Please

[chippy]

Originally Posted by FallisPhoto

Hey Andrew. The Iskra would be a good choice, except some of them have frame spacing problems and light leaks and there is no way to tell until it is too late. You first find out about it when you have put a roll of film through it and by then you have already bought the camera. You have to factor in the cost of servicing too, since these are not cameras it would be easy for an amateur repairman/hobbiest to work on. There are a couple of other cameras to look at though. You can buy Ikonta rangefinders and Speedex Special Rs all day long on ebay for under $300 each. However, the Ikonta is the camera the Iskra is based on and shares some of its problems, although they have less of a problem with light leaks. It too will require a professional service. As previously mentioned, that is not a job for an amateur. The price of a CLA will almost certainly put you over $300. A Speedex Special R with a Solinar, on the other hand, would probably be well within his budget and it is easy to fix up yourself.

those that have and use the Iskra on RFF seem to love em and they can be had on the cheaper side (that always helps to like em more) but being assured of getting one thats working in good order seems a bit dicy/gamble. i beleive they are based on the Super Isolette/Speedex tho not the Ikonta AFAIK. it appears pevelg is now prepared to spend up to $500 if neccesarry so his options just opened up to heap of other choices but definately the Iso III is a good camera with un-coupled rangefinder that easily fits in an under $300 budget--somewhat less

[FallisPhoto]

Originally Posted by chippy

... but being assured of getting one thats working in good order seems a bit dicy/gamble.

That is why I gave up on collecting Russian cameras. My first two were repairable, but my next two were not. A 50/50 chance isn't good enough odds for me. My worst experience though, was with a Balda Super Baldina (the folding kind). The first one I ordered was missing the rear element. The second was in perfect condition, except for the leatherette, but it was missing one part -- that's right, the rear lens element. I had to buy three of those things to get one full set of lens elements.

Originally Posted by chippy

i beleive they are based on the Super Isolette/Speedex tho not the Ikonta AFAIK. it appears pevelg is now prepared to spend up to $500 if neccesarry so his options just opened up to heap of other choices but definately the Iso III is a good camera with un-coupled rangefinder that easily fits in an under $300 budget--somewhat less

Oops! I was thinking of a Moskva, not an Iskra! Yeah, with $500, there are a whole lot of choices. I wouldn't know where to start. Probably a good idea would be to go to C6's webstite, not to believe anything he reads there, and to just look at the cameras and imagine them black. Then he can look them up on other websites.

[Krosya]

Here is a link to a folder that may be if interest - no connection to seller:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Balda-Super-Bald...QQcmdZViewItem

[Leigh Youdale]

Originally Posted by chippy

is it possible to scan the neg sizes i mention before, 8x10, 6 1/2x 8 1/2 down through the smaller sizes it seems by breifly looking at the adapters it may be possible for the smaller sizes

Andrew, if you're asking about the Microtek and not the Epson (of which I have no experience) then the answer to your question is "no".

[chippy]

Originally Posted by Leigh Youdale

Andrew, if you're asking about the Microtek and not the Epson (of which I have no experience) then the answer to your question is "no".

thanks Leigh,
i have been trying to read up on what i can....scanning is a whole different animal to what i know.

that place in Sydney seem to have it all..maybe when/if i can work out what will work i can ask them more specific questions.

i just figured that if i was to get a flatbed to scan 120 film it would be more veristile for me if i can scan the larger sheet film as well, so i may as well choose something that could first time around...but i use all sizes from the old plate sizes to the more modern or common. if it was just a matter of me making my own mask for a (say a custom panoramic cut film e.g 4x10 or others) format out of plastic or thin sheet timber then i dont mind ..if its possible that is.

the epson V700 on the epson site is a little vauge but i get the impression it can do 8x10 *shrugs*

also it doesnt appear that the V750 is available here, which apparently has anti newton glass and scans b/w a little better i think they say so iam not sure if its worth buying overseas and using an adaptor for 240volts.

i also noticed on the forum that Ernst mentioned, that fellow doug fisher said in January that a replacement model for the epson was due out the following month in Feburary or 08. i cant find any new replacement model anywhere!

i am also not sure if his wet kit is intended for the 750 alone or whether it can be used on the 700 as well

[Ernst Dinkla]

Originally Posted by chippy

thanks Leigh,

i also noticed on the forum that Ernst mentioned, that fellow doug fisher said in January that a replacement model for the epson was due out the following month in Feburary or 08. i cant find any new replacement model anywhere!

i am also not sure if his wet kit is intended for the 750 alone or whether it can be used on the 700 as well

The kit can be used on more Epsons but I use it on the V700. It will not do an 8x10, for several reasons an 8x10 has to be done on the V700/V750's own glass bed. It isn't wise to wet mount on that glass without taking precautions (modifying the scanner). The Epson wet mount carrier is even smaller than Doug's, doesn't allow the wet mount to the underside of the glass and the focus adjustment to the scanner you get is more primitive than Doug's model provides.

