Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II vs new lower-end flat beds

R

reubelim

Member
Local time
4:08 PM
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
18
View My Gallery
Hi All,

Have been using a new-in-box Minolta Scan Dual II for the past few months, decent output for the low price I got it. Getting into medium format so am in the market for a new lower-end flatbed, for me it's now a toss-up between the Canoscan 9000F and the Epson Perfection V600.

First question: can I send off my Scan Dual II now to help fund the flatbed or should I hang onto it since its 35mm output will still be better than the above flatbeds? Know the conventional wisdom and all about film scanner vs. flatbed, but the Minolta is a lower-end model several generations back, and perhaps the newer flatbeds have already improved enough?

Second, any info on which of the two (Canon or Epson flatbed) is better (here in Manila, the Canon is a bit cheaper)? Just a hobbyist, and don't really shoot that much MF after all (well, have shot exactly one roll, and it is now waiting for the flatbed's arrival). That may change though once I get the flatbed. BTW, am using Vuescan, and thankfully both scanners are supported. Got Vuescan as this was the only way I could use the Minolta on Windows Vista and 7. After installing Vuescan the Minolta software also worked, but I find the Vuescan much faster to use.

Have been reading up and both flatbeds have gotten great reviews, though the Canoscan is a newer release. Also, not planning to get any after-market film holders, is it true the Canoscan holders are a bit flimsy and tetchier to use?

As an aside, no way to activate the infrared scratch removal feature on Vuescan with the Minolta, right? Also, setting the white and black points and low- and high curves in Vuescan have been giving me grey hairs. Any info on how to make this easier?

Please pardon the many questions. Would appreciate any feedback,

Cheers!
 
I am also interested in whether or not the 9000F or V600 is good enough for my needs as a hobbyist / learner. I am in the process of learning how to properly expose and develop b & w film. I have no way to make contact prints so my thought is to get a relatively inexpensive scanner to evaluate the results and see how I'm doing. I have no backlog of negatives, but I would like to "bulk scan" all of my negatives going forward at a rate of 2-4 rolls / week. I'd like a scanner that makes this relatively painless, if such a thing exists. The resolution doesn't have to be huge as I will primarily be viewing the results on my monitor. If I happen to get a great shot and want a high quality scan I can have it done at a pro lab.

If anyone has experience with these scanners, do you think one or both would fit this purpose? And if so, how long should I expect to spend scanning a roll of 36 exposures?

I hope I'm not hijacking the thread, but it seems relevant to the OP's questions.

Cheers!
 
I used a Scan Dual II for years. I still occasionally print from files made with it. It will hold it's own with any scanner made today as there really has not been great advancements in scanner technology. The only reason I sold it was to get it's big brother, the MultiPro, to scan 6x7 negs. I still use that today.

Personally I have never been a Digital Ice fan and still do not use it. But I am in the minority.

I only know about modern flatbeds from friends who use Epson 700 to scan 6x7 negs. They do OK there. But from what I have seen, I the the SDII would blow it's socks off with a 35mm neg.

The Scan Dual II seems to be worth very little these days. So I would not recommend selling one. I would recommend buying one.
 
surfnsnow said:
I have no way to make contact prints <snip>
Click to expand...

I have not made a contact sheet in ten years. I simply lay the film out on the light box and edit there. I became convinced long ago that I could learn more by looking at the actual negative than a digital second generation contact sheet.

Your mind can simply convert the negative image to a positive one for evaluation unless you have a preconceived notion that you cannot do so.

You also save loads of time by only scanning the negs that you determine are real winners. It is a win / win / win situation.
 
Bob Michaels said:
I have not made a contact sheet in ten years. I simply lay the film out on the light box and edit there. I became convinced long ago that I could learn more by looking at the actual negative than a digital second generation contact sheet.

Your mind can simply convert the negative image to a positive one for evaluation unless you have a preconceived notion that you cannot do so.

You also save loads of time by only scanning the negs that you determine are real winners. It is a win / win / win situation.
Click to expand...

