best lens in my collection. Its resolving power is extraordinary and it beats every L lens I have owned or used. I've even tried it side by side with some Leica glass and I preferred the results from the Canon :) Don't know if they're all consistently this good, but maybe I got a very very good one.</p>

<p>Does the problem appear with Acer's own scanning software? My guess is that your scanner has a hardware problem. I had something like this happen on a flatbed, the scanner was busted. </p>

<p>Yeah, I had that with my 50/1.4 a few years back. Lousy AF system, definitely due for an update to real USM, and soon.</p>

<p>I love the 28/2.8, and wouldn't trade it for the 17-85. As far as resolving power and sharpness goes, the 28 blows the socks off the zoom. Even at f/6.3 I can see quite a difference in how much detail the 28 gives me. Bonus - it can be used on a full frame SLR. </p>

<p>I had a lens stuck this way. Dismounted and re-mounted the lens on another body, pressed the DOF preview button a few times and the aperture diaphragm was released. Worked fine after that. </p>

<p>I had one for a while and sold it. Sure it's sharp, but the AF is noisy and slow, there's no IS, the aperture is f/5.6 and I didn't like the push-pull zoom. I would buy it if it were very cheap.</p>

<p>ZAR is not free. Where did you find it for free? A single user license for ZAR is US$49.95.</p>

<p>About time, and hopefully the 15-85 performs a <em><strong>lot</strong></em> better at the wide end for the price.</p>

<p>You're right, I've come across the same issue when scanning TechPan. I used to develop it in Rodinal, which may have exacerbated the scanning problem. On my Nikon coolscan V, I use your settings but do a 2-pass scan and use <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/digital-blending.shtml">this </a>technique to blend them when needed.</p>

<p>One of the biggest culprits behind noise is not high ISO but underexposure. I can get great high ISO performance even on my 300D, but terrible ISO-400 results on my 5D if not exposed properly. When shooting raw, if the exposure range is bound to exceed the sensor's capabilities, I find it safer to err on the side of overexposure and carefully retrieve highlight detail in the raw processing stage, rather than expose for the highlights and end up with terribly noisy shadows. </p>

<p>Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but DXO's colour rendition has always been a bit off for me. C1 on the other hand has worked flawlessly out of the box. How's DXO's colour rendering for you Elliot?</p>

<p>I'd recommend Capture One. It costs about US$129 if I remember correct. Money well spent in my opinion, since C1 is somehow able to extract an incredible amount of detail from even my old 300D raws, detail that is somehow lost in DPP and lightroom. C1 also gives me the most accurate exposure and colour rendition with almost zero PP adjustment needed subsequently.</p>

<p>Crazy insane, but sounds fun. Think I'll get a second-hand 18-55 to try this for the heck of it.</p>

<p>Damien, you intend to archive your negatives, which means the scans need to be of the highest quality. When I scan for archival, it is not quick or painless. My workflow is pretty much the same as Christopher Hanlon's, with a few additional steps. The exposure in some of my older slides is all over the place. Chris' workflow works if the exposure is consistent. In my case I often have to preview each frame, manually adjust R/G/B gain, colour balance, black/white points, and curve settings for each frame or lock exposure if the preview looks decent, and scan each one.<br>

If you can find a lab that does it for you, think of the time and effort you save.</p>