Nikon discontinues last film scanner

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Bruce, Dec 22, 2010.

  1. Bruce

    J. Clarke Guest

    J. Clarke, Dec 23, 2010
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bruce

    GMAN Guest

    Even though VueScan is a decent piece of software, Silverfast is lightyears
    ahead in features. If your gonna do it right , its worth the price!!!
     
    GMAN, Dec 23, 2010
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bruce

    Bruce Guest


    Konica Minolta scanners are good when they work, but since the
    takeover of K-M's (D)SLR division by Sony, the availability of spare
    parts has varied from poor to non-existent. So buying a used one is a
    bit of a leap in the dark. However, if you already have one, and it
    is still working, it is definitely worth keeping.
     
    Bruce, Dec 23, 2010
    #23
  4. Bruce

    Bruce Guest


    When scanning film, good flatbeds work OK , that's all. They cannot
    approach the Dmax that a good film scanner routinely achieves.

    Of course that doesn't stop manufacturers making outrageous claims for
    the Dmax of their flatbed scanners. But if you want the maximum
    dynamic range, a dedicated film scanner is the way to go.
     
    Bruce, Dec 23, 2010
    #24
  5. Bruce

    peter Guest

    Could be.
     
    peter, Dec 23, 2010
    #25
  6. Bruce

    tony cooper Guest

    It does both. The black holder holds 6 slides or a film strip with 6
    images.
    F-2900 with ICE.
    I really forget how I came to owning it. I was asking some questions
    about slide scanning, recommended scanners, and the cost comparison of
    self-scanning or sending out in some newsgroup or photo forum, and
    someone offered me this unit for $70 plus shipping. As it turned out,
    though, he lived about an hour-and-a-half's drive away, and I drove up
    and picked it up. It was an all day trip since I stopped all along
    the way and back taking photographs.

    It did a great job on my slides. Time consuming, but that isn't a
    problem for me.
     
    tony cooper, Dec 23, 2010
    #26
  7. Bruce

    K W Hart Guest

    Or you could just take the negs into your darkroom and print them "old
    school" style...
     
    K W Hart, Dec 23, 2010
    #27
  8. Bruce

    Bruce Guest


    I know exactly what you mean. I gave away my D700 when I sold my
    wedding photography business earlier this year - much of my equipment
    went with it. Initially, I was lost without the D700 and I soon
    replaced it with a well worn D3 which has the same sensor.

    Recently I bid for a contract for a theatre management group. My
    submission included a portfolio of images taken at several of the
    theatres that the group manages, all of them taken with the D3 using
    only available light.

    They asked me to attend an interview this week to clarify my bid, but
    the only questions they asked concerned how I managed to obtain such
    noise-free images without using flash. I replied that I used only
    equipment that was best suited to the job - Nikon DSLR cameras and no
    lens slower than f/2.8. I came away with a three-year contract that I
    probably could not have won with any other brand of equipment.

    I think the Nikon D3 and D700 have redefined the term "real
    photography" and there is nothing older that I want to go back to. I
    certainly would not give up ultra-low noise Nikon DSLRs for anything
    else that is currently available.
     
    Bruce, Dec 24, 2010
    #28
  9. Bruce

    GMAN Guest

    No, but you do need a software that fully supports the features of ones
    scanner.
     
    GMAN, Dec 24, 2010
    #29
  10. Bruce

    Noons Guest

    Bill Graham wrote,on my timestamp of 25/12/2010 5:42 PM:
    You lost me there. "denser sensing planes"?
    Deeper colours?
     
    Noons, Dec 25, 2010
    #30
  11. Bruce

    Noons Guest

    Bill Graham wrote,on my timestamp of 25/12/2010 5:36 PM:
    Not into smoking, but I do wood carving.
    Let me know the url - addie in header is true.
     
    Noons, Dec 25, 2010
    #31
  12. Bruce

    peter Guest


    It's a nice website whether or not one smokes pipes. <G>
     
    peter, Dec 25, 2010
    #32
  13. No, smaller elements = higher resolution.

    Shows Bill's childlike belief that "they" can always make things
    smaller, better, faster without limit.


    --
    Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet:

    To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing
    who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign
    that he is not going to hear any rebuttals.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Dec 25, 2010
    #33
  14. Bruce

    Noons Guest

    Bill Graham wrote,on my timestamp of 26/12/2010 12:55 PM:
    Nice stuff! Stopped smoking 9 years ago, but if I ever went back it'd be with
    a pipe: totally different experience.
     
    Noons, Dec 26, 2010
    #34
  15. Bruce

    Noons Guest

    David Nebenzahl wrote,on my timestamp of 26/12/2010 9:28 AM:
    Except for light waves, no doubt?
    :)
     
    Noons, Dec 26, 2010
    #35
  16. Bruce

    Noons Guest

    Bill Graham wrote,on my timestamp of 26/12/2010 12:46 PM:


    Yeah I see your point. But I doubt that we need anything higher than 20MP.
    I've just had a sensational canvas print made from a humble D200's 10MP and it
    is absolutely stunning at 20X30 inches. No need for any more detail, not at
    that price point.
    The issue to me is not the number of pixels, I get plenty from both digital and
    film at today's lens technology. It's the handling of each colour and its
    sensitivity curve that gets me with digital. Coming from a film background and
    being used to the way colours "mix and balance" in film, I have great difficulty
    in getting similar balance curves in digital. Possible but requires a lot of
    work and time, as much as I spend scanning. I do believe the D3 and the D700
    are much better, will have to get one to try. I'm finding the Oly E-PL1 to be
    very close to what I like and have more or less sorted a workflow in the Nikons
    that gets me almost there. But it's still not quite.
    That's 35mmm, with the MF stuff there is simply nothing at my price point that
    gets near.
    It'll happen, but I'll be too old to use it then...
     
    Noons, Dec 26, 2010
    #36
  17. Bruce

    Noons Guest

    Bill Graham wrote,on my timestamp of 26/12/2010 3:25 PM:
    Yup, I've seen essentially the same. A fellow pro photographer let me use his
    D3X this Winter - your Summer - and the results were astonishing but clearly and
    obviously limited by what the lens could do as well as diffraction.

    Same thing I found with new Velvia and Astia as well: if the camera is not rock
    steady and the focus perfect to a dot - something almost impossible to achieve
    with modern AF cameras - then the full 20MP and higher is elusive. I've gone
    back to using a Nikon F and an F4 that are absolutely spot-on with manual focus
    and shakes. That's with 35mm.

    Like in the old days, the cheapest way to circumvent these physical limitations
    is to increase the sensor size dramatically. Hence my using MF, in its many
    flavours. I'm currently using mostly 6x4.5 and occasionaly 6X6, with a 6X7 in
    reserve for when I want absolutely awesome definition.

    Looks like the new Pentax 645D is showing that with digital this is also the way
    to go, rather than adding unusable rez to smaller sensors.

    I think you're absolutely right: the D700 will give you plenty of sensational
    results for any foreseeable future. I've got an eye out for a well priced A850
    but if I can't find one then it'll be a D700 as well.
     
    Noons, Dec 26, 2010
    #37
  18. Bruce

    Bruce Guest


    Nikon usually abides by the "rule" that spares and service will be
    available for ten years from the date of discontinuation. However,
    that is not universally the case. For example, owners of the original
    version of the AF Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 (pre-D version) found that the
    ribbon cable between the CPU and lens mount was in short supply after
    a much shorter period than ten years.


    So have I, but they have almost all been scanned.
     
    Bruce, Dec 28, 2010
    #38
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.