Hi Bob,

That's funny, I just tried that a few minutes ago on a whim to see how it would look. I used a loupe to see the negs a little bit better. I was surprised that it was pretty easy to tell the best ones!

Must have been channeling your thoughts...

- James
 
This may or may not help you. I shoot medium format, but recently bought a Leitz CL for a lighter walk around camera. My Minolta Scan Dual III was sold some time ago when I decided to go to optical printing, but I kept my old Epson 2450 flatbed ($100 w/ a very fogged scanning glass) for proofing medium format and 4x5. When I got the CL I was regretting having sold my Scan Dual III, but just for a goof I decided to see if the Epson might possibly be good enough to use w/ 35mm. I never can tell much from negatives (as far as which might make a good print), so I use the Epson to proof them and decide which ones go to the enlarger.

I had already saved this file from the Scan Dual III, so I made another scan using the Epson and compared them. The Minolta scan is the first one, and then the Epson 2450. The third scan is from a Rolleiflex T neg because I wanted to show how well this ancient piece of equipment performs w/ 120 film. The differences are so slight in the 35mm portrait I think it's pretty much of a wash. Film was Tri-X on all three. Because this was real B&W film I had to do a LOT of dust spotting in PS.

4933825766_a553dec504_b.jpg



4933243371_e69af5d6d5_b.jpg



4640418962_a626a32721_z.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I was a bit surprised by them. I thought that the Epson flatbed was too crappy for 35mm, but the 'ol girl still has some life in her.
 
This is a very common question. I am one who tends to let "professionals do what they are good at", which to me meant letting high-labs do the scanning with "real film scanners". However, I want get a scanner because the lab I really like for development is admittedly ignorant about scanning. Its a trade-off...willing to let them do a very good job on developing and I will learn to do a very good job of scanning.

The 8800F seems to get a lot of good reviews...but the detractors all say, "...but it is not a film scanner...it is flatbed."

J.D.
 
Any feedback from Canoscan 9000F users?

Any feedback from Canoscan 9000F users?

Thanks for all the replies, no worries surfnsnow.

Bob, the Scan Dual II is indeed a decent scanner (well, enough for my pedestrian needs), but your MultiPro is what I really wanted, none to be had here and on the internet sell places when i was looking for one a few months back. Nice tip too on culling the frames for eventual scanning.

Steve, thanks for taking the time to post the great pics, lovely exposures. The 2400 output seems very acceptable, though I agree with Ranger that the Minolta output you posted looked better in rendering fine detail (her hairline for instance).

I really wouldn't mind bagging an older MF-capable flatbed if one comes my way, though I was thinking I should get one of the newest LED-light models and be done with the scanner upgrade bit, at least until I really need the better quality of the higher-end models.

Am leaning towards the Canoscan so would appreciate feedback from any users out there.

Cheers!
 
Bob, just checked out ebay and saw a Multipro listing from Germany, 14 bidders and price inching up to $2k.

Holy Cow Batman! Didn't know they went for that much of a bundle. That's one well-regarded machine you have there.
 
That's a ridiculous price when you can get a current Nikon Coolscan 9000 for $2K.

Any film scanner will out-perform an cheap (less than Creo) flatbed. Any differences or similarities you see in comparing some online jpgs are going to reflect operator judgement (or error) more than the capabilities of the scanners themselves.

That said, you might do better getting a decent currently-made flatbed like an Epson 700/750 and getting yourself calibrated and profiled and master using the beast. Good technique and a mediocre scanner trump sloppy technique and the best scanner every time.
 
How do you calibrate, profile, and master? I'm a total nooby to scanning.

I'm also using the Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II, with Vuescan. Like the nice tight sharp grain I'm getting in my scans.
 
Hi Nokton,

Afraid we're in the same boat. Haven't gotten around to calibrating my machine yet. Still hunting up a place to get a good IT8 target.

Can refer you though to a book I just got which I am finding invaluable, "Scanning Negatives and Slides," by Sascha Steinhoff from Rockynook Publications.

It has sections specifically on Vuescan.

Cheers!
 
