Which Nikon film scanner?

Hello!

I am planning a purchase of a Nikon film scanner for 35mm film only.
Nikon has two good models, the Coolscan 5/LS-50 and the Coolscan
5000/LS-5000.

Now, which is the one to choose?

I do not need the film roll scanning option or the slide feeder, and
the faster scanning times of the LS-5000 is also not an imperative
since I do not scan very high volumes and the LS-50 is also pretty fast.

So it all boils down to two factors:

* Possible differences in mechanical durability. Are the parts in the
LS-5000 scanner made for a longer life span?

* Possible differences in output quality. It is said that the LS-5000
has a genuine 16-bit A/D converter, whereas the LS-50 only has a
14-bit one. If so, how important is this in real use, can one see a
difference, and if so under what circumstances? Are there other
advantages that go with the LS-5000, does it yield marginally sharper
images, have anyone been able to demonstrate a difference here?

I do not say that "price is no object," but I am willing to wait a
little and save up for the best if it is actually better with respect
to one or both of the factors mentioned.

So I trust you experienced scanner owners to answer me and make clear
what if any advantages there are to the LS-5000 scanner if one is not
working in a production environment where high output is a priority.
At the same time, the highest possible quality is desirable as well as
solidity and a long service life.

It is also necessary that the scanner works well under Linux, but
since I understand this is the case with both that question is pretty
much cleared up.

Thank you,
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

In article <NLR_c.681$L43.331@amstwist00>, "pioe[rmv]"
<"pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org> writes

>So it all boils down to two factors:
>
>* Possible differences in mechanical durability. Are the parts in the
>LS-5000 scanner made for a longer life span?
>
No. The mechanics and optics of both are identical. You should not see
any durability difference between these models, but it is always
possible that you get the Friday afternoon batch of either type.

>* Possible differences in output quality. It is said that the LS-5000
>has a genuine 16-bit A/D converter, whereas the LS-50 only has a 14-bit
>one. If so, how important is this in real use, can one see a
>difference, and if so under what circumstances? Are there other
>advantages that go with the LS-5000, does it yield marginally sharper
>images, have anyone been able to demonstrate a difference here?
>
It is significant, and could be an issue if you have extremely dense
slides that you want every last shadow detail out of.

More significantly, as far as I am concerned, is the lack of single pass
multiscanning on the LS-50. Multiscanning is essential to getting the
lowest possible noise on your scans. You probably won't use it for most
scans, but for the best it really is worth having - and it will make a
tremendous difference to the scan quality, especially when coupled with
the extra bit-depth of the LS-5000.

Apart from multiscanning, the LS-50 is almost the same as last year's
flagship model, the LS-4000 - only the interface is different. However,
I use multiscanning enough that the results from the LS-50, whilst
acceptable, would be inferior to those I already produce.

>I do not say that "price is no object," but I am willing to wait a
>little and save up for the best if it is actually better with respect
>to one or both of the factors mentioned.
>
Have you looked at the Minolta 5400? Given your comments on the
importance of results over speed and bulk film handling, that gives
everything the LS-5000 offers in image quality at a price more
comparable to the LS-50. The Minolta is also fitted with a neat little
device that reduces grain visibility in the scan before the image even
gets to the CCD - and none of the Nikon range have that. Only downside
is a lamp illumination system, which is a lifed item that can be
expected to degrade and fail, rather than Nikon's LED system which will
outlast you. However, ask yourself if you will be scanning 35mm film at
all by the time the lamp needs replacing or if you will have completed
scanning all of your obsolete gelatinous strips by then and be shooting
new material electronically. Or if you will still have a computer that
is capable of handling what will, be then, be a seriously slow, obsolete
USB2 bus. Durability and longevity have their downside too. ;-)
>
>It is also necessary that the scanner works well under Linux, but since
>I understand this is the case with both that question is pretty much
>cleared up.
>
I can't comment on Linux operation for any of these scanners.
--
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)

Kennedy McEwen wrote:

> Apart from multiscanning, the LS-50 is almost the same as last year's
> flagship model, the LS-4000 - only the interface is different. However,
> I use multiscanning enough that the results from the LS-50, whilst
> acceptable, would be inferior to those I already produce.

