MF Scanner Recommendations

Discussion in 'APUG.ORG's "Gray" Area Subforum -NOW HYBRIDPHOTO.C' started by copake_ham, Sep 16, 2006.

  1. copake_ham

    copake_ham Inactive

    Messages:
    4,090
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Location:
    NYC or Copak
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I did a site search and didn't really come up with what I'm looking for.

    I'd like to add MF to my 35mm work.

    While I shoot film, lately, I've been doing developing only and then scanning the negs (or slides) via a Nikon 5000D scanner.

    If I make a move to MF - I will need a different scanner.

    Quite frankly, the price of the Nikon 9000D is scary - although I could pull it off.

    Does anyone have any other suggestions for a MF-capable scanner?
     
  2. JBrunner

    JBrunner Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    7,075
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Location:
    Basin and Range Province
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    Hi George,

    This is probably a thread for the Grey Area Subforum.

    The Epson scanners do a very good job for a flatbed scanner, at a decent price. I have the 4990- I believe the newest version is called the V700. It will scan negatives, transparancies, and prints up to 8x10, with dedicated holders for 35mm, 120 and 4x5. I wouldn't put it in the same class as the Nikons, but it is better than one would expect, from past experiences with flatbed scanners. Pretty damn good, actually.

    Best,

    J
     
  3. rst

    rst Member

    Messages:
    1,109
    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Location:
    Germany
    Shooter:
    Pinhole
    Hi,

    I also own an Epson 4990 and it can give you very good results at an affordable price. There are other options than a Coolscan 9000. But if most of what you scan is slides or color negatives, then I would say - because of the dust removal of the Nikon scanner - the Nikon is the way to go. For B&W, the Epson does a good job. Instead of searching through an analog forum like APUG, I would recommend to also have a look into the medium format forum on photo.net

    Regards
    -- Ruediger
     
  4. RH Designs

    RH Designs Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    657
    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Location:
    Yorkshire Da
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The 4990 also has dust removal, both ICE and Epson's own, but it is very s-l-o-w. Be aware that ICE doesn't work properly with conventional (i.e. non-chromogenic) b+w films though. I'm happy enough with my 4990 - it's certainly good value for money - but if the comparison between it and my Coolscan LS40 for 35mm is anything to go by, you will get sharper results from the Nikon despite the nominally higher resolution of the Epson. Having said that, the LS40 does show up every speck and scratch whereas the Epson is more forgiving, rather like a condenser enlarger vs a diffusion one. The MF Nikon is likely to be similar I imagine.
     
  5. kraker

    kraker Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,257
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I second that. Actually, I bought the Epson V700 just a week ago, and it makes scanning fun again. Still not as much fun as making prints in the darkroom, but hey, you want to show some results on the web every now and then. This one does it all. Although I would recommend using Vuescan for scanning instead of the enclosed Epson software.

    If you want to spend 3 or 4 times the amount of money, a dedicated MF film scanner may be your choice, but as far as "value for money" goes, the Epson is -and it's getting repetetive here- pretty damn good!
     
  6. Dan Henderson

    Dan Henderson Member

    Messages:
    1,888
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Location:
    Blue Ridge,
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    I'll echo the Epson recommendation. I have the 4870 flatbed scanner (has probably been upgraded to a higher model by now) and am very satisfied with the results that I get from it.
     
  7. L Gebhardt

    L Gebhardt Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,769
    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Location:
    NH
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    I will go against the group here and say the Epson's that I have tried (4870 & 2450) are not up to the task of scanning modern slides. Shadow details get lost. Sharpness is OK for small prints. Real resolution is around 1800dpi. The results with negative films are much better than slides on the Epson. They are fine devices for proofing, but you will be disapointed compared to your Nikon. I would recomend having some film scanned on one before I bought it.

    My personal recomendation is if you really need to scan then get the Nikon, or a used drum scanner if you can find one for cheaper (should be easily possible).
     
  8. David Henderson

    David Henderson Member

    Messages:
    342
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Location:
    Datchet, Ber
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    It depends what you want to do with the scans. If they're to view the photographs on screen , post on the web, send on emails, make CD's, or even to make smaller prints then the flatbeds mentioned here should be fine.

    If on the other hand you have desires to make large prints from these scans in reasonable quantity then the film scanner is the way to go. If you want to make only a very few large prints then a flatbed at home plus getting lab drum scans made on the few may well be a route you should consider.

    This last generation of flatbeds seems to offer a better dmax, giving improved ability to get detail in shadows. This overcomes, at least in part, one of the strongest arguments against using flatbeds for contrasty stuff like slides. In other words, if you want the best you can get from a flatbed, don't run off and buy a used 2450 or 3200 from eBay!
     
  9. Stewart Skelt

    Stewart Skelt Member

    Messages:
    106
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Location:
    Australia
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I bought a Nikon 9000 in order to print from MF. It was painful, but if you are intending to make prints for display, it is the way to go. Later on I acquired a 617 and found that scanning in parts and then stitching was a time-consuming but effective way to get very high quality scans.

    If on the other hand you are looking for on-screen display, the extra cost is not worth it; go for a flatbed.
     
  10. Pinholemaster

    Pinholemaster Member

    Messages:
    1,504
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Location:
    Westminster,
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    Nikon 9000
     
  11. Bromo33333

    Bromo33333 Member

    Messages:
    669
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Location:
    Rochester, N
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Scary ... but effective

    THe Nikon is probably the 'best' in class. Though you will need the optional medium format holders. (I *think* there are third party holders available, too)

    If you don't like the money, there is Epson V700 and V750M which has 33-50% the fear factor and do a great job from what I can see. Some folks swear by their third party film holders, though there aeem to be mixed reviews.

    Probably I would getthe Epson, and if i found an image that was REALLY worth blowing up large, I would get a print made or a drum scan.
     
  12. nc5p

    nc5p Member

    Messages:
    394
    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Location:
    Alameda
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I've got the Epson 4990. I make 11x14's all the time and don't have a complaint, other than it seems I'm cleaning the thing all the time. I would love to have a 9000 but there just is no way. Scanners have really come up in the world in the last few years.

    Doug
     
  13. student

    student Member

    Messages:
    11
    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2005
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Hi.
    Had the Epson 3200...boght a Nikon 9000...sold it during a momentary lapse of reason...got a 4990--MUCH better than expected...just bought Nikon again...SUPERIOR...if you can afford it, get it.