I didn't read all of the responses on this thread, but I'm just gonna tell you my experience.
About a year ago I bought myself a Canoscan 8800F, I was so excited to use it, so when I came home I installed it all... tried to scan something and it didn't work.
So I had to bring it back .. I've waited a few hours in the shop as they told me that they would check what is wrong (no problem for me) but then it seemed it was just inrepairable and then I had to wait for a few weeks to get myself a new one (under warranty, so I didn't have to pay anything extra). So after a few weeks I got myself the new scanner, took it home tried to test it ...
didn't work either, went back to the shop, waited a few weeks got myself a new one and that one did eventually work.
So I guess I had awfully loads of bad luck or ... well this particular scanner-line kinda sucks (don't want to upset anyone tho, just my experience)
I've also experienced that the Epson scanners are better scanners tho (as I used them at my previous school, but those might have been more expensive models, I wouldn't know for sure)
Any way now that it works properly it gives me some fairly good scans ..
 
reubelim said:
Hi Nokton,

Afraid we're in the same boat. Haven't gotten around to calibrating my machine yet. Still hunting up a place to get a good IT8 target.

Can refer you though to a book I just got which I am finding invaluable, "Scanning Negatives and Slides," by Sascha Steinhoff from Rockynook Publications.

It has sections specifically on Vuescan.

Cheers!
Click to expand...


Here's the book you're recommending:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-list...8&s=books&qid=1283095736&sr=8-1&condition=new

Thanks!
 
Steve M. said:
This may or may not help you. I shoot medium format, but recently bought a Leitz CL for a lighter walk around camera. My Minolta Scan Dual III was sold some time ago when I decided to go to optical printing, but I kept my old Epson 2400 flatbed ($100 w/ a very fogged scanning glass) for proofing medium format and 4x5.
Click to expand...

Do you mean 2400 or 2450? I'm curious as the Epson 2400 is 35mm only. I have both, I picked up a used 2450 that was cleaner than the 2400 I bought new years ago. I also have a Nikon CoolScan IV ED sitting on my desk, but I just use the Epson.

I don't really like the 2450 for medium format, and am looking to replace it with something that can do an entire strip of film at a time.
 
Oops, my mistake. I did mean an Epson 2450. Sorry about that. I better fix that in the original post.

Frank is correct about the final scan being more of a condition of final processing, but only up to a point. You can't add in detail, no matter how much you post process. If I had simply showed the scans as they came from the scanners it would have been meaningless, as that would have shown what the scanner's basic defaults were, and that can be changed drastically on either scanner. I prefer to keep the scanners at their native defaults because some types of negs require different post processing than other types.

Maybe if I had that Nikon 8000 scanner I used to have I could have shown really different results, but w/ the Epson 2450 flatbed against the Minolta dedicated film scanner I expected a much greater difference between post processed scans. Not to take away from the Scan Dual III scanners, as I really like them, and could show you scans I did against a Nikon V ED that looked for all practical purposes identical except for file sizes. Maybe if I had scanned color you would have seen more of a difference as well. But for me, using the Epson works for 35mm and up so I'm pretty happy w/ that.

I looked at the eyebrow differences. You guys have good eyes! That's just me, as I had "improved" them in the original Minolta scan and forgot to tidy them up in the Epson. So to a certain extent each scan is a product of the original neg and my post processing, but that's true w/ everyone's scans. Who would use a straight scan as a final photo? But it's still true that it's impossible to put in detail that isn't in the scan to begin with. Bring it out in post process? Yes. Put it in, when it was never there to begin with? No.
 
Last edited:
Frank Petronio said:
That's a ridiculous price when you can get a current Nikon Coolscan 9000 for $2K. <snip>
Click to expand...

Frank, I wouldn't trade my MultiPro for a 9000. I thought long and hard when I bought it years ago. Back then the MultiPro and the 8000 were available for the same price and I have been pleased with my decision ever since.

I have several friends with 8000 / 9000 and they are very good scanners. But I like the light source in the MultiPro better.

I must admit that one thing in favor of the 9000 is that bulbs for the MultiPro are getting difficult to find.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom