Epson V500 Review

The Epson V500 is a great scanner for the ordinary home user. I bought it to scan in many older slides and negatives. I’ve already recuperated the value over what it would cost me to take it to a shop. It also can scan medium format negatives.

Easy of Use:
The scanner is very easy to set up and use. I’ve spent most of my time in Home Mode which gives you some basic options on what you are scanning, the resolution, brightness, color correction, ICE, etc. 4800 dpi is huge: it will create a file that is 4800 x 7200 pixels, which is over 34 MP. I scanned most of the scans at 1200 dpi, which produced about a 2MP file on 35mm negative.
When you are scanning 35mm negatives or slides, if you press “thumbnail” option, the scanner will detect and segment all the photos into different files after you run the preview scan. You also can rotate photos in the preview, so you don’t need to do any post processing. The segmentation and rotations only work for 35mm, not medium format.
In home mode, ICE, color correction, brightness, contrast, and backlight correction are all possible adjustments before you even scan, after you scan the preview. This is a good option to have, depending on your negative.

Scan times:
Scanning is very quick at 300 dpi, which is a screen quality size. Scan times do go up from there. Most scans at 1200 dpi seemed to take about 1-2 minutes. 4800 DPI takes about 5 minutes.

Digital ICE:
Adding “Digital ICE” option will remove dust from your negatives, but it will add significant scan time. A negative with too much damage will actually look worse with ICE. It also sometimes doesn't work well with older black and white negatives. A 1200 DPI scan of a 35mm negative with ICE takes about 10 minutes.

Kodachrome
Kodachrome has a reputation of scanning poorly, and the scanner’s performance on KR was important to me. The good news is that it works very well. While some say ICE doesn't work well with KR, I've successfully scan KR with ICE.

Extras:
The scanner came with Adobe Elements 6. I literally can’t tell the difference between Elements 6 and the current offering, Elements 7. Elements has all the tools a home user will need: color correction, brightness & contrast corrections, fixing spot marks.

The Downside:
As other people have mentioned, the negative trays are a little flimsy, but as long as you are careful, they’ll be okay.
If you are scanning medium format, there isn’t a thumbnail preview. You have to do it one at a time, and may have to rotate the photo after scanning.
Scan times, including the time switch out the negatives or slides, can be higher, but I think to increase scanning times, with autofeeders, you will be spending 5 times as much. Normally I am doing something else while scanning, so it’s
If you unplug the scanner from the computer after using it and you plug it back in, the computer may not recognize the scanner. If you restart your computer and scanner, it will fix the problem.

Is Lomo, loco?

I have a hard time understanding the interest in Holga, Diana, and the other Lomo products. They have a fixed focal length, fixed aperture, a plastic lens, and one or maybe two shutter speeds. To me, that is a reloadable disposable camera. Otherwise, the main difference is just the price tag.

Why do people shell out $50-$100 on the Lomo? The margin on these cameras has to be tremendous. For that money, I could get a lot nicer used camera. I'm thinking a fixed lens 35mm rangefinder like a Olympus SP35 a Canonet QL17, or vintage TLR if you want medium format, a Ricoh TLR.

Lomo markets the poor quality as an advantage. From the manufacturer's product description: "Beloved Holga effects: soft focus, double-exposures, streaming colors, intense vignetting and unpredictable light leaks." These are bad things!!!!!

• "Soft focus" is a cute phrase meaning pictures are a little blurry.


• "Intense vignetting" - the low quality plastic lens makes the edges of the photo much darker than the center. Perhaps nice in some portraits, but not as a general purpose.


• "Unpredicitable light leaks" - the camera is so poorly constructed that that light hits the film through the camera back. It makes a white streak across your picture.

Is it purely marketing that tell people they will be "hip and different" if they own one?

My Kodachrome has been taken away.

In 1973, Paul Simon pleaded not to take his Kodachrome away. Today, 36 years later, Kodak finally did.

Kodak: Today, Eastman Kodak Corporation has officially announced the retirement of Kodachrome 64, the last remaining variation of legendary Kodachrome Color Film. This includes both consumer 135 KR-64-36 and professional 135 PKR-64-36 versions. However, Kodak and the only remaining lab in the world that develops Kodachrome have contracted to honor customer's requests for Kodachrome processing until at least 12/31/2010. In addition to this support, Kodak has stated that in current production and supply, Kodachrome film should be available until early Fall of this year with distribution that is considerate to all who would want to use it.
This presents the public with a unique opportunity to still experience the film first hand before it is too late, with it’'s 75th anniversary being well within reach of Kodachrome fans next year.

“"Kodachrome Film is an iconic product and a testament to Kodak’'s long and continuing leadership in imaging technology",” said Mary Jane Hellyar, President of Kodak’'s Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group. "It was certainly a difficult decision to retire it, given it's rich history. However, the majority of today's photographers have voiced their preference to capture images with newer technology,– both film and digital. Kodak remains committed to providing the highest-performing products –both film and digital –to meet those needs.”"

Kodachrome 64:

Travel Telephoto Lenses in Leica Thread Mount

You need a lightweight short telephoto lens for travelling. What to get? That was my question. I considered three choices: Komura 105mm f/3.5, Canon 100mm f/3.5, and the Leitz Elmar 90mm f/4. I also did some minor comparison to two heavier and larger alternates, the Nikkor 85mm f/2 and the Nikkor 135 f/3.5.



From Left to Right:
-Nikkor 135/3.5
-Komura 105/3.5
-Canon 100/3.5 (Version 3 according to Canon Camera Museum site)
-Leica Elmar 90/4
-Canon 100/3.5 (Version 2 according to Canon Camera Museum site)
-Nikkor 85/2

Preconceptions and Overall Impression:

Coming into the study, I was under the impression that the Canon would best of the three. I haven't been impressed by the Elmar, so I wasn't expecting much. While I wasn't sure about the Komura, it's lower price signaled that it may not be as good.

I was surprised by the performance quality of the Komura. I find the performance to be almost indistinguishable from the Canon 100/3.5. I was also surprised how all the lenses seemed to perform equally well at mid-aperature at infiniti.

Film & Scanning: Film used was Ektar 100 and scanned on a Epson V500. Sometimes I need to tweak the colors after scanning negative film. I didn't bother to do that. There was no color difference when


Sharpness at Infiniti, mid aperture

I found little difference here. All lenses performed equally well. PLEASE NOTE: Color difference are only the results of uncorrected scanning. Prints were indentically normal colors.


Komura 105mm f3.5:


Komura, deep scan of center:


Canon 100mm f/3.5:


Canon, deep scan of center:



Elmar 90mm f/4: (please ignore the dust)


Elmar, deep scan of center:



Performance at closer distance, mid aperature

Coming Soon.

Performance at wider aperatures

Coming Soon.

Size and Weight

The Elmar (200 g) and the Canon, version 2 (182 g) are roughly the same size and ight, although the Canon is 10mm longer and 1/3 stop faster. The 3rd version of the Canon 100/3.5 is slightly heavier (224 g). The Komura is noticeably larger (about 30%) but it isn't much heavier. I don't have a scale but I'd guess about 260 g, whereas the Nikkor 135/3.5 is 510g.


Price:
A postwar Elmar seems to go for about $90 and Canon 100/3.5 is about $170. Since the Komura is opitcally extremely close to the Canon and only larger, I think the price should be closer to that of the Canon.