M8 as/vs. a slide scanner - Looking for advice

[Arif]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Before I embark on my slide scan holiday "project", I am wondering if others have debated the choice of slide scanners versus the use of an M8 and a light table. The question really surfaces from the resolution that one can get with a slide scanner (such as the Nikon coolscan LS 2000 which I can find for $100 + $150-200 for a bulk slide feed adapter as an option) versus the tonal depth/resolution of the Leica lenses with an M8. If the M8 is the better alternative, then is there a particular lens that may be better from a reproduction ratio perspective) I have the 21/2.8 coded, 28/2 coded, 35/1.4(non-asph)/2(iv), 50/2, 75/1.4 coded and 90/2.8).

 

Any ideas will be highly appreciated.

Arif

[hankg]

Before I embark on my slide scan holiday "project", I am wondering if others have debated the choice of slide scanners versus the use of an M8 and a light table. The question really surfaces from the resolution that one can get with a slide scanner (such as the Nikon coolscan LS 2000 which I can find for $100 + $150-200 for a bulk slide feed adapter as an option) versus the tonal depth/resolution of the Leica lenses with an M8. If the M8 is the better alternative, then is there a particular lens that may be better from a reproduction ratio perspective) I have the 21/2.8 coded, 28/2 coded, 35/1.4(non-asph)/2(iv), 50/2, 75/1.4 coded and 90/2.8).

 

Any ideas will be highly appreciated.

Arif

 

For duplicating slides with your M8 you would need a bellows, squared up copy stand, Viso and a lens like the Rodenstock Rodagon-D meant for 1:1 copy reproduction. Get a Nikon scanner and an attachment to let you 'wet mount' slides for best quality, less hassle.

[thai.charlie]

I'd go with the slide scanner. That's what it's designed for. You'll get a lot more detail. And I'd forget the bulk slide feeder (at the cost you quoted), since you may want to do individual tweaking of the pre-scan before you actually do the scanning. You may want to check prices on the LS-4000 -- much better scanner. The LS-2000 is SCSI-2, if I remember correctly. Dunno if you could still cost-effectively interface that. The LS-4000 is Firewire. I used the LS-2000 for a few years to scan negatives and I had issues with it -- haloing and magenta-ish tinges with negatives. YMMV.

[tgray]

Pick up a Coolscan V (50) for about 500-600. Doesn't take the bulk feeder. If you feel like spending 1500-2000, get either the 5000+bulk feeder or the 9000 (i think you can do 4-6 at a time with the 9000). I'd personally go with, and did, the V. I've been very happy with it.

 

On the other hand, if you have the money for an M8 and are looking for an excuse to buy one, just get it and make nice pictures

[orjanf]

Scanner definitely, I use the FS4000 and happy with that.

Then buy an M8 to celebrate a wise decision.

[JumpStart]

Would you like to complete this project while you are still alive to enjoy the results?

 

Buy the highest quality slide scanner you can afford.

 

Cheers

 

DBK

[Arif]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wow, thanks for the quick replies and for the advice. Seems like a scanner wins hands on. I already had an M8 and was debating buying the scanner and the bulk feed since from a time perspective, using an M8 or a scanner would take approximately the same time (the old scanners were quite slow for max resolution) and I had a few thousand slides some of which were taken on my better photography days.

 

I will look at a slightly newer scanner (versus the LS2000 mentioned earlier) as well although it will be a couple of hundred dollars more but seems like I had not considered the cost of the bellows, visio equipment.

 

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Arif

[AlanJW]

I second the thought that the LS4000 is preferable to the LS2000 because of the interface. By the way the feeder can be useful if you make sure not to mix and match film types. I used a LS4000 to sdcan hundreds if not thousands of old family slides. Kodachromes, Ektachromes, Agfa, and some no-name stuff my Dad used. If you scan the first slide and do your adjustments on it via the scanner software, you can get quite acceptable results from the whole batch. You can also scan at lower resolution settings if all you're trying to do is make a record of some images to preserve them. That will save lots of time. If you find something special, you will want to deal with it separately at higher res settings.

 

By the way, I know some people don't like the Nikon Scan software but I have found it just fine.

[BerndReini]

Whichever scanner you get, spend $80 on the Vuescan software from Hamrick. It is an aftermarket software that works with virtually every scanner and gives you much better results. Also, the Epson 700 flatbed scanner can give you almost (!!!) the same results as a dedicated negative scanner and lets you scan 24 slides automatically.

 

I own both a Canon FS4000 and an Epson 750, and the flatbed has come a long way.

[johnalex141r]

Before I embark on my slide scan holiday "project"...

Any ideas will be highly appreciated.

Arif

 

I did this for about $15.00, and the results were far beyond my expectations. I cobbled together an adapter for an old enlarger, put a nikkor 80mm enlarging lens on the enlarger, and started clicking. I had an old hama lightbox, and a few slides that I wanted digitized. (not the main reason for this project, just a "lets try this on a Friday night")

 

I did not optimize the crop for slides; the results were amazing, to both myself and my wife.

