ijporter Posted August 26, 2008 Share #1 Posted August 26, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm sorry if this has been dealt with before, but I'm looking to buy a film scanner to further the versatility of my R-system. In the absence of anything from Leica, I'm looking at the Nikon Coolscans; I'd appreciate it if members would please advise me whether they feel the Coolscan 5000 is worth the extra money over a Coolscan V, and whether best results are achieved with negative or with positive film. Thanks in advance Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 26, 2008 Posted August 26, 2008 Hi ijporter, Take a look here Scanners. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
petermacc Posted August 27, 2008 Share #2 Posted August 27, 2008 It is easily worth the money. What is your time worth? You double the speed of the unit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
srabu Posted August 27, 2008 Share #3 Posted August 27, 2008 Right, the 5000 is much faster. Even better: If you get a 'SA-30', you can scan a roll of film without being stuck at your desk. I just slide the roll in, start Vuescan and come back half an hour later to find 37 new tiff-files on my drive. That's timesaving It is easily worth the money. What is your time worth? You double the speed of the unit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fingerprinz Posted August 27, 2008 Share #4 Posted August 27, 2008 I am very pleased with the Nikon Super Coolscan 5000. I also use Vuescan on my Mac. Great combo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted August 27, 2008 Share #5 Posted August 27, 2008 I'll post a different opinion. Would I like a Nikon 5000 + the roll adapter? Yes. Was it worth the extra ~$1k to me over the V? No. I'm simply not a good enough photographer to have *full* rolls that I want to scan. I usually have 5-10 pictures on a roll that I like enough to scan. Maybe 1 in 10 that I scan at full resolution - the rest are done at 1200x1600 - good enough for a 4x6 print and the screen. It typically takes me ~30 mins to scan and process a full roll of film - from selecting frames to having images ready to upload. Some rolls are a lot quicker, some take a bit longer if there are a lot of good frames. Someday maybe I'll buy a 5000 or a 9000. I've been extremely happy with the V and with the $1000 in the bank. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ijporter Posted August 30, 2008 Author Share #6 Posted August 30, 2008 Thanks for the advice - I've tens of thousands of slides (plus negatives) taken over 30 years to wade through. Although I may only scan the best of these, that will still amount to about 5000 slides, so the reminder that 'time is money' makes sense! When I start scanning, I'll post a lot more images than I've been able to do before now. It looks like a Coolscan 5000 with the bulk-loading accessories is the way to go. Thanks again. Ian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Lord Posted August 30, 2008 Share #7 Posted August 30, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'll post a different opinion. Would I like a Nikon 5000 + the roll adapter? Yes. Was it worth the extra ~$1k to me over the V? No. I'm simply not a good enough photographer to have *full* rolls that I want to scan. I usually have 5-10 pictures on a roll that I like enough to scan. Maybe 1 in 10 that I scan at full resolution - the rest are done at 1200x1600 - good enough for a 4x6 print and the screen. It typically takes me ~30 mins to scan and process a full roll of film - from selecting frames to having images ready to upload. Some rolls are a lot quicker, some take a bit longer if there are a lot of good frames. Someday maybe I'll buy a 5000 or a 9000. I've been extremely happy with the V and with the $1000 in the bank. My position exactly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.