I'm thinking about returning to film photography (an odd step because I
currently use digital). The thing that would swing it for me is the ease and
quality of home scanning. I am not a professional photographer but I am a
serious amateur. I would like to be able to scan and print without the pain
of finding a studio to do it for me.

I am totally out of touch with current scanning technology. A search of
google suggests there is really only one game in town: Nikon Coolscan.

If this is the case then the decision is between the LS-50 and the 5000-ED
(hope I've got that right). There seems to be a sizeable difference in price
between the two (in the UK at least).

Nikon seem to imply that if all you need are pictures for web pages then go
for the LS-50 whereas if you require "professional" use then you need the
5000-ED. Is this marketing hype or would I find the LS-50 lacking if I want
quality enlargements?

Finally, am I out of my mind and should I just accept that the world has
gone digital and buy a better digital camera?

TIA if anyone cares to post a response

LouisB
------
"I'm a half-wit. I sold the other half on e-Bay"

> Hi there LouisB! Well, I'm an amateur photographer myself, and
> reading many photography mags, and subscribing to numerous newsgroups,
> I would have to say that film photography is dying out, and digital is
> the way to go. There are so many pluses with digital that it only
> makes sense to me to go with digital.
> What type of digital camera do you use now? If you also use film
> cameras, what would make you want to stay with film? I have used both
> film and digital cameras, and my film camera hasn't seen the light of
> day since I got my first digital camera.(an Olympus C2500 L). I now
> use a Canon Digital Rebel, but am thinking about moving up to a 5D.
> Is there something about film that you like that you feel isn't
> available with digital?
>
> Talker

Talker, thanks for the response. I'm beginning to come round to your way of
thinking. I am currently using an Epson digital rangefinder, the RD-1 and
the only upgrade is to go for the Leica M8, unless I consider going film.
However, I am rapidly reconsidering and have to admit defeat. It seems that
all the advice I am getting both here and in other groups is to go digital.

Thanks for your interest

LouisB

In article <qUPli.6598$(E-Mail Removed)>,
LouisB <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Nikon seem to imply that if all you need are pictures for web pages then go
>for the LS-50 whereas if you require "professional" use then you need the
>5000-ED. Is this marketing hype or would I find the LS-50 lacking if I want
>quality enlargements?

If you are going to scan lots of film, speed will be quite important.
It is hard to say whether multi-sample scanning is really required or not.

As far as I can tell from the specs, those are the main differences between
the LS-50 and the LS-5000.

>Finally, am I out of my mind and should I just accept that the world has
>gone digital and buy a better digital camera?

I like film, so I going to stay with film for at least the near future.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:55:18 GMT, "LouisB"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I'm thinking about returning to film photography (an odd step because I
>currently use digital). The thing that would swing it for me is the ease and
>quality of home scanning. I am not a professional photographer but I am a
>serious amateur. I would like to be able to scan and print without the pain
>of finding a studio to do it for me.
>
>I am totally out of touch with current scanning technology. A search of
>google suggests there is really only one game in town: Nikon Coolscan.
>
>If this is the case then the decision is between the LS-50 and the 5000-ED
>(hope I've got that right). There seems to be a sizeable difference in price
>between the two (in the UK at least).
>
>Nikon seem to imply that if all you need are pictures for web pages then go
>for the LS-50 whereas if you require "professional" use then you need the
>5000-ED. Is this marketing hype or would I find the LS-50 lacking if I want
>quality enlargements?
>
>Finally, am I out of my mind and should I just accept that the world has
>gone digital and buy a better digital camera?
>
>TIA if anyone cares to post a response
>
>LouisB
>------
>"I'm a half-wit. I sold the other half on e-Bay"
>

Hi there LouisB! Well, I'm an amateur photographer myself, and
reading many photography mags, and subscribing to numerous newsgroups,
I would have to say that film photography is dying out, and digital is
the way to go. There are so many pluses with digital that it only
makes sense to me to go with digital.
What type of digital camera do you use now? If you also use film
cameras, what would make you want to stay with film? I have used both
film and digital cameras, and my film camera hasn't seen the light of
day since I got my first digital camera.(an Olympus C2500 L). I now
use a Canon Digital Rebel, but am thinking about moving up to a 5D.
Is there something about film that you like that you feel isn't
available with digital?

