RIP Coolscan!

F

Fraser

Well-known
Local time
4:20 AM
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
1,792
Location
Scotland
View My Gallery
Well my Nikon Coolscan V ED finally gave up today (with a little help!). Having a look at the prices of scanners Nikons are a bit pricey and considering they are not even supported anymore thought I would try using DSLR, its not too bad for a first quick try.
16fbpicScantest_01 by f4saregreat!, on Flickr
So I'm wondering should I-
a. Stick with DSLR and it may be ok with a bit more work.
b. Buy a secondhand Nikon.
c. Get another scanner suggestions please.

Cheers.
 
What did you use to do the one above, which I assume is a DSLR copy of a neg or slide? Camera? Lens? Anything else?

I've been very happy with camera scanning.
 
mdarnton said:
What did you use to do the one above, which I assume is a DSLR copy of a neg or slide? Camera? Lens? Anything else?

I've been very happy with camera scanning.
Click to expand...

I used Canon 1dx 50mm 13mm extension tube (could do with a longer one bit of a crop) Hama cheap light box and durst glassless neg carrier Fujicolour 100 (expired) processed in tetenal chems. I think if I had a proper macro lens it might be quite good.
getting better
16fbpicd1dxscan_004 by f4saregreat!, on Flickr
Cheers.
wouldn't mind seeing some examples of what can be done with dslr.
 
Most of my 35mm flickr stuff is dslr scanned: http://flickr.com/mdarnton The most recent three are with my D7200 (4000x6000, roughly), the rest with D300 (2800x4200, roughly), and only one, the 4th, with a G4050 HP flatbed, just to see what it would do in its two-pass mode, compared with camera scanning.

I recently upgraded to a Nikon D7200 (24Mp, no anti-alias) and an El-Nikkor 63mm/2.8, with a bellows/slide duping rig, and the results are literally more than twice as good as I was getting with my D300 (12Mp plus AA) and 55mm/3.5 micro-Nikkor. But I was happy enough with the D300, which edged out flatbed scanners. Now I'm delighted. The latest (plastic mount version!) 63/2.8 Nikkor is supposedly one of the very best lenses out there for this job, along with the 75mm Rodagon-D lens which is harder to find and more money.

I don't do any color, though, so my things may not help you much.

You may get the wrong impression a bit, because the D300's resolution range is particularly vulnerable to grain aliasing, which makes "false grain", larger than the film's own grain. That's not grain sharpness you're looking at there. The D720 scans are, I think, real grain, resolved. . . or closer to it, anyway.

I would put it this way: if you are satisfied with the resolution level of your Canon DSLR, with a little care and the right lens you should be able to drag that much out of film, if it's there. Since my habitual Tri-X in D76 has less than my 24Mp DSLR, I'm completely happy with what I'm getting, and there's nothing more to get.
 
mdarnton said:
You may get the wrong impression a bit, because the D300's resolution range is particularly vulnerable to grain aliasing, which makes "false grain", larger than the film's own grain. That's not grain sharpness you're looking at there. The D720 scans are, I think, real grain, resolved. . . or closer to it, anyway.
Click to expand...

The D7200 doesn't have enough resolution to image grain, nor do the Coolscan 5000 or 9000. All of them are generating "false grain". Probably need to approximately double the resolution of the Coolscans before one would be in the ballpark for faithful rendering of Tri-X, let alone anything finer-grained.

But I use a 9000 anyway. When it becomes unrepairable I'll be looking very hard at a high-MP DSLR setup to replace it. A drum scanner is way more than I want to mess with.
 
Drum scanners are difficult and require a learning curve. You need to wet scan .

Keep in mind they are old and expensive with same issues as Coolscan.
 
Seems the fault with my coolscan is the SA21, slide it in and the scanner does not recognise it, had a look on ebay and a replacement sa21 is almost as much as a plustek. But the scanner does still scan using slide feed ma21 so not a total loss bit of a pain putting negs into slide mounts!
 
Hi Fraser, you could also consider the FH-3 filmholder which holds strip of 6 negs and goes into the MA-21 slot. Film advance between frames is manual but at least you won't have to cut film into individual frames and remount as slides - crazy.
 
pomozwi said:
Hi Fraser, you could also consider the FH-3 filmholder which holds strip of 6 negs and goes into the MA-21 slot. Film advance between frames is manual but at least you won't have to cut film into individual frames and remount as slides - crazy.
Click to expand...

never heard of that will have a wee look.
 
It's hard to beat a Plustek scanner at what they cost. With a resolution of up to 7200dpi, you get stellar results. My scans beat the best scans I ever got from a professional lab.
 
I'm also planning on moving away from my V600 and Pakon scanner for scanning colors

Pretty impressed with the colors, resolution and DR that I'm getting with the M240 scanning rig (Canon FD 50mm 3.5 Macro lens and IPS Monitor as light source)
IMG_7180 by Earl Dieta, on Flickr

L1002505 by e Dieta, on Flickr

L1002544 by e Dieta, on Flickr

L1002522 by e Dieta, on Flickr

I've done color negative in the past with the A7 but might give it another try with the M240.
 
Thanks for the replies, managed to find a fh3 quite cheap on the big auction site, cheaper than buying a new scanner or a macro lens even if I only get another 6months/year fingers crossed from the scanner!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Using a Nikon Super CoolScan 4000 ED versus a digital camera w/VALOI easy35 (or other similar alternatives).
Replies
7
Views
2K
Godfrey
Godfrey
Chriscrawfordphoto
Why I'm Shooting Film Again
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
11K
wlewisiii
W
gavinlg
Plustek 8100 vs CoolScan 9000 comparison
Replies
16
Views
4K
albireo
A
Andprayforrain
Nikon D850 for digitizing
Replies
14
Views
2K
Huss
H
ColSebastianMoran
Adapt Scanner Lens for Camera-Scanning??
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
x-ray
x-ray
Back
Top Bottom