Do not expect much of the V750's coated mirrors etc. A wet mount does far more on optical quality than the coatings.

Whether a new Epson model makes the difference to the V700/V750 is hard to say but the steps before have been very gradually on Epson Perfection models 2400>3200>4990>V700 with some lower spec models alongside.

Ernst Dinkla

[chippy]

Ernst by placing the 8x10 or 8 1/2 x 6 1/2 (whole plate) neg straight on the glass i assume from what you say i will get a scan? not a wet mount scan though. so that sounds promising at least. but am right in thinking that perhaps its not going to be much in the way of quality?

[pevelg]

To keep everybody informed, here's part of Ernst's reply to a PM of mine:

The main advantage of wet mounting is that there's no better way to get a film flat and totally in focus. That is more an advantage on 120 up to 8x10 film than it is with 135 film. Most of my 35 mm work I scan on a Nikon 8000, sometimes I wet mount them on that scanner too (a holder I developed around 2003) but only in cases where the film was damaged, hard to get flat etc. The transmission of light through the emulsion is better with wet mounting but getting strips of film mounted is taking too much time if compared to dedicated 35 mm carriers.

Thanks for the info. You state that you use both the 8000 and the V700. Which is better? I have seen several Coolscan 8000's go below $1k at the auction place.

Ernst by placing the 8x10 or 8 1/2 x 6 1/2 (whole plate) neg straight on the glass i assume from what you say i will get a scan? not a wet mount scan though. so that sounds promising at least. but am right in thinking that perhaps its not going to be much in the way of quality?

From my understanding, the v700 has two lenses. The 6400 is for film mounted in the holders and the 4800 for things placed on the glass, including film. So with your 8x10, it would use the 4800 lens. With a negative the size of 8x10, I can't image the file size if you scanned at 4800!!!

Here is a link to a folder that may be if interest - no connection to seller:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Balda-Super-Bald...QQcmdZViewItem

Thanks for the link. I added this to my watch list, along with a Certo six (2.8/80 tessar) and a Super Ikonta 3 (not a tessar but a novar lens )

[ZeissFan]

I agree -- the Isolette III is a very nice camera, especially if it has the Solinar.

I'm also a fan of the Mess Ikonta 524/16 with the Tessar. That should slide in under a $300 budget.

The two are comparable performers, although I prefer the Agfa's finger dial for the uncoupled rangefinder over the focusing dial of the Mess Ikonta that requires two fingers.

[rpsawin]

This site is a good resource http://www.certo6.com/

Bob

[Ernst Dinkla]

Originally Posted by chippy

Ernst by placing the 8x10 or 8 1/2 x 6 1/2 (whole plate) neg straight on the glass i assume from what you say i will get a scan? not a wet mount scan though. so that sounds promising at least. but am right in thinking that perhaps its not going to be much in the way of quality?

Like mentioned in another message the V models have two lenses. One covers the glass bed of the scanner and is more or less focused on that bed height. It is meant for reflective and large film scanning. The other lens covers if I recall it correctly a stroke of about 15 cm wide and is focused about 2.5 mm above the glass bed where the film in the carriers is. Due to manufacturing tolerance and the way the long optical path is folded in scanners like this (3-4-5 mirrors) it is difficult to keep that focus correct for every scanner leaving the factory. That has been so with every Perfection model and since the 2400 model people have tweaked film holders to get the film at the right distance. Epson decided to provide some spacers for the V models so customers can tweak the holders with official Epson spacers :-) But it gives just 3 settings. For scanning on the glass bed of the scanner itself there is no adjustment provided. My best guess is that the focus there should be 0.5 mm above the bed in ideal products but could vary between under the bed level and more above.
The same sensor is used by the two lenses so the wide bed scan has a lower resolution. The Epson resolution numbers are actually sample per inch resolutions, representing the sensor geometry and the stepping rate. That's not like a true optical resolution which can only be analysed by resolution tests like Imatest makes possible. The difference between the glass bed scan and the holder scans will be less than the Epson resolution numbers suggest. But the holders should be better focused, give no Newton rings (glassless ones + wet mount one) and better flatness of the film with the wet mount holder while I see better light transmission as well with wet mounting.
Wet mounting on the scanner glassbed is not recommended as the fluid will creep under the scanner cover and destroy things there like the calibration strip for reflective scanning. There should be a possibility to make a wet mount glass for 8x10 that more or less hangs just 0.5 mm above the normal glass bed, film clinging underneath like I always have in my wet mount scans. Doug had or may still have a description of my scan methods that I wrote some years back for a scanner mailing list.

Ernst Dinkla

[Ernst Dinkla]

Originally Posted by pevelg

To keep everybody informed, here's part of Ernst's reply to a PM of mine:



Thanks for the info. You state that you use both the 8000 and the V700. Which is better? I have seen several Coolscan 8000's go below $1k at the auction place.




From my understanding, the v700 has two lenses. The 6400 is for film mounted in the holders and the 4800 for things placed on the glass, including film. So with your 8x10, it would use the 4800 lens. With a negative the size of 8x10, I can't image the file size if you scanned at 4800!!!



Thanks for the link. I added this to my watch list, along with a Certo six (2.8/80 tessar) and a Super Ikonta 3 (not a tessar but a novar lens )

The true optical resolution of the Nikons (8000 + 9000) is very close to the Nikon specs. Think 3600-3800 PPI. That's tested by Colorfoto Germany.

In best conditions the V models may do a true 2500 PPI. I do not have the Colorfoto test results around but they were lower than my estimation however they never tweak the scanners to the level possible. Something Vincent of Photo-i learned a bit in the forum discussions. One of the things to keep in mind is that you may have to do a 6400 samples per inch scan to get a 2500 PPI optical resolution scan. If you select a lower sample per inch scan say 3200 because it is faster and the scanner never will deliver that 6400 PPI, you may discover that the scanner skips steps and will actually do less sampling and by that drop even more in true optical resolution. Another way to avoid that is by selecting an odd resolution say 3700 SPI, the scanner will do the 6400 SPI scan then and downsample to 3700 PPI with a true resolution of say 2300 PPI. For economy in space you could downsample to that true optical resolution in software with good downsample algorithms (Qimage for example).

The high sampling rate the Epsons have increase the Dynamic range however so it isn't just marketing BS. Add the multi sampling/exposure mode of Vuescan or Silverfast and it can even be improved upon. See a test by Image Engineering of that Silverfast mode on a V700:
http://www.silverfast.com/highlights...posure/en.html

So the Nikon 8000 has better resolution (and Dynamic range) but its LED illumination can sometimes be too harsh for slightly underexposed MF B&W negatives. The V700 then comes to the rescue to keep detail in shadow parts. I use wet mounting on both but for 35 mm I use the Nikon with the normal 35 mm holder normally. Only for special cases that I will scan 35 mm wet mounted. Scratches, very matte emulsions can be scanned better with wet mounting. The extreme flatness possible with wet mounting is usually not needed for small film frames like 35 mm.


Ernst Dinkla

[sweathog]

Nobody has seemed to mentioned the Seagull 203. It's Chinese made, and I've had a hankering for one for a long time.
75mm f3.5 lens, leaf shutter up to 1/300 and a coupled rangefinder.
The interesting thing is that it has an advance lever, rather than a knob as you would expect on a folder.
Here's some bits from flickr.

[Solinar]

I once had a Seagull 203 - Its design copies both the coupled RF of the Super Ikonta III and the dual format doors of the Isolette L. The build quality is a major step below the Hong Kong built Halinas of the late 1960's, early 70's. Don't attempt to change the shutter speed once the shutter has been tensioned or it will break - guaranteed.

My advise would be to spring for a working Iskra if you are on a tight budget. The Iskra - which is a Soviet copy of the Agfa Super Isolette - is orders of magnitude better than the Seagull in design, build and optics.

[FallisPhoto]

Originally Posted by sweathog

Nobody has seemed to mentioned the Seagull 203. It's Chinese made, and I've had a hankering for one for a long time.
75mm f3.5 lens, leaf shutter up to 1/300 and a coupled rangefinder.
The interesting thing is that it has an advance lever, rather than a knob as you would expect on a folder.
Here's some bits from flickr.

There's a reason no one has mentioned it -- and that's, frankly, because it's junk.

[sweathog]

Originally Posted by FallisPhoto

There's a reason no one has mentioned it -- and that's, frankly, because it's junk.

Fair enough.
As I said, I've had a hankering for one, but given the replies I've gotten, I may change my mind on this one...

[pevelg]

I have received my Epson v750 Pro-M today!!!! I decided to go with the 750 because I managed to get one for $617 brand new.

Here is an example from my Mamiya 7, 80mm, Velvia 50.



Here is a 100% crop, scanned at 4800 dpi I think