A better scanner-is it out there?

A

aad

Not so new now.
Local time
10:14 AM
Joined
Oct 13, 2005
Messages
1,229
Hi-I'm thinking of upgrading my scanner, trying to make my scans/prints look more like the slides I take.

I have the Minolta SD IV and an Epson 4490 for MF. They do OK, but I wonder if the Nikon 5000 or 9000 would be a worthwhile upgrade.

Anybody with experience?

Aaron
 
I have the Nikon V ED. It has the best cost/performance ratio that I know of (admittedly not very knowledgable). It is slow but will do about what the 5000 will do — 35mm only. I think the software is a little fragile, too.

If you can afford the 9000 you will also get MF capability.
 
I have a little bit of experience, enough to be dangerous. So sprinkle a little rocksalt around-
I bought a Minolta SD II and was immediately let down. The scanner can't seem to see anything remotely like shadows in slides, does a poor job with color accuracy, and is very noisy.
Later I took a series of photo classes at the local university. There, I had access to then current Nikon 4000 and Imacon 646 scanners, and immediately formed an opinion- both were vastly better than the Minolta. Like good enough to make nice looking prints from slides, and maybe even negatives.
I think you might just be happy with a more expensive scanner.
I personally never quite justified the cost of a Nikon 8000/ 9000, and since I shoot more rollfilm than 35mm, I wouldn't have been happy with a 4000/ 5000.
The Imacon, well it is just plain expensive.
Wouldn't it be nice if you could try these things before spending the cash?
 
Thanks for the input. I may just spring for the 9000 and be done with it, if I can get the proper slide holder. I do plan on more MF.

Anu more opinions and experiences are welcome.
 
I have Nikon 5000 which is a great 35mm scanner [esp. with bulk feeder] so I bought a Nikon 8000 for MFwork.
I Really didn't like it much, then found a Minolta Multi Pro at a good price.
IMHO much better, great quality , half the size on my desktop, half the weight, comes with an anti-newton ring glass carrier [a really expensive [USD350+]extra with the Nikon ] which seems esenntial for decent MF scans.
The Nikon 8000 is now for sale!
Just my 2 euro Cs worth.........
Clive
Antibes, France
www.clive-evans.com
 
There are quite few threads that raise this question here on RFF, PNet and Lightstalkers.

From my own experience i work with the Nikon 5000 for 35mm with Vuescan (using the additional Nikon F-3-H film holder) and a Epson V750 with the included Silverfast Ai for 120 work (using the MF film holder made by Doug Fisher). If i want a higher quality file for exhibition prints then i use an Imacon 949. With its Flextight software and magnetic film holders it trumps them both but cost-wise i could never justify the huge cash outlay and as a friend of mine in Bangkok has discovered these hi end scanners are very sensitive to high humidity and heat. Where as my Nikon 5000 seems fine so far happy to run in a fan cooled room. Touch wood.
 
I'm a happy Nikon 5000 user. Most of my film output on Flickr has been scanned on the 5000. Take the time to get to know its settings. Very capable scanner.

My dissapointments (so far) are always that I didn't get a better picture. And occasionally a very old negative that is just too far gone.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/clarkmackey/
 
Bike Tourist said:
I have the Nikon V ED. It has the best cost/performance ratio that I know of (admittedly not very knowledgable). It is slow but will do about what the 5000 will do — 35mm only. I think the software is a little fragile, too.

If you can afford the 9000 you will also get MF capability.
Click to expand...

Hello,

I'm considering the Coolscan V ED. I was wondering if you could elaborate a little on your experience with it. Have you made many prints from the scans? If so, how do they look? Were all the photos in your gallery scanned with this scanner?

Thanks,
Paul
 
Paul —

I've made hundreds of scans of both negs and transparencies. I use several internet stock sites, one of which has well over 4,000 images of mine. About half are scans and half digital camera output.

I have printed some and been satisfied. Most big prints I send to M-Pix since they can do it better and cheaper than I.

Yes, all that appear on this site are scanned with the V ED although you can't tell much at 72 dpi resolution.

Again, on a cost/performance basis it's probably the best available.
 
The best scanner IMHO for any reasonable amount of $$$ is the Minolta Dimage 5400. Hands down.

I scanned a 40 year old Ektachrome slide awhile back at 5400 dpi and had a stunning 2x3' (that's two by three feet) print made from it. Couldn't believe how good it looked.

(I also own a Nikon 5000 and Epson V750, and briefly owned a Nikon 9000. All of them would go if I had to keep just one.)
 
Dick,

Thanks for the details. I've read nothing but good things about that scanner. I haven't had a chance to see a lot of examples images, but you have a good point about the 72 dpi. I've considered the Minolta scanners too.

Dave,

Thanks for commenting on the 5400. I've read a lot of good about that scanner, but I've also read that Minolta doesn't have the best reliability record. That makes me nervous considering Minolta is out of the scanner business completely. I'll keep my eye out though. If I see a good enough deal it might be worth the risk.

BTW, I'm the guy you meet on Congress last week with a new Bessa. How's it going?

Paul
 
I've got the KM DiMage Scan Elite 5400 II. It's a really good scanner. They sold out for a while, but they were back in stock at B&H about the middle of last year.

.
 
I've used just about every 35mm scanner out there going back to the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000, no ICE and a SCSI connection, not Firewire or USB. The Nikon 5000 wins hands down ( I used a 4000 for a long time and liked it a lot. the 5000 is faster and quieter). Some are as good image wise (Minolta 5400, but where are the parts if you need repair???), but you can't find another that has the SF-210 Slide feeder.
Take a roll of film and shoot. Get them back from processing and put the whole roll in and off you go. Scan at a low res and view the results in a very short time. Now I don't know about you Guy's and Gal's but I feel real lucky to get a few good shots off of a roll. Now you take those and run them through, 1 at a time and make the adjustments and you end up with a real good digital image. Close to an Imacron scan if you use the fine setting at 16x sampling, but 1/5 the price.
With Medium Format, you have to have a glass film holder, regardless of the type of scanner, or the corners will be out of focus. Used a 8000 for a time, but got frustrated and got rid of my MF Gear and the scanner
I used Vuescan and Nikon Scan. Liked Vuescan more at first, but after the learning curve, now only use Nikon Scan.
Hope this helps on the 35mm end of it.
 
I only use 35mm film so I bought the Nikon CoolScan V ED. So far the results are ok, especially when scanning color slide film. The combination of different BW films + self developing + scanning has so many variables in it, they I sometimes have a hard time to get good results, quite steep learning curve... First I used Nikon Scan software, now Vuescan. Vuescan seems to give better results but the usage is arkward ... :(

- Gabor
 
Thanks to all who replied-I'm actually getting better results after discovering that slide film is more demanding of scanner focus than negative film. I'm getting much better results than a few days ago.

Also spent money on a printer-yikes!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom