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

Hi

Having been a landscape photographer for about 22 years I have a large
number of slides - mostly FujiChrome 100 or Sensia with some 50 /
Velvia - taken with a Contax 159MM.

Some years ago I bought a Minolta Dimage II for about UKP299 and at
the time was reasonably happy with it although the speed and amount of
post-processing to get rid of dust was always a nuisance. However
since going digital with a Nikon D80 (how I miss my Zeiss lenses) I
look at the slide scans and think too many of them are poor against
the new shots. Even using Vuescan software I find the greens are poor
and there seems to be a graininess that isn't there when they are
projected.

So my question is, has film scanning technology moved on enough to
make a new slide scanner worthwhile? Any thoughts or recommendations?

TIA

Bill Marshall

"Bill Marshall" <bill.marshall@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eivke4tdaph3i6bgipgkgk7ja2erase89e@4ax.com...
> Hi
>
> Having been a landscape photographer for about 22 years I have a large
> number of slides - mostly FujiChrome 100 or Sensia with some 50 /
> Velvia - taken with a Contax 159MM.
>
> Some years ago I bought a Minolta Dimage II for about UKP299 and at
> the time was reasonably happy with it although the speed and amount of
> post-processing to get rid of dust was always a nuisance. However
> since going digital with a Nikon D80 (how I miss my Zeiss lenses) I
> look at the slide scans and think too many of them are poor against
> the new shots. Even using Vuescan software I find the greens are poor
> and there seems to be a graininess that isn't there when they are
> projected.
>
> So my question is, has film scanning technology moved on enough to
> make a new slide scanner worthwhile? Any thoughts or recommendations?
>
> TIA
>
> Bill Marshall

If I were to buy another film scanner today, the only ones I would consider
are the Nikon Coolscans.
http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Ni...ers/index.page

For top of the line 35 mm slides the best choice is the
Super COOLSCAN 5000 ED

If you have medium format (120 film) the Super Coolscan 9000 ED is the way
to go.

None of these scanners are cheap. The Coolscan 5000 ED is MSRP $1,999.95
USD. You can find it a bit less at the big photography stores. In the USA
B&H Video. I don't know the stores in the UK.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...n_5000_ED.html


--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--

Your mistake was not getting a scanner with "Digital ICE". The only
options to consider are the Nikon Scanners (anything from the LS-2000
forward) or some of the Epson flatbed scanners.


Bill Marshall wrote:
> Hi
>
> Having been a landscape photographer for about 22 years I have a large
> number of slides - mostly FujiChrome 100 or Sensia with some 50 /
> Velvia - taken with a Contax 159MM.
>
> Some years ago I bought a Minolta Dimage II for about UKP299 and at
> the time was reasonably happy with it although the speed and amount of
> post-processing to get rid of dust was always a nuisance. However
> since going digital with a Nikon D80 (how I miss my Zeiss lenses) I
> look at the slide scans and think too many of them are poor against
> the new shots. Even using Vuescan software I find the greens are poor
> and there seems to be a graininess that isn't there when they are
> projected.
>
> So my question is, has film scanning technology moved on enough to
> make a new slide scanner worthwhile? Any thoughts or recommendations?
>
> TIA
>
> Bill Marshall
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

You can get a coolscan 5000 for about $1,000. You can get a refurbished
LS-2000 for about $300+/-. The 2000 is slower, SCSI and lower
resolution but it's still 10 megapixels (the 5000 is more like 26
megapixels, but one really has to question, with MOST actual 35mm
images, if even 10 megapixels isn't more detail than is really present
in the film). With most images, you won't be able to tell any
difference between the two scanners.

CSM1 wrote:

>
> If I were to buy another film scanner today, the only ones I would consider
> are the Nikon Coolscans.
> http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Ni...ers/index.page
>
> For top of the line 35 mm slides the best choice is the
> Super COOLSCAN 5000 ED
>
> If you have medium format (120 film) the Super Coolscan 9000 ED is the way
> to go.
>
> None of these scanners are cheap. The Coolscan 5000 ED is MSRP $1,999.95
> USD. You can find it a bit less at the big photography stores. In the USA
> B&H Video. I don't know the stores in the UK.
>
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...n_5000_ED.html
>
>
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

In article <d970a$48eae446$13004@news.teranews.com>,
Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>You can get a coolscan 5000 for about $1,000. You can get a refurbished
>LS-2000 for about $300+/-. The 2000 is slower, SCSI and lower
>resolution but it's still 10 megapixels (the 5000 is more like 26
>megapixels, but one really has to question, with MOST actual 35mm
>images, if even 10 megapixels isn't more detail than is really present
>in the film). With most images, you won't be able to tell any
>difference between the two scanners.
>

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-

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

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

"Bill Marshall" <bill.marshall@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6qdne49jj0rhujj1eim76ohta24k7gmrsf@4ax.com...
> 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

My personal opinion, the Nikon software is far better than VueScan will ever
be.


--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--

I am perfectly happy with the Nikon software, but since I have not used
VueScan I can't compare them.

Bill Marshall 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
** Posted from http://www.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 **

On Oct 7, 6:54*pm, Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOS...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> 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 fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

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!