Thanks for the feedback. But, based on your last comment, would you
still be using the 5D II over the Nikon scanner if the 1394 interface
hadn't failed? Can the Nikon not be repaired? Are there no parts?
As a side note on slide copying quality I recently repaired an ancient
Argus slide projector for a friend so he could complete his slide
copying project. I think I would have advised him otherwise at the
start but, unknown to me, he began a project of copying his entire slide
collection by projecting them and photographing them with his P&S
digital. When he was a few slide magazines short of completing the
project the projector failed mechanically... the slide transport
mechanism wouldn't change slides. I learned about the project when he
asked me if I knew where he could get the projector repaired. He said
if it couldn't be repaired he'd try to buy another one like it since he
wanted to keep his slides in the old Argus magazines (a type I'd never
seen). Since it was clearly a mechanical problem I figured I could
probably repair it and did by cleaning out dirt and grease which were
interfering with a lightweight spring and latch.
My concerns about the copying method were eliminated after I got the
projector running again and viewed some of the slides in the magazine he
had left me for testing. A very large number of them had poor focus or
suffered from motion blur or perhaps just poor lens quality. Many
showed a lot of color fading. But when copied off and displayed as
modest screen size images the owners were ecstatic and very happy with
the results and the projector hung together long enough to finish the
copying. I have to keep in mind that my standards for photographs are
not shared by most folks (including my wife). :-)
Chuck Norcutt
On 4/28/2013 9:27 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:
> Ok, I list the difference based on my experience:
>
> 5D II with OM80/4 has very little or no flare, it is a big problem for Nikon
> scanner at least since LS2000. Film flatness is not a problem with 80/4 stop
> down to F11 but a problem for Nikon due to shallow DOF. The workflow with 5D
> II need full time attention but it is much much faster than the already very
> fast Nikon.
>
> On the other hand the Nikon gives very accurate color (for slides). With the
> 5D II, the scan always need adjustment, it require some experience but won't
> take too long to adjust one (around 2-3 minutes).
>
> Nikon has IR dust removal but 5D II not, it is a major problem even it is
> not so dust sensitive as the Nikon LED light source.
>
> Nikon may have some edges on the resolution but in practical they are very
> similar.
>
> Nikon software is very good in render highlight details for both negative
> and slide (not with Vuescan), with 5D II it need some highlight compression
> (like PS highlight/shadow control) to get the same result.
>
> That's what I can think of at the moment. Now my Nikon's 1394 interface is
> failed, I have no choice :-(
>
> C.H.Ling
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>> Why are you happy using the 5D II? Does it work better than a scanner,
>> equal, not as good but still good enough and easier to do?
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>>
>> On 4/27/2013 11:56 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:
>>> I see some scanner flare there, problem seems didn't solve from 4000ED to
>>> 5000ED.
>>>
>>> C.H.Ling - now happy copying with 5D II and OM 80/4 :-)
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|