MaxFrank
Member
Last year I decided it would be fun to shoot film, and that it would improve my photographic skills as one does not shoot frames away and thinks before he shoots.
Thus I first bought a Mamiya RB67, which is amazing but also extremely large. Then I bought a Bronica ETRSi which is a much more practical camera.
I also shoot 35mm on a Minolta X-700.
If I only shot 35mm the decision would be easy and I would buy an Opticfilm 7600i. Seeing as there is no affordable medium format scanner things have been complicated for me.
My main goal for the scanner is so that (after the initial investment) I have a cheaper way to review my images than the lab making poor prints of black and white film on color paper which turns the photo into a horrible mess,
and a better way to present my images than the garbage scans the lab makes which are way overpriced. So all in all I am not looking to print of these scans.
If I were to print an image from these negatives I would rather go to the expensive but professional lab nearby which does scans on an Imacon or look into the possibility of having a darkroom and doing wet printing.
When looking at reviews online it is very easy to become blinded by figures of PPI, dmax and others and just be pushed into the opinion that anything but an Imacon/Flextight X5 is rubbish and coolscan 9000 is just barely cutting it.
So far the options are limited to flatbed scanners (with the Epson v700 being the top contender and the CanoScan 9900f being the more bufget friendly option),
seeing as the opticfilm series do not scan medium format and if one such scanner would become available would probably be way too expensive for me.
What I am looking for are opinions and example from real users who can help me determine which scanner would be good for my desired purposes, I am open to new suggestions and not limited to just a comparison of the epson and the canoscan.
Thus I first bought a Mamiya RB67, which is amazing but also extremely large. Then I bought a Bronica ETRSi which is a much more practical camera.
I also shoot 35mm on a Minolta X-700.
If I only shot 35mm the decision would be easy and I would buy an Opticfilm 7600i. Seeing as there is no affordable medium format scanner things have been complicated for me.
My main goal for the scanner is so that (after the initial investment) I have a cheaper way to review my images than the lab making poor prints of black and white film on color paper which turns the photo into a horrible mess,
and a better way to present my images than the garbage scans the lab makes which are way overpriced. So all in all I am not looking to print of these scans.
If I were to print an image from these negatives I would rather go to the expensive but professional lab nearby which does scans on an Imacon or look into the possibility of having a darkroom and doing wet printing.
When looking at reviews online it is very easy to become blinded by figures of PPI, dmax and others and just be pushed into the opinion that anything but an Imacon/Flextight X5 is rubbish and coolscan 9000 is just barely cutting it.
So far the options are limited to flatbed scanners (with the Epson v700 being the top contender and the CanoScan 9900f being the more bufget friendly option),
seeing as the opticfilm series do not scan medium format and if one such scanner would become available would probably be way too expensive for me.
What I am looking for are opinions and example from real users who can help me determine which scanner would be good for my desired purposes, I am open to new suggestions and not limited to just a comparison of the epson and the canoscan.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I use a Coolscan 8000 and it is capable of exhibition quality scans. Like the 9000 and the Imacons, it was/is expensive. I print from my scans, since you don't want to do that, a flatbed Epson will work just fine. Keep in mind though that it does not take many drum scans at $100 a pop (that's what the labs were charging for them last time I had any done!) to pay for a good scanner.
J. Borger
Well-known
Ihave an Epson V700 for MF and a Plustek 7600i for 35mm.
For MF and larger formats the general verdict is that the Epson does a pretty good job.
And i agree. The discussion is mainly about 35mm .
I get a bit more resolution/ sharpness out of the Plustek for 35mm compared to the flatbed but the differences are not as large as you might expect reading the forums.
The differende is there, but mainly visible pixel peeping at 100%. Printed the differences are much harder to see.
In several posts i read on the forums about the Epson flatbed series i saw samples of such poor quality i could not belief my eyes: way below what that scanner is capable of.
But you NEED Glassinserts for the filmholders and flat dried film!!
If you have a limited budget, shoot multiple formats and want a scanner that is still supported the Epson V700 is an excellent choice!!
Just count the ANR glassinserts for 35mm and a "betterholder" with ANR glassinserts for MF in.
If you only shoot 35mm and can live with a much slower workflow and worse software compared to the Epson flatbed i would recommend a Plustek.
For MF and larger formats the general verdict is that the Epson does a pretty good job.
And i agree. The discussion is mainly about 35mm .
I get a bit more resolution/ sharpness out of the Plustek for 35mm compared to the flatbed but the differences are not as large as you might expect reading the forums.
The differende is there, but mainly visible pixel peeping at 100%. Printed the differences are much harder to see.
In several posts i read on the forums about the Epson flatbed series i saw samples of such poor quality i could not belief my eyes: way below what that scanner is capable of.
But you NEED Glassinserts for the filmholders and flat dried film!!
If you have a limited budget, shoot multiple formats and want a scanner that is still supported the Epson V700 is an excellent choice!!
Just count the ANR glassinserts for 35mm and a "betterholder" with ANR glassinserts for MF in.
If you only shoot 35mm and can live with a much slower workflow and worse software compared to the Epson flatbed i would recommend a Plustek.
thegman
Veteran
I have a Canoscan FS4000 for 35mm, and a V700 for MF. The V700 I think really is amazing, and don't hesitate to recommend it. However, for 35mm, I think you have to consider what you're doing with it. I assume that for big enlargements, you'll use medium format, and maybe 35mm will be restricted to 8x10 or so? If so I do think just about any 35mm scanner is good enough.
Also, I'd consider not scanning 35mm at all, I mean you've got 36 exposures vs. 10 or 12 with MF, how much time do you want to spend in front of your scanner?
If I had my time again, I'd maybe not have bought the Canoscan, as when I shoot 35mm, I shoot too many rolls to bother scanning myself, and when I want to go out to really try to take some good shots, I use medium format.
I have scans from 6x6 negs on my V700 which are 14,000 by 14,000 pixels. At 100% you can you can see just about every bit of detail available. These are big files which need a fast computer to work with them, but I think you could print them just about as big as you wanted.
Also, I'd consider not scanning 35mm at all, I mean you've got 36 exposures vs. 10 or 12 with MF, how much time do you want to spend in front of your scanner?
If I had my time again, I'd maybe not have bought the Canoscan, as when I shoot 35mm, I shoot too many rolls to bother scanning myself, and when I want to go out to really try to take some good shots, I use medium format.
I have scans from 6x6 negs on my V700 which are 14,000 by 14,000 pixels. At 100% you can you can see just about every bit of detail available. These are big files which need a fast computer to work with them, but I think you could print them just about as big as you wanted.
adrianrw
adrianrw
Canoscan 9000F
Canoscan 9000F
I got one of these just after Christmas - it was supposed to arrive just before, so I could play with it during the holiday. I still have not really put it to any sort of test, but the reason I got it was because it will do 35mm, film from my Xpan @ 24 x 63 and also medium format. I bored myself witless reading comparisons, but the fact was that I could not afford $55,000 for a "proper" one and the stuff from the average lab was so bad I could not bear to look at it. I also had some film lost by a "professional" lab (they offered me a free film - not much use when the film was taken overseas). I bought the 9000F because the tests were OK and the size flexibility - it was only a few hundred dollars in OZ. You won't go broke buying one. A good pro landscape man, who is an ardent Canon and Leica man did say though not to use the Canon software but one of 2 others. I forget their names, but they are the main ones. They were so hard to work out I gave up. One day I guess I'll try again.
Cheers
Adrian
Canoscan 9000F
I got one of these just after Christmas - it was supposed to arrive just before, so I could play with it during the holiday. I still have not really put it to any sort of test, but the reason I got it was because it will do 35mm, film from my Xpan @ 24 x 63 and also medium format. I bored myself witless reading comparisons, but the fact was that I could not afford $55,000 for a "proper" one and the stuff from the average lab was so bad I could not bear to look at it. I also had some film lost by a "professional" lab (they offered me a free film - not much use when the film was taken overseas). I bought the 9000F because the tests were OK and the size flexibility - it was only a few hundred dollars in OZ. You won't go broke buying one. A good pro landscape man, who is an ardent Canon and Leica man did say though not to use the Canon software but one of 2 others. I forget their names, but they are the main ones. They were so hard to work out I gave up. One day I guess I'll try again.
Cheers
Adrian
karlori
Digital Refugee
Silverfast and VueScan... Although my 9000F never could resolve close to film grain quality but i guess thats a focus problem...
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
Flatbed scanners resolve around 1800-2000 dpi in the best cases. This is plenty enough for 120 and even for 35mm if you don't print large.
135format
Established
I never understand why people think that a flatbed scanner is the limiting factor.
2000 dpi equates to close to 40 lp/mm. Well we know film is capable of holding more than that. Take Fuji Acros 100 for example. This a film capable of resolving 200 lp/mm. But just hang on a second, that claimed 200 lp/mm is at a contrast ratio of 1000:1. That's 11 stops of contrast range. That means those 200 line pairs have to alternating black and white lines each line with an 11 stop difference in brightness from its neighbour. Sure the film might be capable of that but in the real world your average subject has nowhere near that contrast ratio in the fine detail. Infact the fine detail (local edge contrast) is far more likely to be lower than 2:1. And Fuji give values for 1.6 : 1 which is a far closer to the real world and at that contrast ratio you only get 60 lp/mm. And 60 lp/mm equates to 3000 dpi if you are looking for a real world optimum scan resolution. In other words, scanning at higher resolution than that isn't going to get you anymore resolution even if your scanner is capable of it since you don't actually have that resolution in your film to get out. And a lot of what is in any subject will be less than contrast ratio of 1.6:1 which puts it at 40 lp/mm or lower. A little may be higher but basically any scanner capable of 3200 native scan resolution should be able to get all the detail that actually exists in a piece of film using real world subjects.
The scanner isn't the limiting factor, the subject local contrast ratio is.
Joe AC
Well-known
Just wondering? Won't printing a 6x7 neg. from a flatbed scanner give good results?
