Scanner vs *IstDS

Oops K1000Photographer, I should have looked at your profile (and prev postings) first.
But about the scanner issue. I had some fladbed scanners before.
None were up to the task really (for anything but web shots that is).
I personally keep shooting slides, next to Digital.
For our trips it just 'feels' wrong/awkward to not have slides of it any longer
(just leaving that legacy Nikon gear at home).

It's a habit that is hard to abandone (maybe once 65" HD 1080p plasma screens get cheaper ?).
The Pentax Ds will surely make it easier ... in time.

I had a Epson Expression 1680 Professional FireWire flatbed scanner, which was to be the answer to both photo and film scanning. It was an expensive disappointment to say the least, although it was a great photo scanner.

If you require the highest quality film scans you will need to purchase a dedicated film scanner like the Nikon 5000 or the Nikon 9000 which does 35mm as well as medium format.

That said, from this thread I feel you would be more than satisfied with the *ist DS for your present shooting and if you want film scanned, take it to a pro lab and have them scan the ones you want, which will be less expensive than purchasing a high end film scanner.

Last, you have to be really motivated to scan film, as it is a very slow process and I mean slow!

Tom

I am not sure why that is a problem anyway, since you are using only the prime part of the glass with the "crop factor", which should give you superior photos.

I find my DS to be a great camera and plan on using it for quite a while, instead of waiting for the next great thing to come over the hill. It already is a great camera for a reasonable price that is available right now.

K1000Photographer said:

I would prefer not to have that crop factor with my existing
lenses. If the price is relatively reasonable, then I would be
moving into a camera I know I will use for a while.

Click to expand...

K1000Photographer said:

I would prefer not to have that crop factor with my existing
lenses. If the price is relatively reasonable, then I would be
moving into a camera I know I will use for a while.

Click to expand...

The current cost of a 24x36mm sensor camera is between $5000 and $8000 for the body only. I doubt it will be under $2500 for at least 4 years or maybe even more, maybe even never.

Seems easier to me to just adopt the change of format and pick up whatever new lenses are needed to get the results you want. And cheaper.

Godfrey

K1000Photographer said:

ennacac said:

It is

K1000Photographer said:

true that the tonal range and colour rendition from the *istD are
totally superior but also with a 2nd rate scanner (even at 3200
dpi) the sharpness is really abysmal (and the file sizes huge)

Click to expand...

The sharpness on a flatbeed scanner like the 3200 doesn't even come
close to what the Nikon 5000 can do and I find it superior to my DS.

Tom

Click to expand...

Thanks everyone. I do have a 5 MP digicam and also some PK lenses.
I will get the scanner to digitize my old film and then get a DSLR
not too far down the road. I thought the film scanning could delay
the eventual purchase of the DSLR. The digicam does a great job but
the *istDS is better. I do not regret going digital but am
wondering how much I would regret buying an APS sized sensor DSLR,
and then have a full frame model come out soon afterward. If a full
fram is to come out within a year, I am willing to wait.

Click to expand...

I would doubt that a FF will be out within the year, but history will be my judge.

If you keep waiting for the next big thing you will never buy a DSLR. Just like buying computers(which digital cameras basically are these days anyway) you have to get on the "merry go round" some day so you can't wait forever or you'll never have one.

--
Lance B

K1000Photographer said:

I am considering going with a scanner instead of a *istDS at this
time. Has anyone done a comparison between a good negative scan and
a DSLR? What are the opinions on this?

What is pushing me toward this is the possibility of getting a full
frame sensor camera in the future and all the film I would like to
digitize.

Click to expand...

Buy 'em both. The IST*Ds and good flatbed scanner and be prepared
to spend a whole lot of time editing and scanning negs/slides.



Jack

K1000Photographer said:

Thanks!

Click to expand...

--
It's amazing what one can do when one doesn't know what one is doing

Godfrey said:

K1000Photographer said:

I would prefer not to have that crop factor with my existing
lenses. If the price is relatively reasonable, then I would be
moving into a camera I know I will use for a while.

Click to expand...

The current cost of a 24x36mm sensor camera is between $5000 and
$8000 for the body only. I doubt it will be under $2500 for at
least 4 years or maybe even more, maybe even never.

Seems easier to me to just adopt the change of format and pick up
whatever new lenses are needed to get the results you want. And
cheaper.

Godfrey

Click to expand...

I will admit that the *istDS is a great camera. I also know something else will come out this year. I know I have to jump onto the merry go round sometime, but want to do so at the most opportune time. I already own a P&S. In fact, I have already upgraded. Last year, I noticed the P&S technology had finally matured to the point I could consider getting one. The *istDS also represents a mature level in DSLR technology. However, I am willing to wait a few months to see if the *istDS is a good choice compared with the new model. I expect Pentax to come out with something this year that will at least be competition for the 20D. If they announce a full frame that is fairly reasonable in price, I just might opt for that.

K1000Photographer said:

Ishpuini said:

K1000Photographer said:

I am considering going with a scanner instead of a *istDS at this
time. Has anyone done a comparison between a good negative scan and
a DSLR? What are the opinions on this?

What is pushing me toward this is the possibility of getting a full
frame sensor camera in the future and all the film I would like to
digitize.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

SNIP

K1000Photographer said:

Scanner observations:

• the scanner gets all the detail out of the slides: grains are

very visible at 4800dpi. Also at 6Mpixel resolution. Especially
35mm film pushed 2 or 3 stops, grain is much more visible than in
DS at ISO800 or even ISO1600.

• I feel slide film scans much better than negatives. Sharper,

better contrast and range.

Click to expand...

SNIP
Thanks! It is observations like this that make this forum valuable.
I am considering the model below the 4870. It is fairly cheap at
Costco. If I do not like it, I can take it back. I am seeing that
it is not a real convenient alternative to a DSLR. However, we have
huge quantities of negatives that we want in digital form.

For now, I will probably get the scanner for negative conversion.
Use the digicam and see what the grapevine says about the next gen
Pentax DSLR.

Click to expand...

I had a similar dilemma, and came to similar conclusions..

My old camera is a Nikon Pronea S (APS -SLR), that I've had for something like 10 years. I picked up a Minolta ScanDual II (250$CDN) to scan my old film a few months ago, and held off on the camera purchase. For APS fiilm, a flat-bed scanner wasn't a viable option, and new film scanners are expensive by comparison.

The scanner works well enough, but I'm surprised (though I shouldn't be) at the poor quality of APS film. Grain is clearly visible in scans of even (Fuji) ISO 100 film. I'm still in the process of discovering better work-flows for scanning negs, but my main conclusion is that I wouldn't want to shoot film and scan it as an on-going procedure. I suppose better equipment and more experience would speed the process up, but it's still too much effort in my book.

So, last weekend, I picked up the *istDS kit and an Epson R800. I don't expect to regret the decision in 6 months when (pure conjecture) Pentax offers a better camera, and Nikon offers a D50 that is of a similar size and would have allowed me to borrow glass from family members. The *istDS is a joy to use, and the quality is miles better than what I'm getting from my APS scans (but obviously, you are likely to get better results than I did.)

ennacac said:

That said, from this thread I feel you would be more than satisfied
with the *ist DS for your present shooting and if you want film
scanned, take it to a pro lab and have them scan the ones you want,
which will be less expensive than purchasing a high end film
scanner.

Click to expand...

ennacac said:

Tom

Click to expand...

Pro-labs do not necessarily do a better/cheaper job! I experienced that the cheap Epson 4870 did a better job! It's a high end flat bed, but in comparison with dedicated slide scanners it is really cheap! I'm not connected to Epson in any way, so probably there are other scanners in the same league, but my experience lies with the Epson.

It all depends on the quantity of scans of course, but in my case the scanner cost me the equivalent of having 800 images (8 CDs) scanned. Because of this cost I only had a selection scanned by labs, now the scanner allows me to scan everything I want at no additional cost (except the cost of my own time, which is a relative thing since I am a hobby photographer). Furthermore, labs deliver JPGs nowadays, so if any PP is required you already lost some detail, whereas if scanning yourself, you can scan and save 48bits colour, and only convert to JPG when perfectly satified with all PP.

In short, scanning yourself

• takes much more time
• is cheaper if volume allows (if time cost is not counted)
• provides better results (more PP options possible)

hth, Wim

Ishpuini said:

ennacac said:

That said, from this thread I feel you would be more than satisfied
with the *ist DS for your present shooting and if you want film
scanned, take it to a pro lab and have them scan the ones you want,
which will be less expensive than purchasing a high end film
scanner.

Click to expand...

Ishpuini said:

Tom

Click to expand...

Pro-labs do not necessarily do a better/cheaper job! I experienced
that the cheap Epson 4870 did a better job! It's a high end flat
bed, but in comparison with dedicated slide scanners it is really
cheap! I'm not connected to Epson in any way, so probably there are
other scanners in the same league, but my experience lies with the
Epson.

It all depends on the quantity of scans of course, but in my case
the scanner cost me the equivalent of having 800 images (8 CDs)
scanned. Because of this cost I only had a selection scanned by
labs, now the scanner allows me to scan everything I want at no
additional cost (except the cost of my own time, which is a
relative thing since I am a hobby photographer). Furthermore, labs
deliver JPGs nowadays, so if any PP is required you already lost
some detail, whereas if scanning yourself, you can scan and save
48bits colour, and only convert to JPG when perfectly satified with
all PP.

In short, scanning yourself

• takes much more time
• is cheaper if volume allows (if time cost is not counted)
• provides better results (more PP options possible)

hth, Wim

Click to expand...

Again, I have to thank everyone for sharing their experience. It looks as if the investment in the scanner will be a good one, even if it is mainly for digitizing existing photos. I realize it takes a while for the scanner to do its thing so I can always do other tasks while the scanner is running.

The DSLR purchase will be coming down the road. It is a matter of what Pentax decides to release in the near future.

Ishpuini said:

ennacac said:

That said, from this thread I feel you would be more than satisfied
with the *ist DS for your present shooting and if you want film
scanned, take it to a pro lab and have them scan the ones you want,
which will be less expensive than purchasing a high end film
scanner.

Click to expand...

Ishpuini said:

Tom

Click to expand...

Pro-labs do not necessarily do a better/cheaper job! I experienced
that the cheap Epson 4870 did a better job! It's a high end flat
bed, but in comparison with dedicated slide scanners it is really
cheap! I'm not connected to Epson in any way, so probably there are
other scanners in the same league, but my experience lies with the
Epson.

It all depends on the quantity of scans of course, but in my case
the scanner cost me the equivalent of having 800 images (8 CDs)
scanned. Because of this cost I only had a selection scanned by
labs, now the scanner allows me to scan everything I want at no
additional cost (except the cost of my own time, which is a
relative thing since I am a hobby photographer). Furthermore, labs
deliver JPGs nowadays, so if any PP is required you already lost
some detail, whereas if scanning yourself, you can scan and save
48bits colour, and only convert to JPG when perfectly satified with
all PP.

In short, scanning yourself

• takes much more time
• is cheaper if volume allows (if time cost is not counted)
• provides better results (more PP options possible)

hth, Wim

Click to expand...

I have a Espon 4870 and what is produced is much better than what the labs can do. You can load 24 negatives in at a time and just let them scan while you do other things. All the photos I have at
http://www.pbase.com/toddk

are scanned with that scanner. Take in mind that most of the shots in my galleries were taken when I did not know much about photography and technique. I hardly used a tripod, used cheapo Wal-Mart film, etc. Also the photos I have uploaded were saved in the (low) quality setting of photoshop. The file sizes were just huge and I reduced them considerably. I have been very pleased at the sharpness and smoothness of some of my recent photos which I have not posted because they are for personal use. For me I discovered it is more technique than anything. When I get home I might post one on this forum and thread so you can judge for yourself.

I still plan on purchasing a Pentax DSLR, but I am holding out.

Todd Kindred said:

Ishpuini said:

ennacac said:

That said, from this thread I feel you would be more than satisfied
with the *ist DS for your present shooting and if you want film
scanned, take it to a pro lab and have them scan the ones you want,
which will be less expensive than purchasing a high end film
scanner.

Click to expand...

Todd Kindred said:

Tom

Click to expand...

Pro-labs do not necessarily do a better/cheaper job! I experienced
that the cheap Epson 4870 did a better job! It's a high end flat
bed, but in comparison with dedicated slide scanners it is really
cheap! I'm not connected to Epson in any way, so probably there are
other scanners in the same league, but my experience lies with the
Epson.

It all depends on the quantity of scans of course, but in my case
the scanner cost me the equivalent of having 800 images (8 CDs)
scanned. Because of this cost I only had a selection scanned by
labs, now the scanner allows me to scan everything I want at no
additional cost (except the cost of my own time, which is a
relative thing since I am a hobby photographer). Furthermore, labs
deliver JPGs nowadays, so if any PP is required you already lost
some detail, whereas if scanning yourself, you can scan and save
48bits colour, and only convert to JPG when perfectly satified with
all PP.

In short, scanning yourself

• takes much more time
• is cheaper if volume allows (if time cost is not counted)
• provides better results (more PP options possible)

hth, Wim

Click to expand...

I have a Espon 4870 and what is produced is much better than what
the labs can do. You can load 24 negatives in at a time and just
let them scan while you do other things. All the photos I have at
http://www.pbase.com/toddk

are scanned with that scanner. Take in mind that most of the shots
in my galleries were taken when I did not know much about
photography and technique. I hardly used a tripod, used cheapo
Wal-Mart film, etc. Also the photos I have uploaded were saved in
the (low) quality setting of photoshop. The file sizes were just
huge and I reduced them considerably. I have been very pleased at
the sharpness and smoothness of some of my recent photos which I
have not posted because they are for personal use. For me I
discovered it is more technique than anything. When I get home I
might post one on this forum and thread so you can judge for
yourself.

I still plan on purchasing a Pentax DSLR, but I am holding out.

Click to expand...

The scanner does a decent job and I miss Hong Kong too.

K1000Photographer said:

Todd Kindred said:

Ishpuini said:

ennacac said:

That said, from this thread I feel you would be more than satisfied
with the *ist DS for your present shooting and if you want film
scanned, take it to a pro lab and have them scan the ones you want,
which will be less expensive than purchasing a high end film
scanner.

Click to expand...

K1000Photographer said:

Tom

Click to expand...

Pro-labs do not necessarily do a better/cheaper job! I experienced
that the cheap Epson 4870 did a better job! It's a high end flat
bed, but in comparison with dedicated slide scanners it is really
cheap! I'm not connected to Epson in any way, so probably there are
other scanners in the same league, but my experience lies with the
Epson.

It all depends on the quantity of scans of course, but in my case
the scanner cost me the equivalent of having 800 images (8 CDs)
scanned. Because of this cost I only had a selection scanned by
labs, now the scanner allows me to scan everything I want at no
additional cost (except the cost of my own time, which is a
relative thing since I am a hobby photographer). Furthermore, labs
deliver JPGs nowadays, so if any PP is required you already lost
some detail, whereas if scanning yourself, you can scan and save
48bits colour, and only convert to JPG when perfectly satified with
all PP.

In short, scanning yourself

• takes much more time
• is cheaper if volume allows (if time cost is not counted)
• provides better results (more PP options possible)

hth, Wim

Click to expand...

I have a Espon 4870 and what is produced is much better than what
the labs can do. You can load 24 negatives in at a time and just
let them scan while you do other things. All the photos I have at
http://www.pbase.com/toddk

are scanned with that scanner. Take in mind that most of the shots
in my galleries were taken when I did not know much about
photography and technique. I hardly used a tripod, used cheapo
Wal-Mart film, etc. Also the photos I have uploaded were saved in
the (low) quality setting of photoshop. The file sizes were just
huge and I reduced them considerably. I have been very pleased at
the sharpness and smoothness of some of my recent photos which I
have not posted because they are for personal use. For me I
discovered it is more technique than anything. When I get home I
might post one on this forum and thread so you can judge for
yourself.

I still plan on purchasing a Pentax DSLR, but I am holding out.

Click to expand...

The scanner does a decent job and I miss Hong Kong too.

Click to expand...

I am very satisfied with the scanner for the price. I purchased it in order to hold out a little bit longer on a DSLR. I am going back to Hong Kong in April. This time I should be able to get some better shots. I have learned a little more about technique since that time. When were you there?

K1000Photographer said:

Todd Kindred said:

Ishpuini said:

ennacac said:

That said, from this thread I feel you would be more than satisfied
with the *ist DS for your present shooting and if you want film
scanned, take it to a pro lab and have them scan the ones you want,
which will be less expensive than purchasing a high end film
scanner.

Click to expand...

K1000Photographer said:

Tom

Click to expand...

Pro-labs do not necessarily do a better/cheaper job! I experienced
that the cheap Epson 4870 did a better job! It's a high end flat
bed, but in comparison with dedicated slide scanners it is really
cheap! I'm not connected to Epson in any way, so probably there are
other scanners in the same league, but my experience lies with the
Epson.

It all depends on the quantity of scans of course, but in my case
the scanner cost me the equivalent of having 800 images (8 CDs)
scanned. Because of this cost I only had a selection scanned by
labs, now the scanner allows me to scan everything I want at no
additional cost (except the cost of my own time, which is a
relative thing since I am a hobby photographer). Furthermore, labs
deliver JPGs nowadays, so if any PP is required you already lost
some detail, whereas if scanning yourself, you can scan and save
48bits colour, and only convert to JPG when perfectly satified with
all PP.

In short, scanning yourself

• takes much more time
• is cheaper if volume allows (if time cost is not counted)
• provides better results (more PP options possible)

hth, Wim

Click to expand...

I have a Espon 4870 and what is produced is much better than what
the labs can do. You can load 24 negatives in at a time and just
let them scan while you do other things. All the photos I have at
http://www.pbase.com/toddk

are scanned with that scanner. Take in mind that most of the shots
in my galleries were taken when I did not know much about
photography and technique. I hardly used a tripod, used cheapo
Wal-Mart film, etc. Also the photos I have uploaded were saved in
the (low) quality setting of photoshop. The file sizes were just
huge and I reduced them considerably. I have been very pleased at
the sharpness and smoothness of some of my recent photos which I
have not posted because they are for personal use. For me I
discovered it is more technique than anything. When I get home I
might post one on this forum and thread so you can judge for
yourself.

I still plan on purchasing a Pentax DSLR, but I am holding out.

Click to expand...

The scanner does a decent job and I miss Hong Kong too.

Click to expand...

Again, the photos I uploaded are of very low resolution. The originals are much better.

The 4870 although it has a larger number is not as high end a scanner as the Epson Expression 1680 Professional and the 1680 does not even come close to doing as good a job as a dedicated film scanner such as the Nikon 5000 does.

I have had both and used them for hundreds of scans, both negative and slide film and the difference between the flatbed and the 5000 is easy to see. Possibly my scanning requirements are higher than some others, but I wanted you to know what my hands on experience was.

Tom

ennacac said:

The 4870 although it has a larger number is not as high end a
scanner as the Epson Expression 1680 Professional and the 1680 does
not even come close to doing as good a job as a dedicated film
scanner such as the Nikon 5000 does.

I have had both and used them for hundreds of scans, both negative
and slide film and the difference between the flatbed and the 5000
is easy to see. Possibly my scanning requirements are higher than
some others, but I wanted you to know what my hands on experience
was.

Tom

Click to expand...

I have looked at the results of Epson flatbed VS Nikon film scanners. The 4870 actually equalled a lower numbered Nikon model, but was beat by the 5000.

K1000Photographer said:

I am considering going with a scanner instead of a *istDS at this
time. Has anyone done a comparison between a good negative scan and
a DSLR? What are the opinions on this?

What is pushing me toward this is the possibility of getting a full
frame sensor camera in the future and all the film I would like to
digitize.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Yes, I have a Nikon film scanner with Digital Ice. I does wonderful scans. Be sure and get a scanner with Ice. Dirt and scratches that you can't possibly seen on the film will show up loud and clear in your scans. Ice takes care of that. You won't like the grain you get with scans, though. Even consumer 3 megapixel cameras are way smoother than 100 speed film. I'm sure the really slow fine grain stuff is a lot better, but how much of that are you going to put up with in the name of film. I think you would be much better off wtih the *istDs. It only costs a few more hundred than a good scanner too.
--
Dave Lewis

K

K1000Photographer said:

Thanks everyone. I do have a 5 MP digicam and also some PK lenses.
I will get the scanner to digitize my old film and then get a DSLR
not too far down the road. I thought the film scanning could delay
the eventual purchase of the DSLR. The digicam does a great job but
the *istDS is better. I do not regret going digital but am
wondering how much I would regret buying an APS sized sensor DSLR,
and then have a full frame model come out soon afterward. If a full
fram is to come out within a year, I am willing to wait.

Click to expand...

Don't look for full frame sensors any time soon. They really aren't at all necessary and I doubt folks would want to pay for them, both in dollars and size and weight. Canon and Nikon have a commitment to the APS size sensor and it is doubtful it will go away any time soon.
--
Dave Lewis

Dave Lewis said:

K1000Photographer said:

I am considering going with a scanner instead of a *istDS at this
time. Has anyone done a comparison between a good negative scan and
a DSLR? What are the opinions on this?

What is pushing me toward this is the possibility of getting a full
frame sensor camera in the future and all the film I would like to
digitize.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Yes, I have a Nikon film scanner with Digital Ice. I does wonderful
scans. Be sure and get a scanner with Ice. Dirt and scratches that
you can't possibly seen on the film will show up loud and clear in
your scans. Ice takes care of that. You won't like the grain you
get with scans, though. Even consumer 3 megapixel cameras are way
smoother than 100 speed film. I'm sure the really slow fine grain
stuff is a lot better, but how much of that are you going to put up
with in the name of film. I think you would be much better off wtih
the *istDs. It only costs a few more hundred than a good scanner
too.
--
Dave Lewis

Click to expand...

I may need both. For starters, I will get a scanner to take care of my old film. A little bit down the road I am sure I will be getting the DSLR.

Sorry it took me so long to get some more photos with the Epson scanner. Here are some examples. Please, no downloads of the photos expecially the last two. They are of my ex'girlfriend and she would kill me if she knew I posted these. Thanks.

K1000Photographer said:

I am considering going with a scanner instead of a *istDS at this
time. Has anyone done a comparison between a good negative scan and
a DSLR? What are the opinions on this?

What is pushing me toward this is the possibility of getting a full
frame sensor camera in the future and all the film I would like to
digitize.

Thanks!

Click to expand...