Better lens or better scanner - what first?

[Chris101]

Hey Florian, you are going to get a lens and a scanner. Get one (doesn't matter which) then get the other as you can afford them. My work is perceived as my prints, not my scans or my negatives. My prints are perceived, not only by their content, but by how well they are framed and matted. So a matte cutter is the best investment, eh?

 

[historicist]

I've owned a coolscan IV, 8000, and a V500. The Coolscans are better for 35mm, and the software I found more useful than epson scan.

Personally, in a hypothetical situation, I would buy a better scanner first because scanning is so tedious that going back and rescanning everything after I got a great scanner some years down the line just isn't going to happen.

Plus, the chances of someone bringing out a new film scanner better than what is currently available are really low, because the market is so small. I worry that film scanners will become like reel to reel tape machines, where a small community of users compete against each other to pay a lot of money for what second hand, good condition models are still available, and if any are still available new, they will either be super expensive Imacons aimed at a niche market or minor improvements of the V700.

Have you seen how much Coolscans go for on German ebay? A surprisingly large amount of money, I'm sure the prices are rising.

So while good lenses will always be available at reasonable prices, film scanners will become harder and harder to get and more expensive.

But anyway, aside from the post-apocalyptic scenario, I'm not sure if the difference between a Coolscan and a V500 is so incredible that you just have to buy the scanner. If you PM me your email I can send you scans of the same frame from a V500 and the 8000 so you can make up your own mind.

The Betterscanning inserts are probably a cost effective way of upgrading your V500:

http://www.betterscanning.com/

I've never used them myself, but it stands to reason that flat film will make a big difference to how sharp the scans are.

 

[wallace]

Florian, please check: http://www.photoinfos.com/Scanner/PolaroidSprintscan35plus.htm
This is a fantastic little machine for 35mm which works wonderful with vuescan, it only requires a SCSI adapter. If you are interested, please contact me. I have 3 of these scanners and could offer you one complete with brand new film holders. I live 100km north of Hamburg. I also have a Canon 35/2.0 which you could test if you visit me.

Thomas (wallace)

 

[Ronald_H]

I have both the v700 and Coolscan 5000. To me there is no contest between the two scanners.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mnewhook/3251404399/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mnewhook/3251346899/

If your scans look that different I'd suspect something is wrong with your settings and/or post processing. One set is far too soft and too low on contrast. The other looks too oversharpened and grainy to me.

 

[dfoo]

Nice try, but they are both right from the scanner.

 

[historicist]

OK, some direct comparisons. I don't have any 35mm comparisons, only 120. Scanned on a Coolscan 8000, standard film holders, 2400dpi:

 

[historicist]

Now the V500. Standard film holders, 2400dpi.

The differences (to me, at least) are: the V500 is noisier, and there is also a weird halo thing around the edge of the car mirror in the second crop. But the difference isn't that great, you can only really see it at 100%. I think it is also fairly clear that the Coolscan 8000 isn't as sharp as it could be unless you use glass film holders, though with 35mm film flatness seems like less of an issue.

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

The scanner, at the end of the day, is your bottleneck. In fact, I doubt anyone could tell the difference between say a Voigtlander Ultron 35 f1.7 or the Leica you suggest when scanned on either your V500 or a Nikon 5000. Why? Because both lenses resolve more than the scanners can pick up.

In the end....you're gonna need both. But keep in mind that even of you get the Nikon 5000, you won't be seeing a difference when scanning with consumer grade scanners.

And besides, to really get that extra resolution and microcontrast to be visible, you need high end scans, from fine grained film, with the camera mounted on a tripod.....you simply won't get that rez from handheld shots.....even with a Leica lens. And if you're going to mount on a tripod, you may as well go for MF 6x7 and leave 35mm Leicas in the dust when it comes to quality.

 

[bambamphoto]

I would say get the lens. I know you don't want to make this a "which lens" forum, but the relative cost of the two does seem to factor into the decision, hence people giving lens suggestions.

For the money, folks have mentioned the Summicron 40/2 or the Rokkor 40/2, very similar except the Minolta made version is multicoated and flares less. I use the Leitz version and it is tack sharp, contrasty, with gorgeous bokeh. It also flares like mad when I go into strong light, but it is quite predictable in its behavior. It is also a hair wider than 40 mm, maybe 38, which gives a really cool perspective. That is one way you could have your cake and eat it, too.

As far as the epson goes, it really is not as sharp as a dedicated films scanner. I have compared many, many scans done with a coolscan 5000 to my Epson, and the Coolscan trumps it. I am able to get quite usable images out of my V750, but not close to the Nikon.

Still there are some things you can do to improve what you are getting out of your flatbed. Per above, betterscanning.com sells a continuously adjustable height scanning bed that works well for dry mounting. It is worth the investment, as are the ANR if your film isn't flat. The perfection scanners have two lenses in them with maximum resolutions of 6400 and 4800 ppi respectively. Depending on your production run, they can differ by a few fractions of a mm in terms of optimum focal plane as determined by height. They also scan the best at their stated maximum resolutions. First get the height right...

Then... You need to learn about appropriate sharpening. This is an art with a flatbed. What I do is scan ISO 100 film at 6400 dpi and then apply several passes of sharpening. Usually I do USM 200-240%, R 2.2-3.2 (sometimes more like 2.5-3.5 for ISO 100), T0 for the first pass, then half all of the measurements from my first pass and do a second pass with those settings, sometimes adding a few low levels of threshold to push the sharpening to the edges of objects. Then I reduce the resolution to 3200 PPI and see what I get (PS does a much better job reducing sizes by half than applying more complex interpolations). At 3200 ppi, you end up with 25.5 x 37 cm print (if you are printing at 300 ppi). Depending on your subject matter and appropriate viewing distance, this is pushing it in terms of size...maybe.

You can do the same thing at 4800 ppi, just make the pixel radius appropriately smaller in your sharpening. At 2400, you will get 19x28 cm prints...pretty good for ISO 400 films.

Enjoy your new lens, tweak the scanner a bit and see what you get! Then save up and get a dedicated film scanner when time and finances permit.

Happy shooting,

Jay

 

[boy_lah]

Florian...my 5p worth. Get a new lens. Your scans on flickr is very good already. I'm not sure if a better scanner will make that much difference on the web.