mark_uehling

I have the Nikon LS8000 and can definitely recommend it. The banding can occasionally appear on very high contrast slides. It is eliminated by enabling a check box in the scanner dialog menu called "super fine scan". This causes the scanner to use only one of its three sensors to read the film. Rescanning with this check box is much slower, but completely solves the banding problem.

 

The digital ICE is fantastic. I would not buy a film scanner without it. The nikon medium format film holder is very good at keeping the film flat. If you don't get sharp scans from this scanner, you likely don't have a sharp original. You can batch scan several medium format or up to 12 35mm originals at a time. Overall, I am very happy with the LS8000.

One other thing to consider, the Nikon 8000 has digital ICE scratch removal and grain equalization. To me, this software alone is worth the $3000US purchase price of the scanner. I hate dust spotting scans. Also, the grain equalization does dramatically reduce the visible grain, which allows even bigger enlargements before the grain becomes objectionable.

I use a Bogen 3058 with 3047 head. Its heavy (17 lbs) but works great. I have shot with the 300mm many times at 1/8 sec and had sharp results (always with the mirror locked up). I have read many threads about the danger of skimping on a tripod with the Pentax 67. Apparently even with the mirror locked up, the shutter itself adds a good deal of vibration.

The LS8000 banding is easily solved by turning on the single sensor sampling. It is a check box in the scan window and it slows down the scanning considerably but eliminates the banding which only occurs on very high contrast slides. When the banding does show up, which is rarely, it shows up in the deep shadows of high contrast slides. Turning on the single sensor sampling eliminates it. Overall the LS8000 is an excellent scanner and the digital ICE is worth the cost of the scanner itself. Overall, I have no regrets with the Nikon.

I have the 300mm non-EDIF lens and I love it. I use it often during available light wedding ceremonies wide open and at f5.6. The results are very good. However, the results with a teleconverter will likely be noticeably worse. If I were to need something longer, I would opt for the 500/5.6. Rarely do the teleconverter combos match the results of a prime lens alone. If you are hung up on the teleconverter approach, the EDIF lens might be the better way to go, as it is better corrected.

 

As to the 75/4.5, it is an excellent lens. I have not noticed any vignetting as the previous post mentioned and I use it wide open often. I have found it to be more difficult to focus than the other lenses due to the slower speed and wide angle nature. However, I don't have the brightscreen, so that may be a factor. Also, I am usually focusing in a dim church. Outdoors, I would not expect focusing to be an issue.

I had a Pentax 645 15 years ago and sold it because of the lack of mirror lockup, but not for any sharpness issues. I am a portrait photographer and found that I had far too many instances of people with closed eyes. Many nervous people can hear the mirror start to move and close their eyes before the exposure. The mirror lockup can eliminate this problem, especially if it also stops down the aperature at the same time, as most cameras with mirror lockup do. Otherwise, I was favorably impressed with the Pentax 645.

I had a Mamiya C330 years ago and now have a Pentax 6x7 and would definetly not recommend the Mamiya TLR over the Pentax. If you think the Pentax ground glass is dim, the Mamiya TLR is noticeable dimmer, and the lenses are slower. I use the Pentax rigid magnifying hood and have no trouble focusing whatsoever. I literally never have mis-focused shots, whereas I did with the Mamiya.

 

My biggest gripe with the Mamiya TLR was the lenses. I got noticeably flat (low contrast) results with them, and I had the latest black lenses. The coating on them was definitely not up to the Pentax Super-multicoating level. Now my Pentax system is only 7 years old and the TLR was probably 10 years older than that. I also have a Mamiya 6, and those lenses are very punchy, so I think it was the earlier coating process on the TLR lenses. Macro is also difficult with a TLR due to the different viewing lens.

 

Having said all that, if you are into street photography, the Pentax 6x7 is too big. I can't see hand-holding it, the mirror shakes too much. It requires a very sturdy tripod. I would recommend the Mamiya 6 or 7 for street photography; very quiet and you can hand hold the 50mm down to 1/15 second fairly easily as there is no mirror slap. The rangefinder focusing is excellent in low light (excepting the 150mm which is hard to focus in any light).

