is it worth buying a new slide scanner to replace a Minolta Dimage II?

In article <6qdne49jj0rhujj1eim76ohta24k7gmrsf@4ax.com>,
Bill Marshall <bill.marshall@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Thanks guys, your comments are much appreciated.
>
>Looks like a 5000 ED is around UKP750 which is just about within
>budget so I'll look closely at this since it would be a one-time way
>of getting a large number of slides archived and usable.
>
>As regards software, is Vuescan still regarded as the best available?
>With my old Minolta I've noticed that it seems to give speckles in the
>shadow areas compared to the Minolta software, but is better on colour
>balance. I solved the speckles by multiple pass scanning but obviously
>this slows things down. Reviews I've come across so far seem to think
>the Nikon software could be better so do I stick with Vuescan?
>
>Thanks again for your valuable advice and experience on this.
>
>Bill Marshall

I've used both NikonScan and VueScan on both my LS-2000 and
5000ED. Both work well but my current preference is NikonScan. Since
you get NikonScan with the scanner ... and you already have VueScan,
it's simple to use and compare both.

-db-

--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| David O. Blanchard dob@npgcable.com Flagstaff, Arizona |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+

Barry,

On the 5000ED using the auto slide feeder, how do you avoid hanging slides
during the process? I like to set mine up with a stack of 50 or so at night,
go to bed, and frequently wake up the next morning with only some slides
scanned and the others hung up in the feeder. Kind of frustrating.

Thanks.

"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:83bc9$48ebf6d4$6899@news.teranews.com...
>I have to repeat something I said in a previous post: EVERY LS-2000 is at
>least 7 years old, some are 9 or 10 years old. The only valid comparison
>of an LS-5000 to an LS-2000 would require an LS-2000 that had been recently
>serviced. I service them, over 100 per year, and the optics on most of
>them have the clarity of waxed paper. But it's just dust and grease, and
>it's easily cleaned .... once you tear the LS-2000 down to nearly the very
>last screw, clean EVERYTHING (optics and mechanism), relubricate the
>mechanism and reassemble it almost from scratch. [I do that, by the way,
>and the cost is $95 + $20 for return shipping. I sell both the service and
>completely refurbished scanners on E-Bay.]
>
>
> David Blanchard wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> I own both the LS-2000 and the 5000ED. The difference between these
>> two is significant enough that I have rescanned almost everything that
>> was originally scanned with the LS-2000.
>>
>> The differences are especially noticeable with Kodachromes but since
>> the OP mentioned Fujichromes, this might not be an issue.
>>
>> (But you did say "With most images..." so we are probably saying the
>> same thing.)
>>
>> My experience also suggests that ICE (i.e., dust removal) on the
>> 5000ed is better than that on the LS-2000.
>>
>> I would recommend the OP purchase the 5000ED instead of the LS-2000.
>>
>>
>>
>> -db-
>>
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

I get in scanners that ARE "nominally" working ... and I can't believe
that they produce any image at all. The mirrors don't even look like
mirrors and don't seem capable of reflecting ANYTHING ... they look like
a layer of dust on cardboard.

The problem is that most people use these scanners in the vertical
orientation and in that orientation the mirror is horizontal, reflective
side up. I don't care how clean your home or business is, short of
being in a clean room after AT LEAST 7 years (and some of these are now
10 years old), they are going to be dusty. VERY dusty.

That's why when people tell me that "my xxxxx scanner outperformed an
LS-2000" ..... I know that while the statement may be true, it wasn't
because "your scanner" is actually better than an LS-2000, but, rather,
it was because of the condition and age of the LS-2000 that you are
doing the comparison to.

The quality of a good scan from a clean and properly working LS-2000 is
STUNNING. There are other scanners as good, there are other scanners
that are, on paper, better in some way or ways (higher resolution,
higher dynamic range, etc.), and in few (VERY few) cases, those
differences may actually make a difference. But for 98% of all "real
world" images taken by non-professional photographers with "real world"
consumer films, cameras, lenses and processing, the 10 megapixel image
from a good, properly working LS-2000 cannot be visually distinguished
from a "better" scan by any other scanner. You just reach a point (and
the LS-2000 is beyond that point) where the scanner is no longer the
limiting factor, and beyond that point, making the scanner better just
doesn't make any visible difference in the resulting image quality.

