Originally posted by LesDMess If by better you mean in terms of resolution at 4300 vs Coolscan of 3900 then that is true. Also the price is encouraging.
The XA came out in the middle of my film scanning research; I starting to look at Coolscans but the XE review and price of a new XA vs a used CoolscanXXXX sold me.
Originally posted by LesDMess Unfortunately, this 10% gain in resolution comes at more than double the time to scan - quite a bit more with ICE, compared to the Coolscan 5000 reviewed by the same website. My own scans with the 5000 are even faster by 10-20 seconds. Of course anyone who has ever done a lot of scanning knows that post work can easily exceed actual setup and scan times.
Scan times are not an issue for me, I want a good scan and if it takes a little longer than a Coolscan that costs more and can only be found used without a warranty I'm way good. To maximize my efficiency, however, I use low res previews to proof my shots and cull anything that is obviously not what I was shooting for before I do any scans. I then auto-scan the whole whole uncut roll at final resolution using the minimum necessary adjustments, come back to the workstation when it's done, and cull anything else that doesn't work for me. Once I'm happy I import into my LR catalog.
Originally posted by LesDMess The 5000 has more and better film handling.
I enjoy scanning a whole roll of negatives instead of using holders (I tried the XE before the XA). Mounted slides with the XA are another matter; tedious to say the least.
Originally posted by LesDMess The 9000 can handle medium format at 4000dpi while the Hassy drops to 3200.
I'm was only relating my post to 35mm since the OP referenced shooting with a DSLR. If I needed to scan MF I might not have gone with the XA. I did consider the Coolscans for if or when I decide to shoot some MF but without a warranty and Nikon's inevitable EOSL I'm waiting to see what PF / Reflecta have in store for MF since they haven't updated those scanners in awhile. Depending how large I go with MF an Epson flatbed might be the solution on the day, MF is still TBD for me. Maybe for the OP as well.
Originally posted by LesDMess The review is reasonable but not long term. How accurate is the color/contrast across film types/brands? How good is the ICE? How much post is required? How is the autofocus? What is the build quality?
Having used the XA for the past year I can say that the results suit my needs and workflow when using Vuescan. Vuescan allows for myriad adjustments that can be saved as defaults for each type of film you might be shooting. Having said that, each manufacturer's batch of emulsion, the way the film was shot, the way it was processed, etc., means there will be variance within any given batch of film stock; Vuescan allows for adjustments within the program or for such differences including film profiling of each roll or batch of film using using
IT8 targets. Accurate film scanning, as with DSLR capture, is dependent on accurate profiling; how deep one wants to go is up to the individual.
The long term reliability is still unknown to me since I had to return the original scanner for a replacement. Again,
I was able to return the defective scanner for replacement and am just beginning to use the replacement scanner. My initial impression is that the first scanner had some issues from the beginning that I didn't notice until a few day before the warranty expired; even though I exhaustively researched scanning 35mm film the XA was my first film scanner. The replacement scanner is illustrating to me how the first one should have worked. I was an early adopter, however; I bought the XA the day B&H listed it as "in stock". The serial number was #83 and, at the time, PacificImage Electronics didn't even have the XA listed on it's website. So, I feel got stung by being an early adopter which is pretty common in today's world. A warranty is key for me when it comes to items like this.
I want to mention that PacificImaging Electronics responded to my problems in a manner that was extraordinary. Their level of service equaled that of the highest-end professional vendors I regularly work with in my day job. While their communication seemed at first to be lacking, I found out that after receiving my email they immediately started the resolution process. When I called and left a message to follow up they were already in the process of sending me another scanner. I would have no problem buying a medium format scanner from them in the future. I'm really impressed with them, Richard and Wendy in particular.
Originally posted by LesDMess Having personally scanned over 20,000 frames of a great variety of types/brands of film, I can characterize scanning with the Coolscan+Nikonscan as uneventful. Autofocus is perfect. ICE is effective with the 5000 and perfect with the 9000. Color/contrast requires the least amount of post work I have seen across all the scanners I have tried - various desktops, minilabs and Imacon/Hassy. Majority of it requires no scan adjustments or post work at all.
During my research I found that your opinion is shared my most, if not all, Coolscan users who bought new or who were able to acquire a fully functional unit on the used market.
Originally posted by LesDMess I appreciate having an option if my Coolscans ever fail. If someone out there has had considerable experience with this new scanner, that would be good to know.
I've notice on various vorums a few Coolscan users feeling the same way.
Here are some early Tri-X scans:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mick_davies/14830293835/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/mick_davies/14643294119/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/mick_davies/14767641653/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/
---------- Post added 06-03-15 at 10:26 AM ----------
Originally posted by Xmas Ultimately, "Yes!" I'm thinking of doing it sooner than later. I know this sounds crazy but I think there is going to be a surge in interest.