 

You already have the yashica, which you love. You have the pentax. You usually lose out when you sell. Perhaps you should sit tight and focus on taking pictures and not on equipment. Just my $0.02.

A drum scanner focuses a single point of light on a single spot of the film and then reads the image off a pixel at a time by rotating the image around the sensor. This largely eliminates lens induced losses in sharpness. Additionally, perceived sharpness is a combination of both acutance or edge sharpness and contrast. When an image is edited, local contrast can be increased, giving the appearance of increased sharpness. This is in addition to unsharp masking and other "digital sharpening" methods.

 

Secondly, using digital means, grain can be reduced. This is often the limiting factor in print enlargement, more so than sharpness.

 

Third, when you enlarge by optical means, the more you enlarge, the more the available color in the original is spread over a greater area, leaving the colors more washed out the larger you go. I have found prints whose tone is smooth and creamy become washed out at large magnifications. Digital enlargement does not suffer this washout mechanism. A digital printer can print the same color over a greater area with no loss in saturation.

 

In short, yes, you can get bigger/sharper/better prints from a drum scan as copmpared to conventional enlargement.

The mirror lockup can be an invaluable feature when shooting portraits. Years ago I had the Pentax 645 but sold it because I was getting far too many closed eyes. The camera's mirror mechanism was so loud that many people could hear the mirror start to close (or watch the aperature stop down) and close their eyes before the shutter fired. I now have the Pentax 6x7. When I use the mirror lockup, I never encounter closed eyes as the shutter firing is instantaneous when the shutter release is pressed. No chance for the subject to hear the mirror or see the aperature stop down as it already happened when the mirror was locked up.

You can project medium format slides, but you need a projector specific to that purpose. I have the Kindermann medium format projector and use the Gepe antinewton glass slide mounts. The detail and color projected is outstanding, far surpassing 35mm slides. I highly recommend the antinewton glass mounts otherwise sharpness will be a problem. Medium format projectors do not have autofocus, but I have found it is not at all necessary with the glass mounted slides. Once the first slide is in focus, they all will be.

 

The size of the projected image depends on the lens used. Typical 6x6 projectors use a 150mm lens. At 10 feet, this would project an image about 3.6 feet square. The relevant formula for a lens focused at infinity by simple geometry is width of image (54mm) divided by lens focal length (150mm) times the distance resulting in about 3.6 feet. A 75mm lens would yield an image twice as big.

I have used the rigid magnifying hood on the Pentax 67 and would highly recommend it. It provides 100% coverage and 1.3x magnification vs 0.85x on the prisms. It is much easier to focus than the prisms. Not only is the magnification greater but it is also much brighter as well. The rigid finder is best used on a tripod. Verticals are a bit awkward but possible. The image is revesed from left to right which does take some getting used to. I used to have great difficulty focusing in dim light, but with the rigid hood, those problems are gone. I don't think I have had a misfocused shot since switching to the rigid finder. I rarely use the prism any more.

 

By the way, the rigid hood also makes a good 6x7 loupe when removed from the camera.

The lastest pop photo has a review.

 

You might also consider picking up a used Mamiya 6. It has the benefit of not requiring a auxillary finder to use the wide angle and you won't need to rotate the camera to shoot verticals. Its optics are excellent.

I had the C330 many years ago with 3 of the black lenses, 55mm, 80mm, and 135mm. The image quality was not comparable to the results I get from the Pentax 67. The most noticeable difference was generally low contrast on the C330 images. The difference was noticeable even looking at an unmagnified chrome, just a general lack of snap to the C330 images. I don't think the C330 lens coatings are up to modern standards.

I tried the Kenko converter with the 165/2.8 and found the resulting

image quality lacking especially at the close distances used in

portrait work. I ended up with the 300/4 and it produces much better

results. I was shooting w/studio lighting at f11 and F16, which

equates to f5.6 and f8 on the lens.

I've been using the 1640su photo for about 2 months now and have been pleased with the results. 8x10s from x 645 will have more than enough resolution from a 1600 dpi scan. The 645 negative at 2.2 inches in length times 1600 dpi gives 3520 pixels, which would equate to a 352 dpi print at 10" width. 11x14s should work well too, resulting in a 250 dpi print. FYI, 42 bit scans from a 645 at 1600 dpi will result in 57Mbyte files, so make sure you have at least 256Mbytes of memory and a fast processor for editing.

 

The scanner does an excellent job setting the color from both negatives and slides, although the automatic mode is lacking. I scan with manual settings at 42bit color into photoshop and then adjust the levels using the histogram and grey scale by the numbers.

 

The scanner has just enough dynamic range for a properly exposed slide. The scanner does not have enough dynamic range to handle underexposured slides well. The shadows loose detail and show excessive noise.

 

Negatives scan o.k. but show some noise in the highlights, but the color is excellent.

 

Overall the 1640su photo is an excellent scanner for the money. If you want noticeably better quality for medium format scans, I think you would need to make a serious jump in cost to something like the Imacon Photo at $10K US or the Polariod Sprintscan 45 Ultra at $6K US.

If handholdability is desireable, then the Mamiya 7 is the way to go. You can shoot several stops slower than with a SLR. 1/15 is possible if you are steady. Additionally, it will tolerate a lighter tripod with good results. This is a great camera for hiking with due to the light weight. The lenses are excellent.

 

Rangefinders also focus much quicker than SLRs making them useful for shots of your kids.

Jeff,

 

Like Daniel, I have achieved better results with medium format and a flatbed (Epson 1200 and now 1640 photo). It's not even close. However, I imagine if I were to shoot more Kodachrome 25 on 35mm, it might be a better match. Usually, I am shooting either Fuji NPH negative film or Kodak EPP100 for slides as I prefer better skin tones.

 

However, I have found that medium format, especially SLRs, are not the best for shooting kids. With a 10 week old, MF SLRs are not a problem, but wait till your kid is two years old. They don't sit still, and they won't slow down till they are adults. You will also need to shoot alot of film, to increase your chance of success.

 

I would recommend a good 3 megapixel digital camera that will support external flash. They are good for a reasonable 11x14. You can shoot till you get a good shot, and you will know it right away. The color and tonality are also excellent. With kids, ultimate sharpness is not an issue, facial expressions and good skin tones are more important.

 

I have a medium format SLR (Pentax 6x7), a rangefinder (Mamiya 6), and a 35mm SLR (EOS). I use a digital camera (Epson 3000Z) for 90% of the shots of my kids. I have used the 35mm twice in the last 6 months. The quality of the digital camera generally exceeds that of the 35mm, is much more convenient, and you know when you have the shot. I send the digital files over the internet to be printed (printroom.com), so I end up with lots of pictures to send to Grandma.

 

The other benefit of the digital, is the kids can see themselves right away. Most kids don't like their picture to be taken, they would rather play. When they can see the results immediately, they become part of the process and will often clown around, etc. This results in significantly better pictures. With digital, they are not complaining about when will the pictures be over. Instead, they see the shot and if they don't like it, they ask to have another picture taken to see if it will be better.

Just got the 1640 photo last week and am very pleased. I previously had tried 2 different 1200 photo scanners, but I returned them both because of colored lines showing up in the shadows. There is noticeably more resolution and a little more dynamic range on the 1640 as compared to the 1200. Otherwise they are very similar both on the hardware and software side. The 1640 does come with Photoshop LE, whereas the 1200 did not. Have not used the 1600 Pro, but the specs from epson are almost identical, excepting the Firewire interface.

 

If you want noticeably better quality for medium format scans, I think you would need to make a serious jump in cost to something like the Imacon Photo or the Polariod Sprintscan 45 Ultra.

You already have half of your answer. Try some test shots with 35mm and scan them in, since you already have the photosmart scanner.

 

Having said that, I would recommend the 6x7 route. I had the photosmart scanner and found the results inadequate for my tastes, especially with negatives as it seemed to accentuate the grain.

 

I have been using the Epson 1640 photo for about a week now and am very pleased. The scans from 6x7 would be more than adequate for 13x19 prints. There is far more detail in the final scan than anything I ever got from the photosmart scanner.

 

As to Steadman's question, from the Epson 1640, the file sizes from 6x7 at 1600dpi are about 45Mbyte with 24 bit color. I have 256Mbytes of RAM and that is sufficient with Photoshop. 128Mbyte would not cut it. If the scans were >2000dpi, I would go for even more memory.

