Med Format Scanning

SCOTFORTHLAD

SCOTFORTHLAD

Slow learner,but keen!
Local time
4:46 AM
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
770
I,m considering developing my own MF film due to the high lab cost in the UK.If anyone has a second hand scanner with MF capability,please let me know.
Thanks,
Brian.
 
I dont but the Canon Canoscan 8660f is what i use. It can scan 35 strips, slides and as well as medium format. The bonus is that it was reasonably priced for a high quality scanner
 
Thanks for the suggestion,I'll look at the Canon,especially as my printer is also from Canon,but pretty sure that I will find a new one a little steep,
Cheers,
Brian.
 
Maybe they use different model numbers in NZ, or maybe it was just a typo, but in the UK you will probably need to look for the 8600F as the model number for their good budget priced MF scanner.

Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com
 
reviving this thread instead of spawning another one...

in shirt, I'm really confused about MF scanning options. I need a dedicated film scanner that does 35mm & MF, no flatbed. what are my options? will I be financially ruined? :eek:

regards,

max
 
Your only new option is Nikon Coolscan 9000, if you want to look for second hand stuff the Minolta Dimage Multi Pro+the scanhancer was doing a great job too.
 
I feared the 9000 to be the only dedicated option.. it's to expensive for me, so I guess I have to look for an ok flatbed.. but thanks for your input!
 
Noci,

I was faced with the same dilemna with the added requirement of being able to scan 4x5. I chose the Epson V700 flatbed scanner and am very pleased with it. It was $549 new.

Bob
 
Epson has just come out with the V500 with the same basic specs as the V700 but less features. It sells in the U.S. for $249.00. You might give it a look. I have a Canon 8600 F which I bought for use with MF but have only used so far with 35mm with better than expected results. I paid $159.95 at Adorama. Good luck.
Kurt M.
 
The Epson V750 Pro has a better software package than the V700 and is supposed to come with optically better glass bed. If you are thinking about the V700, the extra cost for the V750 Pro may be worth it.
 
If you search the digital darkroom threads, I did a comparison of Epson V750 and Nikon 9000. In my opinion, if you cannot afford a good MF film scanner, then MF is pointless, you'd be better off selling your MF gear and buying a first rate 35mm scanner and a good lens.
 
I just hooked up the V500 last night

I just hooked up the V500 last night

and I'm glad I didn't spend the big bucks on the V750. It's all I need for producing scans from my film to post to the web. I don't print all that much, so that wasn't an issue for me (if I do print B&W it's usually a silver print, not an inkjet). I've used Epson's software for years and like it. The film holder is not my favorite feature for medium format, but it works fine for my use. The V750 lets you scan with a wet mount (uses some kind of oil) and that sounded interesting til I thought of cleaning the negatives.

You can see the V500 medium format scans in my film gallery.

HTH,
Mary in Florida
 
thank you for your help, everyone! I'll look into the Epson business..

Mfogiel- I know it's a tradeoff. MF will not be my main platform, so the Nikon expense can't be justified (just yet).
I mainly shoot 35mm and am well equipped lens - & scanner-wise; it's just that I came across a good MF folder and want to experiment with it. I found that toying with many different systems expands my horizon, and if I really love MF I might get a pro scanner at some point- and have the 35mm scanning profit from that at the same time! :)

kind regards,

max
 
I have the V750 ( as i also need to can a lot of prints) with Doug Fisher's MF Height Adjustable Holder and the AN glass inserts. It works well with the MF holder once calibrated but when i compare my 35mm scans on this to those done on my Nikon 5000 i can see a noticeable difference (to my eyes anyway) and i'm using the Silverfast AI sofware on both of them. As i tend to be located in two different countries, i can't afford to shell out for two Nikon 9000's but i am considering one or a used 646 Imacon in the long term.

Money aside, when i compare my scans of 120 from the Imacon 949 against my V750 scans there really is a noticeable difference. Not just in sharpness but also in tonal separation.

At the end of the day, how much one is prepared to outlay on a scanner really depends on what the final requirements are for the scanned image files or what they might be used for in the future....which is harder to ascertain.
 
mfogiel said:
If you search the digital darkroom threads, I did a comparison of Epson V750 and Nikon 9000. In my opinion, if you cannot afford a good MF film scanner, then MF is pointless, you'd be better off selling your MF gear and buying a first rate 35mm scanner and a good lens.
Click to expand...
To be quite honest, your comparison seemed like a typical "quick and dirty" user review. There are more comprehensive reviews available on the net:

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V750/page_1.htm

It has the following conclusion:

"Forgetting the V700 for a moment, the V750 is still an excellent scanner and probably the best in the A4 class, I haven't tested any other flatbed scanner that can match the performance of this scanner. For film scanning this scanner is the best there is, short of going down the dedicated film scanner route. The quality of scans for medium and large format films is outstanding, especially as the results are near identical to a dedicated film scanner costing £2500."

One of the more interesting points was that the V750 was actually closer to the Nikon 9000 when scanning 35 mm film than with MF:

"For 35mm scans the V750 is easily as good as the more expensive Nikon scanner and perhaps better for image sharpness, although for shadow detail the Nikon still has the edge."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom