8200i or RPS10M(XA)

[Znerken]

Hey everyone

I currently own the 8200i scanner from Optichfilm, but I am daily asking myself why we have to manually load each frame in to the scanner. A couple of days ago I got tipsed about the RPS10M which is branded XA in the US. I read filmscanner.info review of the scanner, which was really positive. According to them, this scanner is actually the closest you get to the Hasselblads as of today.


So, which scanner would you choose? I read on an Amazon review that the RPS10M doesn't scan the whole negative, is this true? If so, that's really bad.. Also, how does the auto feeding work with VueScan? Can I send in a strip of 6 images, and go watch tv?

 

[Addy101]

I wouldn't trust Amazon reviews. You don't know if the person knew what he was doing. Filmscanner.info is about the only more or less reliable reviewer out there that does review scanners on a regular basis. The Reflecta RPS 10M would be on my short list for a 35mm scanner - it has everything: automatic feeder and class leading resolution.

This thread here on rangefinderforum might be useful.

 

[Znerken]

I wouldn't trust Amazon reviews. You don't know if the person knew what he was doing. Filmscanner.info is about the only more or less reliable reviewer out there that does review scanners on a regular basis. The Reflecta RPS 10M would be on my short list for a 35mm scanner - it has everything: automatic feeder and class leading resolution.

This thread here on rangefinderforum might be useful.

Have you tried it? I would just like to get confirmed that it scans the whole negative, that's really important to me.

I tried sending the author of that thread a message, but haven't gotten any reply yet.

 

[Addy101]

No, I haven't.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Not Amazon reviews, but here:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...image_primefilm_xa_prime_film_xa_scanner.html

I purchased another scanner from same manufacturer from BH.
But reviews for XA matching my scanner for crappy software and crashes.

Honestly, hold to your Plustek.

 

[Addy101]

I purchased another scanner from same manufacturer from BH.
But reviews for XA matching my scanner for crappy software and crashes.

Most reviews are positive.

The "crappy software" seems to be user dependent, some report good performance with CyberViewX, other people are happy Silverfast users and at the same time some people hate either software. Reflecta scanners are well regarded.

 

[Znerken]

I will use VueScan anyway, so I don't care about software problems

 

[Znerken]

I really can't understand why people say that the scanner doesn't cover the entire negative. An 35mm negative is 36x24mm and the RPS scanner covers 24.3 x 36.5 mm..

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Most reviews are positive.

The "crappy software" seems to be user dependent, some report good performance with CyberViewX, other people are happy Silverfast users and at the same time some people hate either software. Reflecta scanners are well regarded.

Most reviews are typical, just received, two days after. But where are some more valuable, after long term use.

I have CyberViewX, VueScan, SilverFast and Epson Scan. Based on my own experience the best scanning software must be simple, bugs free and getting optimum scans at easy. Epson Scan is the best for me.

 

[Znerken]

Most reviews are typical, just received, two days after. But where are some more valuable, after long term use.

I have CyberViewX, VueScan, SilverFast and Epson Scan. Based on my own experience the best scanning software must be simple, bugs free and getting optimum scans at easy. Epson Scan is the best for me.

You are probably one in a thousand who use Epson Scan, and flatbed isn't an alternative for 35mm anyway.

The 8200i gets bad reviews as well on BH, but as a one year user of this scanner I know for myself that it produces great scans. The RPS10M produces even better scans according to filmscaninfo. The problems with BH reviews of scanners are that they often are written by first time scanners. Scanning film demands a lot of time, adjustments and finding the perfect work flow.

 

[David_Manning]

As everyone knows, scanning is photography of a negative. So, there is really no magical push-button solution (well...there's digital...but that's another lengthy discussion...just watch how off-topic this thread can become).

A good scan takes equal parts good scanner, good software, and good operator. It's analog would probably be a person who is a good wet-printer...good negative, good lens, skilled printer.

Knock one out of the equation...the results suck. So...blame the hardware? Blame the software? You know NOBODY will blame the operator!

It's hard work...period.

I think the closest consumer solution is the Pakon F135+...but it's still limited by a) ancient software, and b) limited total resolution.

I love analog photography and still long for a faultless solution so I can shoot without any reservations...but in the interim, I find the Plustek models (I have a 7600i) great for b&w, and the Pakon (I have a 135+) great for color.

Most of my own shooting these days is digital, only because I don't enjoy the back-end as much as I do the photographing.

As is obvious, only my opinions here.

 

[bjolester]

You are probably one in a thousand who use Epson Scan, and flatbed isn't an alternative for 35mm anyway.

I regularly use the Epson V750 for scanning 120 film, but also sometimes 135 film. In addition to this I have the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400. Recently I have been scanning a collection of family slides from the 1960s and 1970s. True enough, well exposed 35mm slides shot with the best lenses and good quality film, does benefit from being scanned with the Minolta dedicated 135 scanner. But all the slides in my family collection that are not within the "outstandingly successful" category, scan very well on the Epson V750. And this flatbed also features an automated 16 slide tray. Feed the scanner and go for a coffee! I also use Epson Scan on the V750, simple and reliable software.

So there are now at least 2/1000 who use Epson Scan and a flatbed for 135 film:angel: