|
|
Re: 3rd Party Lens Makers
Gordon Moat wrote:
> Older manual focus lenses often were
> made just a bit better than newer autofocus lenses. Many companies older manual focus
> lenses can still be used, so unless they get scratched or otherwise damaged there
> would be little reason to replace them.
>
>
Surely you've seen Mike Johnston's column on the Luminous Landscape
website, wherein he quoted a Japanese camera executive who said the the
SMC Takumar 50/1.4 lens, if it could be manufactured and marketed today,
would probably sell for between $1250-1500.
That is a manual lens, and camera companies have convinced the majority
of today's buyers that they just can't get along without the latest
autofocus wonders. I never see any attempt made to learn just what kind
of photos those buyers will be taking. I shoot mainly static subjects,
and autofocus is an additional obstacle for my style of shooting. I
want to be able to choose my depth of field. I want to control the
aperture and shutter speed combination. I have a couple of point &
shoot models, and they are very unsatisfying because they allow the
photographer only to compose, but not exploit the characteristics of a
lens' bokeh or depth of field.
I often wonder how many other shooters are out there, who really could
find a manual camera/lens to be just what they needed to have more
creative control?
I handled a Canon SLR at Wal Mart on Saturday. All plastic.
Lightweight. Sold for $200 and looked it. Very unsatisfying feel to
it. And this is what today's shooters get all revved up over?
Now that Zeiss bodies and lenses are no longer being made in the Contax
mount, who besides Leica is left, if one wants that substantial feel of
metal bodies and lens barrels? Nikon still makes the FM3a, but I don't
follow their lenses, and suspect that there aren't too many manual,
metal-barreled items. Their brochure lists, for the normal lens, only
an f/1.2--it must cost a small fortune. No 1.4's or 1.8's.
Minolta got out of making metal gear decades ago. Pentax's last hurrah
was probably the LX. I have a couple of P3n bodies, with plastic
bottoms, "made in China." Canon? They must have abandoned metal when
they discontinued the breech mount. Who is left? Leica and the
Russians? A Zenit is more appropriately used as a doorstop than as a
photographic instrument. Same for the Kiev.
We normally think of Leica as too expensive, but in reality the prices
charged by virtually ANY manufacturer for classic metal gear would be
right up there. Still, that plastic stuff really bothers me. I just
can't stand holding it, although I'm sure that it has fine optical
performance.
|
|
|
| |
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:53:48 -0800, Gordon Moat
wrote:
>rafe bustin wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 12:14:36 -0800, Gordon Moat
>> wrote:
>>
>> >rafe bustin wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:27:21 -0800, Gordon Moat
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Chris Loffredo wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I'm considering buying a flatbed scanner for negatives up to 6x9. I
>> >> >> caertainly can't afford a real MF filmscanner.
>> >> >
>> >> >What end use do you wish to make of those scans?
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> My question is whether the quality of the new flatbeds is now good: A
>> >> >> couple of years ago the consensus was that flatbed scans (I think it on
>> >> >> an Epson 3220) with MF negs didn't reach the quality of 35mm scanned on
>> >> >> a good film scanner. That of course makes scanning MF a useless excercise!
>> >> >
>> >> >On some scanners, that may be true. There have been some good flatbed
>> >> >scanners, though the best are more expensive than some of the CCD medium
>> >> >format film scanners on the market (creo iQSmart is one example). Resolution
>> >> >is only one issue, and dynamic range can often be a bigger issue with
>> >> >quality. One problem is that many manufacturers overstate capabilities, and
>> >> >that there is not real one standard to express dynamic range. Software to
>> >> >handle the scanning can also make a huge difference.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So advice and opinions please: Are the current crop of flatbeds able to
>> >> >> do justice to MF film?
>> >> >
>> >> >Some, though careful shopping is in order. There are some things that can
>> >> >greatly help. The current best scanning software on the market is SilverFast
>> >> >Ai, but few scanners come with that, and it is not cheap when purchased
>> >> >separately. Depending upon what you want to do with your final scans, you
>> >> >might get away with the software included with the scanner, or make use of
>> >> >VueScan.
>> >>
>> >> Silverfast? Bah humbug. Been there, done that.
>> >> I'd hardly posit this as useful criteria for
>> >> choosing a scanner. Yes, a good scanner driver
>> >> is important, but Silverfast isn't (IMO) the best
>> >> example of that.
>> >
>> >I think creo oXYgen scan is the best example, but it only works with their
>> >scanners. Where you thinking of something else, or are you a bigger proponent of
>> >VueScan?
>>
>> I had a short go with Silverfast AI, I think
>> it was on my Epson 1640. Glitzy interface but
>> failing in some of the fundamentals.
>>
>> For example, the "densitometer" readings taken
>> in the scan preview didn't come close to matching
>> the final scan. A call to LaserSoft service
>> yielded no joy on this issue and ended the trial.
>
>Interesting observation. I will have to put that question to them next time I e-mail
>them.
>
>>
>>
>> I'm no huge fan of VueScan. The best bundled
>> scan driver I've worked with is NikonScan; the
>> second best is Microtek's ScanWizard. I've
>> seen drivers for drum scanners that are the
>> pits (ColorTrio and ColorQuartet, for the
>> ScanMate.) Epson and Minolta drivers are
>> pretty lame, though maybe they've improved
>> since my 1640 or the Minolta "ScanSpeed"
>> that I briefly owned years ago.
>
>So far, the best I have worked with was LinoColor, though that is now discontinued.
>The learning curve was tough, but the control and results were worth the effort.
>
>>
>>
>> >> FWIW, I think the Epson flatbeds
>> >> (eg 4870, 4990) come with Silverfast.
>> >
>> >The Epson Expression series usually come with SilverFast Ai. I think some of the
>> >Epson Perfection Photo series come with SilverFast SE, though an upgrade to Ai is
>> >not too much more.
>>
>> I don't understand where the Epson Expression series fits
>> in, frankly. They are "large format" scanners but hardly
>> optimized for film scanning. Resolutions are pretty low
>> for film scanning (and yet they cost considerably more
>> than the Epson 4870/4990.)
>
>When I contact Epson about professional scanners, they send me information on the
>Expression series, including samples. My take on this is that the true dynamic range
>is better, even if the resolution is lower than some Perfection Photo series. On the
>last brochure from Epson, they included a Perfection Pro scanner package as a
>recommended solution.
>
>>
>>
>> The high end Creo/Scitex and Fuji film/flatbed machines
>> are out of my league, pricewise.
>
>Some of the EverSmart series from creo are showing up used at almost reasonable
>pricing, but they are rare. Used Fuji scanners I see maybe once or twice a year.
>Shipping is another issue, and can be quite a bit for these heavy machines. The
>Heidelberg Topaz is another choice, though again rare and heavy.
True, if you consider $2000 to $3000 reasonable
for a 2000 or 3000 dpi scanner. What's interesting
to me is that the Creo/Scitex machines seem to hold
their value better than most drum scanners.
>> >> >Another trick is using drum scanning oil on your flatbed scanner. This can
>> >> >greatly enhance the contrast, colour, and apparent resolution on nearly any
>> >> >flat scanner. The downsides are that it takes a bit longer, and some clean up
>> >> >is involved.
>> >>
>> >> Never seen any evidence of this, particulary not the
>> >> "apparent resolution" bit. In fact, here's some
>> >> evidence that it makes very little difference, even
>> >> on a Tango drum scanner:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Given enough time, almost anyone can find an example to the opposite of anything.
>>
>> Can you provide any comparable evidence to
>> the contrary -- ie. to show the benefits of
>> oil mounting? I've asked for that on other
>> fora, without success.
>
>I can dig up an article from Reponses Photo, if you would like. Since this is
>somewhat educational, I could make some copies and mail them to you. This is a French
>magazine, without English translation. I should still have most of the past issues,
>since I don't throw out much photo related. They also have a web site, so you might
>be able to get a back copy from them.
That's OK. No need. I still have one way to
try this... my ArtixScan 2500 can use a glass tray
for 4x5, and I still have some Kami fluid and
clear overlay sheets from the ScanMate. I may
give that a whirl one of these days if I've
nothing better to do.
>> >Without knowing more background, I have no way to know if this was bad scanning
>> >technique, a limitation of this particular scanner, or the limits reached on that
>> >particular piece of film.
>> >
>> >Kai Hamann has written a few articles about scanning, including use of oil,
>> >changes in aperture on drum scanners, and other issues in scanning. There was
>> >also an article in Reponses Photo barely two years ago about using drum scanning
>> >oil in CCD film scanners, and on flat bed scanners. Unfortunately, scanning is a
>> >skill, and there is no "magic bullet" that will make all scans reach their
>> >maximum potential always.
>>
>> I think there's also a lot of urban mythology
>> involved, and a lot of, "we've always done it this way."
>>
>> Sadly, my ScanMate drum scanner died just as I was
>> about to do my first wet-mounted scans, so I never
>> got to run any tests myself.
>>
>
>My guess is that is might make a difference only on some scanners. I do not know of
>anyone who has tested this with many scanners. I only have film scanners at the
>office, but I have used the drum oil in glass mounted transparency holder previously,
>and it made a noticeable difference. When I need flat scans, I use a place that has a
>newer creo scanner.
>
>>
>> >I think the cost of lower priced consumer scanners might mean adjustable optics
>> >just are not going to appear in the majority of choices. Any moving parts, or
>> >more complex optics, will just drive up the prices. Also, a fixed focus system
>> >should be faster, since it is one less step that the scanner performs.
>> >
>> >If scanners are purchased with the idea that they will be in service for several
>> >years, then I think the ROI (return on investment), should be considered. This
>> >can also apply to some used scanners.
>>
>> The LS-8000 is the *only* scanner I've ever used
>> (either film or flatbed) with any kind of focus
>> adjustment at all.
>
>Some of the Canon and Polaroid film scanners allow manual focus. Since the autofocus
>seems to be fooled by some films, a great improvement in grain reduction can be made
>by manually focusing. With less noise from grain, the detail information can appear
>better. However, this is very small fractions of a millimetre changes. Obviously,
>this is also slower.
Right, the Polaroid 4000 has AF... I know that
because initially there was a bug in the AF
firmware (or driver end). The SprintScan 35+
(which I owned) had fixed focus.
>> You could make an argument that focus control isn't
>> needed on a flatbed scanner, since there's really
>> no mechanical slop to speak of. The lenses involved
>> have very small apertures, so depth of field/depth
>> is usually adequate for reasonably flat targets.
>
>True enough, though it is interesting that it is there. If more information was
>available about the lenses and optics, perhaps we might know a true depth of focus
>for some scanners. This also makes the assumption that they do not drift out of
>adjustment. Some scanners have moving CCDs, while others have moving mirrors, and a
>few have moving optics (even fewer with more than one optic).
Typically flatbeds move the whole optical system,
including lamp, mirrors, lens and CCD.
All of the film scanners I've used move the film.
The ArtixScan 2500 is an odd hybrid with dual
optical paths; one for film another for
reflective media. It's got the most impressive
(and huge) mechanical system of any scanner
I've seen (except for the ScanMate, of course.)
You can hear loud clunking and banging noises
as it reconfigures itself between the 1250 dpi
and 2500 dpi modes.
There are many issues you haven't mentioned.
Eg., illumination is important. Cold cathode
light sources are ubiquitous, yet every scanner
I've used that has cold cathode illumination
(ie. all but the Nikon) has banding and streaking
artifacts. That could be also because all the
ones I've used (except the Nikon) are ultimately
Microtek designs.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
|
|