Talker

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:19:10 GMT, "LouisB"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> Hi there LouisB! Well, I'm an amateur photographer myself, and
>> reading many photography mags, and subscribing to numerous newsgroups,
>> I would have to say that film photography is dying out, and digital is
>> the way to go. There are so many pluses with digital that it only
>> makes sense to me to go with digital.
>> What type of digital camera do you use now? If you also use film
>> cameras, what would make you want to stay with film? I have used both
>> film and digital cameras, and my film camera hasn't seen the light of
>> day since I got my first digital camera.(an Olympus C2500 L). I now
>> use a Canon Digital Rebel, but am thinking about moving up to a 5D.
>> Is there something about film that you like that you feel isn't
>> available with digital?
>>
>> Talker
>
>Talker, thanks for the response. I'm beginning to come round to your way of
>thinking. I am currently using an Epson digital rangefinder, the RD-1 and
>the only upgrade is to go for the Leica M8, unless I consider going film.
>However, I am rapidly reconsidering and have to admit defeat. It seems that
>all the advice I am getting both here and in other groups is to go digital.
>
>Thanks for your interest
>
>LouisB
>

No problem LouisB. I take it that the reason you'd upgrade to
the Leica M8 is because you have lenses that will fit it.(a good
reason to stay with a particular brand.)
One of the best reasons to go with digital is because of the
immediacy of it....you can see your pictures as you take them.
A friend of mine in Australia said that when she does a
photoshoot, she only needs to take two pictures to get her camera
setup for the shoot. She takes one picture and checks the histogram
on the camera, then makes her adjustments to the camera and shoots the
second shot. If it's not perfect, she'll make a minor adjustment and
then she's ready to shoot.
I remember reading an article about a photographer who was hired
by a magazine to get a shot that showed a tennis pro jumping over the
net as if he just won a match. The photographer said that he took 25
rolls of film with him to make sure he had enough. He said that after
numerous hours of taking shots, he felt that he finally got enough
shots to guarantee that he got the shot he was looking for.
I couldn't help but feel that if he had used a digital camera, he
could see if he got the shot he was after as soon as he took it, and
if he didn't he would know what he needed to adjust to make sure he
got it. It would have saved him a lot of film, developing costs, and
time.

Talker

LouisB meinte:

> I am totally out of touch with current scanning technology. A search of
> google suggests there is really only one game in town: Nikon Coolscan.
>
> If this is the case then the decision is between the LS-50 and the 5000-ED
> (hope I've got that right). There seems to be a sizeable difference in price
> between the two (in the UK at least).
>
> Nikon seem to imply that if all you need are pictures for web pages then go
> for the LS-50 whereas if you require "professional" use then you need the
> 5000-ED. Is this marketing hype or would I find the LS-50 lacking if I want
> quality enlargements?

The scanning specs of the LS 50 are practically the same as the LS-4000
(which I own), except the lack of multi-pass scanning, which can be a
very slight (stress is on very) advantage with very "dark" slides. Apart
from that, the differences are mechanical ones: The LS4000/5000 accepts
the SF-200/210 feeder (for mounted slides) and another feeder for
complete film rolls. The LS 5000 is faster than the LS 50/LS 4000 due to
a second CCD row (top speed around 40 secs vs. 1+ min for a "basic" scan
at 4000dpi). I doubt whether 14bit (LS 50/4000) vs. 16bit (LS 5000) is
noticable.

Gregor


--
http://www.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://www.licht-blick.at ::: Forum für Multivisionsvorträge
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum

> I couldn't help but feel that if he had used a digital camera, he
> could see if he got the shot he was after as soon as he took it, and
> if he didn't he would know what he needed to adjust to make sure he
> got it. It would have saved him a lot of film, developing costs, and
> time.
>
> Talker
>

Talker

Thanks for the interesting story. Yes, it is the investment in Leica m
lenses which is driving my desire to use them to their best effect. I did
have a pretty stunning demonstration of a M8 yesterday and it was hard not
to immediately whip out my credit card and buy it!

regards

LouisB

LouisB wrote:
> I'm thinking about returning to film photography (an odd step because I
> currently use digital). The thing that would swing it for me is the ease and
> quality of home scanning. I am not a professional photographer but I am a
> serious amateur. I would like to be able to scan and print without the pain
> of finding a studio to do it for me.
>
> I am totally out of touch with current scanning technology. A search of
> google suggests there is really only one game in town: Nikon Coolscan.
>
> If this is the case then the decision is between the LS-50 and the 5000-ED
> (hope I've got that right). There seems to be a sizeable difference in price
> between the two (in the UK at least).
>
> Nikon seem to imply that if all you need are pictures for web pages then go
> for the LS-50 whereas if you require "professional" use then you need the
> 5000-ED. Is this marketing hype or would I find the LS-50 lacking if I want
> quality enlargements?