Have you, or are you considering a scanning back like the Betterlight or the Photophase? The scanning backs typically cover a ~70mm scan width, allowing full use of the lens coverage. For non moving subjects, the scanning cameras will give you quality comparable to 4x5.

 

The high end single shot capture backs will really limit your use of wide angle perspectives as the CCD is only 24x36mm. Thus the 38mm Biogon would be like a 38mm lens perspective on a 35mm camera. The other option might be the Horseman Digiwide which uses the Hasselblad single shot digital backs but allows wide angles down to 13mm focal length.

I gave up on low light cansids with a SLR, 35mm or MF. Now I use a Mamiya 6 rangefinder for low light candids. Never miss a shot due to focus problems with the 50mm or 75mm (the 150mm is another story). There is no comparison in the ease or accuracy of focusing. After using the rangefiner, I would not consider a SLR for that type of shot. I usually shoot at F8 w/ ASA 400 film. The Mamiya 6 is also very light and syncs at all flash speeds. This camera is also very affordable on the used market. The image quality is excellent.

It is interesting to read the many different experiences with the same camera. I have the Pentax 6x7 which I bought new about 7 years ago. I have shot several hundred rolls through it. I have not had any problems whatsoever with the camera. No film spacing problems and no shutter vibration affecting the sharpness. I use the camera extensively at 1/15-1/8 of a second for available light pictures during weddings. I always use the camera on a heavy tripod with the mirror locked up. I would not attempt to use this camera without mirror lockup. My only complaint is the slow flash sync, which limits its use with flash outdoors.

 

I previously had the Pentax 645. I found that people could hear the camera begin to operate (stop down, move the mirror) and close their eyes before the exposure. I had this happen too many times for it to be a fluke. Never had this problem with the Pentax 6x7 with the mirror locked up before exposure. Mirror lockup is not an option on the P645. Hand held operation is an possible with this camera, unlike the big 6x7.

 

I did notice a difference in image quality between the two. Not huge, but noticeable at 8x10 and up.

You might want to try a chimney type finder. I have a Pentax 67 and take pictures in dimly lit churches often. The prism finder is very difficult to focus. The rigid magnifying hood makes focusing significantly easier and more accurate. The many surfaces in the prism reduce the light. Additionally, most prisms have a magnification of about .85x. The Pentax rigid hood is 1.3x, and you can see the 100% of the picture area. The downsides are the flipped left/right view (like on a 4x5 view camera) and that verticals are somewhat awkward to view. I find it works best with the camera on a tripod, which is required at these light levels anyway.

I would recommend a Mamiya 6 or 7 (rangefinders). I use a Mamiya 6 with primarily the 50mm and 75mm lenses when I am hiking. It is very light and can be handheld to 1/15 second if you are careful (There is no mirror bounce to deal with). The built in meter is accurate. The only drawbacks are difficult closeups and the use of a polarizer as it is not an SLR. I use a polarizer all the time with it, you just need to preview by looking through the polarizer removed from the lens and make sure when you screw it back on you set the same angle of polarization.

 

The Mamiya 6 is no longer sold new. The Mamiya 7 is probably better for scenics anyway as an ultrawide 43mm is available in addition to a 50mm/65mm/80mm/150mm and 200mm.

You certainly should start your investigation. I am not ready to make the switch to digital for weddings, but for the studio, perhaps.

 

For portraiture, tonality is very important. That is why I have always used medium format cameras. I dislike the grain and lack of tonality you get with 35mm. Digital is capable of tonality every bit as good and perhaps superior to that of current roll films. Digital does not yet have the sharpness and resolving power of roll films, but this is not that important in portraiture unless you have a large group or need to crop the picture.

 

I recently purchased a 3M pixel consumer grade digital camera to eliminate the use of polaroids for proofs. I was very surprised by the quality. The tonality is as good as medium format, and the resolving capability as good as 35mm.

 

I have started the digital camera using it alot when photographing children. They really like to be able to see their picture immediately. Instead of complaining about when the pictures will be done, they become part of the process when I show them the pictures immediately. If they don't like their picture, they want to me to take more pictures. It has made it alot easier to get engaging pictures of the kids.