juno_lau
Established
Hi John,
could you scan a 35mm film with the v500 and compare the result with the Plustek?
i can only afford one scanner...
if you can do so, it would be a great help
thanks
Juno
could you scan a 35mm film with the v500 and compare the result with the Plustek?
i can only afford one scanner...
if you can do so, it would be a great help
thanks
Juno
marke
Well-known
I bought the 7200 last year for $179. I'm very pleased with it. Although I have thought about getting a Nikon, until I can see some REAL comparisons, I probably won't budge. It's a great deal and it's still LESS than half the price of a Nikon.
For B&W I usally shoot XP2 or 400CN. And yes,it does work with Vista. Initially I had some problems getting the upgrade to work, but now everything is just fine. Here's a few taken with my M6 TTL:
For B&W I usally shoot XP2 or 400CN. And yes,it does work with Vista. Initially I had some problems getting the upgrade to work, but now everything is just fine. Here's a few taken with my M6 TTL:
foto_fool
Well-known
Mark - WOW. Great shots. And great tonal range. These could work as Plustek promotional material 
.
Juno - I have been itching to do a 35mm comparison between the Plustek and the V500. It won't happen tonight and tomorrow is spoken for already, but Monday is a holiday here and I will make a project of it - post by late evening GMT-8.
. Juno - I have been itching to do a 35mm comparison between the Plustek and the V500. It won't happen tonight and tomorrow is spoken for already, but Monday is a holiday here and I will make a project of it - post by late evening GMT-8.
Rhoyle
Well-known
My experiences have been thus...
My first film scanner had a dmax of 3.6. It was sharp, had good color with chromes and lost shadow detail and a little highight detail
My second scanner was a flatbed with a dmax of 3.8. It wasn't quite as sharp, but the shadow detail was very noticibly better. Highlight detail was improved.
My 3rd scanner has a dmax of 4.2. I don't lose any noticible shadow detail and highlight detail is excellent.
I'm purposely leaving out makes and models because I'm convinced that Dmax really DOES make a difference. As a rangefinder shooter, you don't use crappy equipment. Save your lunch money for a little longer and get the best you can so you can really utilize the information that your camera and lenses are capturing.
My first film scanner had a dmax of 3.6. It was sharp, had good color with chromes and lost shadow detail and a little highight detail
My second scanner was a flatbed with a dmax of 3.8. It wasn't quite as sharp, but the shadow detail was very noticibly better. Highlight detail was improved.
My 3rd scanner has a dmax of 4.2. I don't lose any noticible shadow detail and highlight detail is excellent.
I'm purposely leaving out makes and models because I'm convinced that Dmax really DOES make a difference. As a rangefinder shooter, you don't use crappy equipment. Save your lunch money for a little longer and get the best you can so you can really utilize the information that your camera and lenses are capturing.
kipkeston
Well-known
Indeed, DMAX is just about the most important spec
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I think its funny how many people on these forums talk about the many thousands of dollars they spend on overpriced Leica cameras and lenses then refuse to buy a scanner that's capable of showing the full detail and tonality that you get from those expensive cameras.
I have a Nikon LS-8000 scanner and it was worth every cent. Every print I exhibit came through that scanner. If I'd bought a lesser scanner then my high priced cameras were wastes of money because the quality they can deliver will never show in the prints.
I have a Nikon LS-8000 scanner and it was worth every cent. Every print I exhibit came through that scanner. If I'd bought a lesser scanner then my high priced cameras were wastes of money because the quality they can deliver will never show in the prints.
ampguy
Veteran
very interesting
very interesting
I'd also be most interested in a comparison between the plustek and V500.
Thanks!
very interesting
I'd also be most interested in a comparison between the plustek and V500.
Thanks!
juno_lau said:
kipkeston
Well-known
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
ever heard of a wet print?
foto_fool
Well-known
Chris - you said the magic word - "exhibit". I don't. I admit I'm a gearhead, and have more than a few lenses I don't use enough to justify their purchase from the usage standpoint . But I have bought very little that was "overpriced".
I like RF gear because it is already obsolete. RFs are highly evolved and refined photo technology, and "improvements" are rare (10 pages over a new 35mm lens? TEN already?). I don't buy the latest greatest dSLR because today's 5D! becomes yesterday's 5D about every six months it seems. And you know what is evolving faster than dSLRs? Scanners.
You need an 8000 ED today for your work. When the technology that makes the 8000 such a great scanner gets devalued by 75%, and my current cheapo scanners are Nigerian landfill, I will still have my negatives (maybe properly pared down to a workable number) and will scan them again to get the detail I missed first go around.
. But I have bought very little that was "overpriced". I like RF gear because it is already obsolete. RFs are highly evolved and refined photo technology, and "improvements" are rare (10 pages over a new 35mm lens? TEN already?). I don't buy the latest greatest dSLR because today's 5D! becomes yesterday's 5D about every six months it seems. And you know what is evolving faster than dSLRs? Scanners.
You need an 8000 ED today for your work. When the technology that makes the 8000 such a great scanner gets devalued by 75%, and my current cheapo scanners are Nigerian landfill, I will still have my negatives (maybe properly pared down to a workable number) and will scan them again to get the detail I missed first go around.
Last edited:
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
kipkeston said:
Yes. Making them was damaging my health because I developed chemical allergies.
photobizzz
Speak of the Devil
I personally opted for a film scanner on the inexpensive side because if I want high quality digital files I will just shoot with my Pentax K10D, I mainly use the scanner to be able to view and post my negs, if I want a print I will send the negative to a pro lab and have it printed. (I dont have a darkroom) I dont feel that my "expensive" cameras and lenses go to waste as the neg is high quality and will outlast me.
juno_lau
Established
i dont really know about the Dmax...
is it just the dynamic range of a scanner?
if it is, i will just do two exposure with the scanner and solve the problem in photoshop.
does this sound possible?
time is not really a problem
as i will be delighted if 1/6 of a roll of my film turn out satisfying myelf...
and i rarely print larger than 8"x10"
so i will prefer saving my money for GAS
is it just the dynamic range of a scanner?
if it is, i will just do two exposure with the scanner and solve the problem in photoshop.
does this sound possible?
time is not really a problem
as i will be delighted if 1/6 of a roll of my film turn out satisfying myelf...
and i rarely print larger than 8"x10"
so i will prefer saving my money for GAS
pphuang
brain drain...
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
However, technology marches on, and eventually, you will see higher quality at a lower price point - that's just the way it is. Yes, often you get what you pay for, but I try not to dismiss something new just because its cheap until I've seen the actual results and made up my own mind...
aad
Not so new now.
Chris does have a good point, though I'm not sure higher price always means better quality.
I am considering finding a Nikon 9000 as I start to do "jobs" that require lots of film, including the medium format stuff. The Scan Dual IV has done well so far but is a bit slow.
I am considering finding a Nikon 9000 as I start to do "jobs" that require lots of film, including the medium format stuff. The Scan Dual IV has done well so far but is a bit slow.
gdi
Veteran
foto_fool said:
Only in the flatbed, all purpose space. Seen a new Nikon or Minolta announced lately?
amin_sabet
Established
I've never used a scanner. Does this one or any of the other affordable scanners automatically feed in the negatives, or do you have to keep manually positioning them? I'd love to save the ~$4 per roll I'm currently paying to have my negatives scanned at Costco.