Joe
Jockos
Well-known
Here's a comparison between the Coolscan LS-50 (V ED) and the Canon 9000:
http://dayviews.com/jockos/2011/10/15/
Guest password: PM for guest password
http://dayviews.com/jockos/2011/10/15/
Guest password: PM for guest password
thegman
Veteran
You really need to define "good". For me, absolutely. A V700 will draw a huge amount detail out of a 6x7 neg. Attached is an example from my V700, scanning Portra 160VC shot in my Hasselblad.
Now, some people will want more detail, or crisper detail etc. But this is OK for me, and bear in mind, you may be able to get better with different film, technique etc.
Attachments
Paddy C
Unused film collector
The V700, even with 35mm, is going to be acceptable for small prints (let's say 8 x 10s if you've got everything right in the chain).
To get beyond that, however, you're going to have to spend an awful lot.
I think the V700 (or maybe a Canon...I don't know their flatbeds) is a great choice for getting what you need.
To get beyond that, however, you're going to have to spend an awful lot.
I think the V700 (or maybe a Canon...I don't know their flatbeds) is a great choice for getting what you need.
drew.saunders
Well-known
If you have the space, a 2-scanner setup isn't too bad. I have a Coolscan 9000 for 35mm and 120, and a Microtek M1 for 4x5. If I gave up on 35mm film, I could probably do with jut a flatbed for my work, and I'd get a V700 or V750 instead of the M1. The M1 theoretically has better resolution than the V750, but is such a pain to work with sometimes, that I'll give up an spi or two for a less finicky scanner.
You could get a V700/750 and then a dedicated 35mm film scanner for much less than a used Coolscan 8000/9000.
You could get a V700/750 and then a dedicated 35mm film scanner for much less than a used Coolscan 8000/9000.
Joe AC
Well-known
BobYIL
Well-known
I have seen a lot of MF scans from the V700, excellent indeed. For 35mm I use a Minolta 5400 II (also have one prior model 5400), the results are outstanding. I think you can buy a V700 and 5400, both for about $1.000, used but in great condition and enjoy first class scanning in both formats.
(With the 5400 scanners one can get 4600 dpi easy.. A 35mm color slide scans to over 80MB..)
(With the 5400 scanners one can get 4600 dpi easy.. A 35mm color slide scans to over 80MB..)
My recommendation would be a cheap flatbed for larger formats and a Crystalscan 7200 (or Pacific Image PrimeFilm 7250 in the US) for 35mm. I liked the results much better than what I got out of the Plustek + no more hassle with flimsy "film holders" and much (!) faster scanning overall.
The Plusteks are slow scanners with exaggerated noise / grain.
I know what I am talking about, having used a Coolscan V, Epson V700, Plustek 7400 and 7600 and the Crystalscan.
The Plusteks are slow scanners with exaggerated noise / grain.
I know what I am talking about, having used a Coolscan V, Epson V700, Plustek 7400 and 7600 and the Crystalscan.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
+1
An even better option would be the Proscan 7200, not available from Pacific Image, but the fastest most up to date and imo best color.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Here's something from left field.
If you have a good, high resolution DSLR (or Leica M8/M9), you can use it as a scanner for negs just fine. They are plenty sharp for smaller than 4x6 proofs. Sounds like you want to review and catalogue them on your computer. Setting up a DSLR with a good macro lens like an old copy stand works great. Shoot a diffused flash through heavily frosted glass or translucent pure white plexiglass and do the reversal in the computer with an automated function in PS or LR.
I used my M8 with a DR Summicron in just this way to shoot through 4x5 color negs to make this book for a school project last year:
http://issuu.com/phil_forrest/docs/overlooked
The negative images on the computer held far more information than I thought they would and I could easily enlarge the shots up to 16x20, the only thing limiting me would be the M8 file.
Phil Forrest
If you have a good, high resolution DSLR (or Leica M8/M9), you can use it as a scanner for negs just fine. They are plenty sharp for smaller than 4x6 proofs. Sounds like you want to review and catalogue them on your computer. Setting up a DSLR with a good macro lens like an old copy stand works great. Shoot a diffused flash through heavily frosted glass or translucent pure white plexiglass and do the reversal in the computer with an automated function in PS or LR.
I used my M8 with a DR Summicron in just this way to shoot through 4x5 color negs to make this book for a school project last year:
http://issuu.com/phil_forrest/docs/overlooked
The negative images on the computer held far more information than I thought they would and I could easily enlarge the shots up to 16x20, the only thing limiting me would be the M8 file.
Phil Forrest
MaxFrank
Member
Seems like I will go with canoscan 9000f and possibly a Proscan 7200 in the future if I ever wanted more quality from my negatives. Thanks for the useful links and advice. Now I just have to save up a bit for them.
Norkusa
Established
You probably have to wait a few months then. The 9000f's are sold out everywhere and on Ebay they're selling for double their retail price. I've heard that it has to do with production delays from the tsunami but they should be available again sometime at the end of April/early May.