[And, FWIW, you can't tell the difference between an LS-2000 and an
LS-30, either. (The LS-30 is a "dumbed down" lower cost version of the
LS-2000, identical except for 4 features left out of the FIRMWARE.)]

[PS ... th comments about the mirror apply to ALL of the Nikon scanners.
The mirrors are horizontal when they are used in the [normal] vertical
orientation, so they will, in time, get dusty: LS-2000, LS-4000 and
LS-5000. But the LS-2000 is twice the age of the LS-4000 and more than
twice the age of the LS-5000, so you see a lot more of this in LS-2000's.]


Silicon Sam wrote:

>
> I have a Coolscan V now, but I recently sold a Coolscan III and
> LS-2000 on ebay. I took them apart and cleaned and lubed them up
> before I sold them. I was amazed at the amount of crud on the mirror
> on both of them. Yikes!
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

There are 3 variants of the Nikon auto slide feeder for the Nikon film
scanners:

-SF-200 (made for the LS-2000)
-SF-200(s) (made for the LS-4000)
-SF-210 (made for the LS-5000)

All 3 feeders work with all 3 scanners.

The SF-200 (beige) and 200(s) (light gray/silver) are identical except
for the color of the plastic.

The SF-210 has a mechanically adjustable "gate width" and this does
significantly reduce the jam rate: The SF-210 is a more reliable unit
than the SF-200 or 200(s).

If you do a web search, you will find a lot of "hacks" that accomplish
the same thing on an SF-200 that the adjustable gate did in the SF-210.
They are real kludges, they are not pretty, but they do work
(generally they involve using an old credit card or piece of sheet metal
to custom adjust the gate width to match the thickness of the slides
being scanned). You will also find some other "hacks" (the "battery"
trick) that even further improve the SF-210 (as well as the SF-200).
There are plenty of web sites out there with photos and instructions.

It's actually possible to convert an SF-200 to an SF-210 by replacing
all the parts that are different (or not present) with SF-210 parts.
Unfortunately, while it's possible, it's expensive (almost $100) and you
get a somewhat strange looking "two-tone" unit because the SF-200 and
the SF-210 are molded from different colors of plastic.


Phil Ardussi wrote:
> Barry,
>
> On the 5000ED using the auto slide feeder, how do you avoid hanging slides
> during the process? I like to set mine up with a stack of 50 or so at night,
> go to bed, and frequently wake up the next morning with only some slides
> scanned and the others hung up in the feeder. Kind of frustrating.
>
> Thanks.
>
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Thanks, Barry. I have the SF-210.

"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:69612$48ed52fb$29928@news.teranews.com...
> There are 3 variants of the Nikon auto slide feeder for the Nikon film
> scanners:
>
> -SF-200 (made for the LS-2000)
> -SF-200(s) (made for the LS-4000)
> -SF-210 (made for the LS-5000)
>
> All 3 feeders work with all 3 scanners.
>
> The SF-200 (beige) and 200(s) (light gray/silver) are identical except for
> the color of the plastic.
>
> The SF-210 has a mechanically adjustable "gate width" and this does
> significantly reduce the jam rate: The SF-210 is a more reliable unit
> than the SF-200 or 200(s).
>
> If you do a web search, you will find a lot of "hacks" that accomplish the
> same thing on an SF-200 that the adjustable gate did in the SF-210. They
> are real kludges, they are not pretty, but they do work (generally they
> involve using an old credit card or piece of sheet metal to custom adjust
> the gate width to match the thickness of the slides being scanned). You
> will also find some other "hacks" (the "battery" trick) that even further
> improve the SF-210 (as well as the SF-200). There are plenty of web sites
> out there with photos and instructions.
>
> It's actually possible to convert an SF-200 to an SF-210 by replacing all
> the parts that are different (or not present) with SF-210 parts.
> Unfortunately, while it's possible, it's expensive (almost $100) and you
> get a somewhat strange looking "two-tone" unit because the SF-200 and the
> SF-210 are molded from different colors of plastic.
>
>
> Phil Ardussi wrote:
>> Barry,
>>
>> On the 5000ED using the auto slide feeder, how do you avoid hanging
>> slides during the process? I like to set mine up with a stack of 50 or so
>> at night, go to bed, and frequently wake up the next morning with only
>> some slides scanned and the others hung up in the feeder. Kind of
>> frustrating.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