 

Our photographer at work (I work in an interesting place; how many people get to photograph satellites undergoing testing??) no longer uses film scanners; if he has to scan old slides/negs, he just takes a picture with his Nikon digital and a macro lens.

 

And, why not? You have a top of the line (or dang close) image grabber in your M8; why settle for whatever is in a slide scanner?

 

look for my account for some "in construction" pics that I posted here about 10 days ago.

 

JohnS.

[johnalex141r]

Ok - here are some images of the first slide that I took.

 

first, full frame as from camera. (reduced and jpegged, of course)

 

second, a little crop of the fullscreen image.

 

I thought that it was not too bad... and that's without doing a lot of the Sean Read style of tests to get the perfect aperture/focus; it was just "lets put this under here and see what happens".

 

JohnS

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Arif]

Whichever scanner you get, spend $80 on the Vuescan software from Hamrick. It is an aftermarket software that works with virtually every scanner and gives you much better results. Also, the Epson 700 flatbed scanner can give you almost (!!!) the same results as a dedicated negative scanner and lets you scan 24 slides automatically.

 

I own both a Canon FS4000 and an Epson 750, and the flatbed has come a long way.

 

Thanks Bernd, I will look into that software. Seems very flexible and affordable.

 

Best wishes,

Arif

[Arif]

Ok - here are some images of the first slide that I took.

 

first, full frame as from camera. (reduced and jpegged, of course)

 

second, a little crop of the fullscreen image.

 

I thought that it was not too bad... and that's without doing a lot of the Sean Read style of tests to get the perfect aperture/focus; it was just "lets put this under here and see what happens".

 

JohnS

 

John,

These do look very good. Thank you very much for your suggestions and taking the time to respond. Very creative in your solution. Highly appreciated.

Arif

[Arif]

I second the thought that the LS4000 is preferable to the LS2000 because of the interface. By the way the feeder can be useful if you make sure not to mix and match film types. I used a LS4000 to sdcan hundreds if not thousands of old family slides. Kodachromes, Ektachromes, Agfa, and some no-name stuff my Dad used. If you scan the first slide and do your adjustments on it via the scanner software, you can get quite acceptable results from the whole batch. You can also scan at lower resolution settings if all you're trying to do is make a record of some images to preserve them. That will save lots of time. If you find something special, you will want to deal with it separately at higher res settings.

 

By the way, I know some people don't like the Nikon Scan software but I have found it just fine.

 

Alan,

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain. I did not even consider about the settings for different tyes of slides and indeed, I do have a variety but can be quickly sorted into Kodachrome, Velvia and Ektachromes.

 

Thanks again,

Arif

[wparsonsgisnet]

Second vote for VueScan.

 

Not to be missed!

[DavidStone]

Since I already have a copy-stand (old enlarger) a Visoflex and bellows, and a collection of good enlarger lenses, plus a (home-made) lightbox, I put these together with the M8 on top and copied a few negs. The results were amazingly good.

 

If I had to copy a lot of stuff, then a scanner would be the obvious choice, but for a few dozen negs, or slides, at a time, this setup does a very good job.

 

David

[Philinflash]

Since I already have a copy-stand (old enlarger) a Visoflex and bellows, and a collection of good enlarger lenses, plus a (home-made) lightbox, I put these together with the M8 on top and copied a few negs. The results were amazingly good.

 

If I had to copy a lot of stuff, then a scanner would be the obvious choice, but for a few dozen negs, or slides, at a time, this setup does a very good job.

 

David

 

David (and others using M8s in this way), may I assume that your source media is 35mm?

 

The reason I ask is that I need to dupe 6x6 cm slides and negs and I was thinking of getting the 90 mm Macro-Elmar for this purpose. Has anyone had experience doing this with that lens?

 

Medium format scanners are few and far between. Nikon has not up-dated its device for probably 7 years; it cannot be a big market.

 

Philip Kozloff

[johnalex141r]

David (and others using M8s in this way), may I assume that your source media is 35mm?

 

Philip; if you look at my images above, you'll see that my 645 negs (from my fuijca rangefinders) should fit pretty well. I just never got around to trying one yet - hopefully this weekend. (the slides slipped in just before trying the negatives, but the enlarger height/focusing was basically set for 645 duping, I hope 8-! )

 

JohnS.

[guywalder]

the LS9000 isnt 7 years old, and I have updated the FW in my ls8000 in the last couple of years.

As for the OP's question, as usual it all depends, for posting on the web, or cataloging, why not use a camera? I find the ls8000 pretty slow, but worth it if I want to print, but when I dont need high res then my DSLR, macro lens and a slide copy adaptor do a great job

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[thai.charlie]

Are you copying slides for archiving purposes and for digital output? If so, then use a film scanner. If you are doing just for casual viewing/projection, then copystand would suffice. But if you are going through that time and effort, why not do it right the first time around?