Here's a different approach:

Buy a used MF camera (Hassy, Rollei, Pentax, ...).
Get the Nikon 9000 ED scanner.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

In article <qUPli.6598$(E-Mail Removed)>, LouisB
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>I'm thinking about returning to film photography (an odd step because I
>currently use digital). The thing that would swing it for me is the ease and
>quality of home scanning. I am not a professional photographer but I am a
>serious amateur. I would like to be able to scan and print without the pain
>of finding a studio to do it for me.
>
>I am totally out of touch with current scanning technology. A search of
>google suggests there is really only one game in town: Nikon Coolscan.
>
>If this is the case then the decision is between the LS-50 and the 5000-ED
>(hope I've got that right). There seems to be a sizeable difference in price
>between the two (in the UK at least).
>
>Nikon seem to imply that if all you need are pictures for web pages then go
>for the LS-50 whereas if you require "professional" use then you need the
>5000-ED. Is this marketing hype or would I find the LS-50 lacking if I want
>quality enlargements?
>
>Finally, am I out of my mind and should I just accept that the world has
>gone digital and buy a better digital camera?
>
Whether you are out of your mind is something you won't find an answer
to on this, or any other newsgroup. It reminds me of a question I was
asked over 30 years ago: "Will you make me look beautiful?" To which I
replied "I'm a photographer Miss, not a plastic surgeon". But, its the
way you say it, not what you say, that makes the sale.

I switched to the Canon 5D almost 2 years ago soon after it was released
and, apart from some test and analysis images, have never shot seriously
on film since.

As Gregor explains, the LS-50 is effectively an LS-4000 crippled to
prevent it accepting the professional high speed adapters. I disagree
with Gregor as to the benefit of the 16-bit ADC on the LS-50000 - it
certainly does make a difference in the shadow detail of slide film.
However, if you never used a 14-bit LS-50 or LS-4000 I doubt you would
notice. Enlargements aren't the issue, fine shadow reproduction is.

Almost all digicams, by contrast, are only 12-bit systems. Some recent
examples are 14-bit - with the difference between the LS-50 and LS-5000
as even less than that.

One word on the Leica M8, which you are probably aware of but may not
be: filters! Get an IR & UV filter for ALL of your lenses. Leica
screwed up on this aspect of the M8, resulting in some strange colour
reproduction which cannot easily be corrected after the event, but
otherwise it is "just" a Leica. ;-)
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

On Jul 14, 1:08 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
wrote:
> LouisB wrote:
> > I'm thinking about returning to film photography (an odd step because I
> > currently use digital). The thing that would swing it for me is the ease and
> > quality of home scanning. I am not a professional photographer but I am a
> > serious amateur. I would like to be able to scan and print without the pain
> > of finding a studio to do it for me.
>
> > I am totally out of touch with current scanning technology. A search of
> > google suggests there is really only one game in town: Nikon Coolscan.
>
> > If this is the case then the decision is between the LS-50 and the 5000-ED
> > (hope I've got that right). There seems to be a sizeable difference in price
> > between the two (in the UK at least).
>
> > Nikon seem to imply that if all you need are pictures for web pages then go
> > for the LS-50 whereas if you require "professional" use then you need the
> > 5000-ED. Is this marketing hype or would I find the LS-50 lacking if I want
> > quality enlargements?
>
> Here's a different approach:
>
> Buy a used MF camera (Hassy, Rollei, Pentax, ...).
> Get the Nikon 9000 ED scanner.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>
> --
> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource:http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
> -- r.p.d.slr-systems:http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
> -- [SI] gallery & rulz:http://www.pbase.com/shootin
> -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.


I agree with Alan, get a medium format, a Mamiya 7 would be a good fit
as you like rangefinders. Other than that Hassleblad is about the only
other 2 1/4 I'd look at. 500 series are going for next to nothing
(comparitively). Nikon 9000 is tough to find new, but a very good
versitile scanner.

Tom