This is a very strong and persuasive argument. If you can testify that
multiscanning really makea a difference I must consider this factor.

> Have you looked at the Minolta 5400? Given your comments on the
> importance of results over speed and bulk film handling, that gives
> everything the LS-5000 offers in image quality at a price more
> comparable to the LS-50. The Minolta is also fitted with a neat little
> device that reduces grain visibility in the scan before the image even
> gets to the CCD - and none of the Nikon range have that.

I have looked at and even tried the Minolta 5400, but scanning times
of eight to eleven minutes for a color negative with ICE does little
to recommend the scanner. Also, I found that it does not deliver the
same sharpness and color fidelity as the Nikon scanners. Yes, I have
tested them all, but I was unable to see any difference between the
Nikons. I used both slides and negatives, by the way. The reason for
this may be that the slides were not particularly difficult, and I
doubt that there is a difference in sharpness. Which very well agrees
with the assumption that the optical elements are the same in both
scanners.

> Only downside
> is a lamp illumination system, which is a lifed item that can be
> expected to degrade and fail, rather than Nikon's LED system which will
> outlast you. However, ask yourself if you will be scanning 35mm film at
> all by the time the lamp needs replacing or if you will have completed
> scanning all of your obsolete gelatinous strips by then and be shooting
> new material electronically. Or if you will still have a computer that
> is capable of handling what will, be then, be a seriously slow, obsolete
> USB2 bus. Durability and longevity have their downside too. ;-)

If I ask myself the question of whether or not I will use the scanner
for many years, I will say that "I do not know," but I know that this
is no reason not to choose the most durable unit possible. Nor does a
computer itself become "obsolete." If it fulfills the requiremenst of
the buyer at the time of purchase it is likely to do so for quite some
time to come, and it is very difficult to imagine that there can be a
downside to high durability and a long life span. Also, the death of
film is by no means a given. I suppose that film will very soon be a
niche product, but perhaps not an insignificant niche. I recently
bought a new 35mm 2.0 AI Nikkor, with the intention to use it on my
Nikon FM2 and my coming FM3.

>> It is also necessary that the scanner works well under Linux, but
>> since I understand this is the case with both that question is pretty
>> much cleared up.

> I can't comment on Linux operation for any of these scanners.

Fortunately they both work well under Linux, according to other users.

So I guess much boils down to the question of whether one needs the
multiscanning capability, but perhaps not entirely: The VueScan
program seems to enable multiscanning on the LS-50. If the mechanical
construction can take it, which it should do since it is similar to
the LS-5000, that may be a good choice.

If it is true that the LS-50 does indeed have the same mechanical
construction as its bigger brother, it seems a very good choice.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

In article <28l%c.868$L43.489@amstwist00>, "pioe[rmv]"
<"pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org> writes
>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>
>> Apart from multiscanning, the LS-50 is almost the same as last year's
>>flagship model, the LS-4000 - only the interface is different.
>>However, I use multiscanning enough that the results from the LS-50,
>>whilst acceptable, would be inferior to those I already produce.
>
>This is a very strong and persuasive argument. If you can testify that
>multiscanning really makea a difference I must consider this factor.
>
It certainly makes a visible difference on both slides and negatives,
but really comes into its own with slightly underexposed negatives.

>I have looked at and even tried the Minolta 5400, but scanning times
>of eight to eleven minutes for a color negative with ICE does little
>to recommend the scanner.

So scan time *is* important - when it gets long enough. ;-)
>
>If I ask myself the question of whether or not I will use the scanner
>for many years, I will say that "I do not know," but I know that this
>is no reason not to choose the most durable unit possible. Nor does a
>computer itself become "obsolete." If it fulfills the requiremenst of
>the buyer at the time of purchase it is likely to do so for quite some
>time to come, and it is very difficult to imagine that there can be a
>downside to high durability and a long life span.

I have disposed of several scanners in less than a decade because they
became incompatible with either the new computer hardware or operating
systems - sometimes this could be resolved by further expense, such as
an upgraded plug-in card that cost as much as a new scanner of improved
performance, and sometimes it was unresolvable. I have complete
confidence that the computer industry will continue to orphan legacy
interfaces in the same way as they have done in the past. ;-)

My point is that whilst the lamp has a relatively short life compared to
LEDs, don't let that disproportionately bias your purchase options. You
have, however, made your mind up on the options for other reasons, so it
is irrelevant now.

> Also, the death of
>film is by no means a given. I suppose that film will very soon be a
>niche product, but perhaps not an insignificant niche.

Niche products are expensive products. Expensive products mean smaller
niches and the cycle continues until the manufacturer declares it no
longer a profitable business.

>So I guess much boils down to the question of whether one needs the
>multiscanning capability, but perhaps not entirely: The VueScan program
>seems to enable multiscanning on the LS-50. If the mechanical
>construction can take it, which it should do since it is similar to the
>LS-5000, that may be a good choice.
>
The mechanics of the Nikon scanners are not capable of achieving the
same alignment from multi-pass multiscanning, as offered in Vuescan, as
the single-pass multiscan provided in the LS-4000/5000. Vuescan does
the best it can, but there is a loss in resolution due to the unknown
misalignment between passes - and since this is a facility you want to
use on your best images, resolution is not generally a disposable
commodity.

>If it is true that the LS-50 does indeed have the same mechanical
>construction as its bigger brother, it seems a very good choice.
>
It does and it is - if you are happy with the results without
multiscanning. Try a couple of difficult slides and negatives in both
scanners before committing your cash though.
--
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)

To test the Nikon multisampling capability, find a slide that has a very
black/dark area (old steam locomotives are my favorite ;-) ). Scan it as
you normally would and then enlarge the black area up to 100% or
greater. Look for color speckles. If they appear random, the
multisampling will reduce or eliminate their presence. The key is that
they are random in nature and not part of the slide. This technique has
been used with CCD cameras on telescopes for a while now and it really
does work to reduce random noise produced in the CCD element. If you can
run the same slide on a CS4000 or 5000 you should see a difference at
100% enlargement. If you keep your prints at a low enlargement, the
printer driver may mask the effect some, but you should be able to see
it on the CRT.

Frank

pioe[rmv] wrote:
> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>
>> Apart from multiscanning, the LS-50 is almost the same as last year's
>> flagship model, the LS-4000 - only the interface is different.
>> However, I use multiscanning enough that the results from the LS-50,
>> whilst acceptable, would be inferior to those I already produce.
>
>
> This is a very strong and persuasive argument. If you can testify that
> multiscanning really makea a difference I must consider this factor.
>
>> Have you looked at the Minolta 5400? Given your comments on the
>> importance of results over speed and bulk film handling, that gives
>> everything the LS-5000 offers in image quality at a price more
>> comparable to the LS-50. The Minolta is also fitted with a neat little
>> device that reduces grain visibility in the scan before the image even
>> gets to the CCD - and none of the Nikon range have that.
>
>
> I have looked at and even tried the Minolta 5400, but scanning times
> of eight to eleven minutes for a color negative with ICE does little
> to recommend the scanner. Also, I found that it does not deliver the
> same sharpness and color fidelity as the Nikon scanners. Yes, I have
> tested them all, but I was unable to see any difference between the
> Nikons. I used both slides and negatives, by the way. The reason for
> this may be that the slides were not particularly difficult, and I
> doubt that there is a difference in sharpness. Which very well agrees
> with the assumption that the optical elements are the same in both
> scanners.
>
>> Only downside is a lamp illumination system, which is a lifed item
>> that can be expected to degrade and fail, rather than Nikon's LED
>> system which will outlast you. However, ask yourself if you will be
>> scanning 35mm film at all by the time the lamp needs replacing or if
>> you will have completed scanning all of your obsolete gelatinous
>> strips by then and be shooting new material electronically. Or if you
>> will still have a computer that is capable of handling what will, be
>> then, be a seriously slow, obsolete USB2 bus. Durability and
>> longevity have their downside too. ;-)
>
>
> If I ask myself the question of whether or not I will use the scanner
> for many years, I will say that "I do not know," but I know that this
> is no reason not to choose the most durable unit possible. Nor does a
> computer itself become "obsolete." If it fulfills the requiremenst of
> the buyer at the time of purchase it is likely to do so for quite some
> time to come, and it is very difficult to imagine that there can be a
> downside to high durability and a long life span. Also, the death of
> film is by no means a given. I suppose that film will very soon be a
> niche product, but perhaps not an insignificant niche. I recently
> bought a new 35mm 2.0 AI Nikkor, with the intention to use it on my
> Nikon FM2 and my coming FM3.
>
>>> It is also necessary that the scanner works well under Linux, but
>>> since I understand this is the case with both that question is pretty
>>> much cleared up.
>
>
>> I can't comment on Linux operation for any of these scanners.
>
>
> Fortunately they both work well under Linux, according to other users.
>
> So I guess much boils down to the question of whether one needs the
> multiscanning capability, but perhaps not entirely: The VueScan program
> seems to enable multiscanning on the LS-50. If the mechanical
> construction can take it, which it should do since it is similar to the
> LS-5000, that may be a good choice.
>
> If it is true that the LS-50 does indeed have the same mechanical
> construction as its bigger brother, it seems a very good choice.
>
> Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
>
>
>
>
>
>

Regarding Minolta 5400 vs. Nikon. I have seen conflicting reports
regarding sharpness/resolution. Several people have seemed to measure
higher MTF/resolution on the Minolta. Yet I have seen more than one
person report that the Nikons are 'sharper'.

What gives?

"pioe[rmv]" <"pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org> wrote in message news:<28l%c.868$L43.489@amstwist00>...
> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>
> > Apart from multiscanning, the LS-50 is almost the same as last year's
> > flagship model, the LS-4000 - only the interface is different. However,
> > I use multiscanning enough that the results from the LS-50, whilst
> > acceptable, would be inferior to those I already produce.
>
> This is a very strong and persuasive argument. If you can testify that
> multiscanning really makea a difference I must consider this factor.
>
> > Have you looked at the Minolta 5400? Given your comments on the
> > importance of results over speed and bulk film handling, that gives
> > everything the LS-5000 offers in image quality at a price more
> > comparable to the LS-50. The Minolta is also fitted with a neat little
> > device that reduces grain visibility in the scan before the image even
> > gets to the CCD - and none of the Nikon range have that.
>
> I have looked at and even tried the Minolta 5400, but scanning times
> of eight to eleven minutes for a color negative with ICE does little
> to recommend the scanner. Also, I found that it does not deliver the
> same sharpness and color fidelity as the Nikon scanners. Yes, I have
> tested them all, but I was unable to see any difference between the
> Nikons. I used both slides and negatives, by the way. The reason for
> this may be that the slides were not particularly difficult, and I
> doubt that there is a difference in sharpness. Which very well agrees
> with the assumption that the optical elements are the same in both
> scanners.
>
> > Only downside
> > is a lamp illumination system, which is a lifed item that can be
> > expected to degrade and fail, rather than Nikon's LED system which will
> > outlast you. However, ask yourself if you will be scanning 35mm film at
> > all by the time the lamp needs replacing or if you will have completed
> > scanning all of your obsolete gelatinous strips by then and be shooting
> > new material electronically. Or if you will still have a computer that
> > is capable of handling what will, be then, be a seriously slow, obsolete
> > USB2 bus. Durability and longevity have their downside too. ;-)
>
> If I ask myself the question of whether or not I will use the scanner
> for many years, I will say that "I do not know," but I know that this
> is no reason not to choose the most durable unit possible. Nor does a
> computer itself become "obsolete." If it fulfills the requiremenst of
> the buyer at the time of purchase it is likely to do so for quite some
> time to come, and it is very difficult to imagine that there can be a
> downside to high durability and a long life span. Also, the death of
> film is by no means a given. I suppose that film will very soon be a
> niche product, but perhaps not an insignificant niche. I recently
> bought a new 35mm 2.0 AI Nikkor, with the intention to use it on my
> Nikon FM2 and my coming FM3.
>
> >> It is also necessary that the scanner works well under Linux, but
> >> since I understand this is the case with both that question is pretty
> >> much cleared up.
>
> > I can't comment on Linux operation for any of these scanners.
>
> Fortunately they both work well under Linux, according to other users.
>
> So I guess much boils down to the question of whether one needs the
> multiscanning capability, but perhaps not entirely: The VueScan
> program seems to enable multiscanning on the LS-50. If the mechanical
> construction can take it, which it should do since it is similar to
> the LS-5000, that may be a good choice.
>
> If it is true that the LS-50 does indeed have the same mechanical
> construction as its bigger brother, it seems a very good choice.
>
> Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

i don't have access to an air force resolution target to determine the
resolving capability of my CS4000. As you mention, others here have
documented their results. i believe there is a thread or two here
(search for Kennedy for one) that discussed the physical difference
between the two scanners - LED light versus fluorescent, optics, CCD
element, etc. However, the only issue i have had with my Nikon is the
narrow DOF and the required flatness to get the scanned image "tack
sharp" - technical term ;-) corner to corner. i have used a modified
FH3 holder with anti newton glass with some success on curled film when
i thought it mattered.

Frank

WD wrote:
> Regarding Minolta 5400 vs. Nikon. I have seen conflicting reports
> regarding sharpness/resolution. Several people have seemed to measure
> higher MTF/resolution on the Minolta. Yet I have seen more than one
> person report that the Nikons are 'sharper'.
>
> What gives?
>
> "pioe[rmv]" <"pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org> wrote in message news:<28l%c.868$L43.489@amstwist00>...
>
>>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Apart from multiscanning, the LS-50 is almost the same as last year's
>>>flagship model, the LS-4000 - only the interface is different. However,
>>>I use multiscanning enough that the results from the LS-50, whilst
>>>acceptable, would be inferior to those I already produce.
>>
>>This is a very strong and persuasive argument. If you can testify that
>>multiscanning really makea a difference I must consider this factor.
>>
>>
>>>Have you looked at the Minolta 5400? Given your comments on the
>>>importance of results over speed and bulk film handling, that gives
>>>everything the LS-5000 offers in image quality at a price more
>>>comparable to the LS-50. The Minolta is also fitted with a neat little
>>>device that reduces grain visibility in the scan before the image even
>>>gets to the CCD - and none of the Nikon range have that.
>>
>>I have looked at and even tried the Minolta 5400, but scanning times
>>of eight to eleven minutes for a color negative with ICE does little
>>to recommend the scanner. Also, I found that it does not deliver the
>>same sharpness and color fidelity as the Nikon scanners. Yes, I have
>>tested them all, but I was unable to see any difference between the
>>Nikons. I used both slides and negatives, by the way. The reason for
>>this may be that the slides were not particularly difficult, and I
>>doubt that there is a difference in sharpness. Which very well agrees
>>with the assumption that the optical elements are the same in both
>>scanners.
>>
>>
>>>Only downside
>>>is a lamp illumination system, which is a lifed item that can be
>>>expected to degrade and fail, rather than Nikon's LED system which will
>>>outlast you. However, ask yourself if you will be scanning 35mm film at
>>>all by the time the lamp needs replacing or if you will have completed
>>>scanning all of your obsolete gelatinous strips by then and be shooting
>>>new material electronically. Or if you will still have a computer that
>>>is capable of handling what will, be then, be a seriously slow, obsolete
>>>USB2 bus. Durability and longevity have their downside too. ;-)
>>
>>If I ask myself the question of whether or not I will use the scanner
>>for many years, I will say that "I do not know," but I know that this
>>is no reason not to choose the most durable unit possible. Nor does a
>>computer itself become "obsolete." If it fulfills the requiremenst of
>>the buyer at the time of purchase it is likely to do so for quite some
>>time to come, and it is very difficult to imagine that there can be a
>>downside to high durability and a long life span. Also, the death of
>>film is by no means a given. I suppose that film will very soon be a
>>niche product, but perhaps not an insignificant niche. I recently
>>bought a new 35mm 2.0 AI Nikkor, with the intention to use it on my
>>Nikon FM2 and my coming FM3.
>>
>>
>>>>It is also necessary that the scanner works well under Linux, but
>>>>since I understand this is the case with both that question is pretty
>>>>much cleared up.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I can't comment on Linux operation for any of these scanners.
>>
>>Fortunately they both work well under Linux, according to other users.
>>
>>So I guess much boils down to the question of whether one needs the
>>multiscanning capability, but perhaps not entirely: The VueScan
>>program seems to enable multiscanning on the LS-50. If the mechanical
>>construction can take it, which it should do since it is similar to
>>the LS-5000, that may be a good choice.
>>
>>If it is true that the LS-50 does indeed have the same mechanical
>>construction as its bigger brother, it seems a very good choice.
>>
>>Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway

"WD" <winhag@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3ed2ed45.0409071734.5e7e1879@posting.google.com...
> Regarding Minolta 5400 vs. Nikon. I have seen conflicting reports
> regarding sharpness/resolution. Several people have seemed to
measure
> higher MTF/resolution on the Minolta. Yet I have seen more than one
> person report that the Nikons are 'sharper'.
>
> What gives?

All I know is that my DSE5400 outresolves a friend's LS4000:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/...00/se5400-1.htm
but it obviously cannot resolve what is not captured in the film to
begin with.

Bart

In article <biu%c.886$De2.39@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>, degrub
<degrub@nospamflash.net> writes
>i don't have access to an air force resolution target to determine the
>resolving capability of my CS4000.

It wouldn't make any difference if you did. The USAF resolution target
was designed for assessing purely analogue systems including lenses and
film. It is totally unsuitable for assessing sampled or digital
systems, leading to at best ambiguous and at worst totally erroneous and
misleading results. In particular, accurate assessment of resolution in
a sampled system using only 2.5cycles in a test pattern, as in all the
elements of the USAF target, is impossible. The continued misuse of
this archaic reference target with technology it was never intended to
assess is one of the primary reasons for the conflicting resolution
reports that WD was asking about.

Unfortunately, precious few users of scanners actually understand what
resolution means in the first place, and fewer still have any concept of
what influences it or how it can and should be assessed. None of that
prevents them from reporting that their scanner has better resolution
than their Aunt Dorothy's. And the so called "professional" testers and
journalists that use this chart to discriminate marginal, and in some
cases significant, resolution benefits of one scanner over another
should have it rolled up and inserted where it hurts - followed by the
scanners they have tested. The pitch of their squeals would be as
meaningful a measure of the resolution of the scanners as any of the
tests they have conducted.
--
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)

"pioe[rmv]" wrote:
>
> Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>
> > Apart from multiscanning, the LS-50 is almost the same as last year's
> > flagship model, the LS-4000 - only the interface is different. However,
> > I use multiscanning enough that the results from the LS-50, whilst
> > acceptable, would be inferior to those I already produce.
>
> This is a very strong and persuasive argument. If you can testify that
> multiscanning really makea a difference I must consider this factor.

Do not confuse multiscanning with multisampling. The latter does not
degrade resolution due to misalignment, and is a feature on the 5400.

> > Have you looked at the Minolta 5400? Given your comments on the
> > importance of results over speed and bulk film handling, that gives
> > everything the LS-5000 offers in image quality at a price more
> > comparable to the LS-50. The Minolta is also fitted with a neat little
> > device that reduces grain visibility in the scan before the image even
> > gets to the CCD - and none of the Nikon range have that.
>
> I have looked at and even tried the Minolta 5400, but scanning times
> of eight to eleven minutes for a color negative with ICE does little
> to recommend the scanner. Also, I found that it does not deliver the
> same sharpness and color fidelity as the Nikon scanners. Yes, I have
> tested them all, but I was unable to see any difference between the
> Nikons. I used both slides and negatives, by the way. The reason for
> this may be that the slides were not particularly difficult, and I
> doubt that there is a difference in sharpness. Which very well agrees
> with the assumption that the optical elements are the same in both
> scanners.

How did you conduct your tests to conclude that the 5400 "does not
deliver the
same sharpness and color fidelity as the Nikon scanners"? We can all get
educated.

> > Only downside
> > is a lamp illumination system, which is a lifed item that can be
> > expected to degrade and fail, rather than Nikon's LED system which will
> > outlast you. However, ask yourself if you will be scanning 35mm film at
> > all by the time the lamp needs replacing or if you will have completed
> > scanning all of your obsolete gelatinous strips by then and be shooting
> > new material electronically. Or if you will still have a computer that
> > is capable of handling what will, be then, be a seriously slow, obsolete
> > USB2 bus. Durability and longevity have their downside too. ;-)

The Nikon scanners have a very shallow dof which results in uneven
sharpness across a scan. Many found this to be unacceptable, and some
attribute this to the LED light source.