In article <50bb5$48ed4ff9$26709@news.teranews.com>,
Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:

>That's why when people tell me that "my xxxxx scanner outperformed an
>LS-2000" ..... I know that while the statement may be true, it wasn't
>because "your scanner" is actually better than an LS-2000, but, rather,
>it was because of the condition and age of the LS-2000 that you are
>doing the comparison to.
>
>The quality of a good scan from a clean and properly working LS-2000 is
>STUNNING.


I agree that a clean scanner is important and I regularly cleaned my
LS-2000 (but probably not to the degree of service that you provide).
And, yes, an older scanner might not perform up to original
specs. These are all valid points.

Nonetheless, the 5000 has 14 bits A/D while the 2000 has 12 bits A/D
conversion. This suggests that the 5000 might be better at extracting
information from the shadows than the 2000 -- and that has been my
experience -- especially with Kodachromes. This probably is not as
important with other film types. But since most of my archive is
Kodachrome, this makes a difference. The OP, on the other hand,
indicated he was going to scan Fujichromes.

Also, the 5000 uses a newer version of ICE.

Ultimately, the OP needs to consider whether to buy an older model or
a newer model. The 2000 is SCSI while the 5000 is USB2 and this might
be the main criterion for a decision.

-db-

--

+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| David O. Blanchard dob@npgcable.com Flagstaff, Arizona |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+

Re: "Nonetheless, the 5000 has 14 bits A/D while the 2000 has 12 bits
A/D conversion. This suggests that the 5000 might be better at
extracting information from the shadows than the 2000 -- and that has
been my experience -- especially with Kodachromes"

The statement is true, but the number of images that have such detail
(talking about real-world consumer images shot on consumer cameras, with
consumer film, with consumer processing and consumer lenses) is small
(and for the most part limited to some slide films .... negative film
doesn't have that much dynamic range itself). As a practical matter, it
makes no difference on over 95% of images that a typical consumer might
have. But I won't argue that it can make a difference in some cases.


David Blanchard wrote:
> In article <50bb5$48ed4ff9$26709@news.teranews.com>,
> Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> That's why when people tell me that "my xxxxx scanner outperformed an
>> LS-2000" ..... I know that while the statement may be true, it wasn't
>> because "your scanner" is actually better than an LS-2000, but, rather,
>> it was because of the condition and age of the LS-2000 that you are
>> doing the comparison to.
>>
>> The quality of a good scan from a clean and properly working LS-2000 is
>> STUNNING.
>
>
> I agree that a clean scanner is important and I regularly cleaned my
> LS-2000 (but probably not to the degree of service that you provide).
> And, yes, an older scanner might not perform up to original
> specs. These are all valid points.
>
> Nonetheless, the 5000 has 14 bits A/D while the 2000 has 12 bits A/D
> conversion. This suggests that the 5000 might be better at extracting
> information from the shadows than the 2000 -- and that has been my
> experience -- especially with Kodachromes. This probably is not as
> important with other film types. But since most of my archive is
> Kodachrome, this makes a difference. The OP, on the other hand,
> indicated he was going to scan Fujichromes.
>
> Also, the 5000 uses a newer version of ICE.
>
> Ultimately, the OP needs to consider whether to buy an older model or
> a newer model. The 2000 is SCSI while the 5000 is USB2 and this might
> be the main criterion for a decision.
>
> -db-
>
> --
>
> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
> | David O. Blanchard dob@npgcable.com Flagstaff, Arizona |
> +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **