lmd91343
There's my Proctor-Silex!
What is the best scanner for MF?
Epson 4490? HP 4890? or Canon 8600F?
I what a reasonable price scanner for 120.
Thanks
Epson 4490? HP 4890? or Canon 8600F?
I what a reasonable price scanner for 120.
Thanks
xvvvz
Established
Forget the HP. Epson has better software controls. The Canon has more versatile film holders. True resolution will be about the same. Always a tradeoff!
Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com
Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com
ibcrewin
Ah looky looky
I just got the 8600f for my birthday. I haven't really had a chance to play with it but so far so good. I mean it's nothing earth shattering or anything but is suits my needs. I don't have the means to easily make contact sheets so it makes it easy to proof my negatives.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
Nikon Coolscan 9000.
lmd91343
There's my Proctor-Silex!
I got the Epson 4490. It is the only one of the three that has true 16 bit B&W. My MF (6x9 and 4.5x9) scan with greater sharpness and much more shadow detail than my old scanner!
I am a bit turned off by Canon, having been abandoned twice, with six FD cameras and 24 Canon FD lenses with the move to EOS and dropping driver support for XP version of the Canoscan FS2710 film scanner!
I'll use my Canon FS2710 with hacked drivers for 35mm and the new Epson for MF and 12 frame 35mm contact sheets.
I wish I could afford the Nikon 9000. I'd need to sell my F1N and a couple of "L" lenses or my Canon 7s with the 0.95. But I'd rather keep all that!
Thank you all!
p.s. my old MF scanner was a Microtek 6000 with the negs held flat with a piece of glass and a portable light table suspended upside down, shining thru the neg.
I am a bit turned off by Canon, having been abandoned twice, with six FD cameras and 24 Canon FD lenses with the move to EOS and dropping driver support for XP version of the Canoscan FS2710 film scanner!
I'll use my Canon FS2710 with hacked drivers for 35mm and the new Epson for MF and 12 frame 35mm contact sheets.
I wish I could afford the Nikon 9000. I'd need to sell my F1N and a couple of "L" lenses or my Canon 7s with the 0.95. But I'd rather keep all that!
Thank you all!
p.s. my old MF scanner was a Microtek 6000 with the negs held flat with a piece of glass and a portable light table suspended upside down, shining thru the neg.
gdi
Veteran
RObert Budding said:
There you go...
I wouldn't bother with those flatbeds (I tried a 4490 - went back quickly) unless you just want web images.
Peter55
Leica M5 & Summilux User
Plustek makes inexpensive 120 and MF scanners
Plustek makes inexpensive 120 and MF scanners
I think they 4 models for 120 and other MF sizes and they are priced between $90 and $180. I got the Plustek OpticFilm 7200 dedicated 35mm/slide scanner and it works very well.
It has one funny quirk, I need to unplug it and then plug the power supply backin again each time I use it or Window XP wont recognize the USB device.
Other than that it works very nice. I scan at only 300 dpi at 8" x 10" and that is the same as 2400dpi at the film negative size of @ 1.4" x 1". the scanner can do 7200dpi optically but the files would be huge and what I'm getting is very usable printed out to 8" x 10".
Plustek makes inexpensive 120 and MF scanners
I think they 4 models for 120 and other MF sizes and they are priced between $90 and $180. I got the Plustek OpticFilm 7200 dedicated 35mm/slide scanner and it works very well.
It has one funny quirk, I need to unplug it and then plug the power supply backin again each time I use it or Window XP wont recognize the USB device.
Other than that it works very nice. I scan at only 300 dpi at 8" x 10" and that is the same as 2400dpi at the film negative size of @ 1.4" x 1". the scanner can do 7200dpi optically but the files would be huge and what I'm getting is very usable printed out to 8" x 10".
sf
Veteran
Lance:
If you buy a flatbed scanner, the Epson V700 is the only reasonable option. The v700 is a considerably better scanner than the 4490. The V700 is comparable to a dedicated scanner...it really is...IF you buy the Doug Fisher holder with the glass AND you prepare to spend considerable time calibrating your scans every time you use the scanner. Just prepare for spending 20 minutes getting things at the right height every time you scan. Unless you devise a way of locking the height screws...
In a dedicated scanner, I use the Multi Pro by Konica Minolta and it's marvelous. The 9000ED is HUGE and not as highly reviewed, but it is possible to buy it new still (multi pro has been off the market for a long time).
Go here to see my own comparison of a flatbed (v700) and a dedicated (multi pro) :
http://www.shutterflower.com/V700.htm
If you buy a flatbed scanner, the Epson V700 is the only reasonable option. The v700 is a considerably better scanner than the 4490. The V700 is comparable to a dedicated scanner...it really is...IF you buy the Doug Fisher holder with the glass AND you prepare to spend considerable time calibrating your scans every time you use the scanner. Just prepare for spending 20 minutes getting things at the right height every time you scan. Unless you devise a way of locking the height screws...
In a dedicated scanner, I use the Multi Pro by Konica Minolta and it's marvelous. The 9000ED is HUGE and not as highly reviewed, but it is possible to buy it new still (multi pro has been off the market for a long time).
Go here to see my own comparison of a flatbed (v700) and a dedicated (multi pro) :
http://www.shutterflower.com/V700.htm
Brad Bireley
Well-known
shutterflower said:
I'm glad to hear this....I just ordered a V700!
Brad
gdi
Veteran
shutterflower said:
I came very close to buying a new Multi Pro about a month ago - but when I read about the support situation (basically there is none - some under warranty are being bought back rather than fixed) I paid the extra for a 9000. I have heard the MP is good, but I never saw head to head comparisons that showed it better that the 9000 - IF you used a glass carrier for the 9000. The carriers on the 9000 really are its achille's heel, I even kept my CS V for 35mm just because of the film feeder....
As for a V700 - I have never seen a good comparison that shows it near the 9000. If you have such comparisons please post, I would be very interested to see them- there is a comparison here for the V700 to the 8000 - that show a substatial difference - http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/
anglophone1
Well-known
I have a Minolta Multi Pro and a Nikon 8000 [for sale]
Frankly they are both great scanners, I'm keeping the Multi Pro because i like it that little bit more and it takes up less space.
The 8000 is a BIG machine and therfore probably feels more substantial to some, its just too big for my space, otherwise great..........................its for sale in RFF classifieds..............
Clive
www.clive-evans.com
Frankly they are both great scanners, I'm keeping the Multi Pro because i like it that little bit more and it takes up less space.
The 8000 is a BIG machine and therfore probably feels more substantial to some, its just too big for my space, otherwise great..........................its for sale in RFF classifieds..............
Clive
www.clive-evans.com
lmd91343
There's my Proctor-Silex!
Epson 4490 scans
Epson 4490 scans
Here are my first color MF scans from the 4490. The scans are all factory presets, with no manipulation by me. All I did was re-size, decrease data density and convert to JPG in PS.
The first image is a crop of the flower in the second image.
The camera is a Zeiss Super Ikonta A with a Schnieder Xenar f3.5 75mm (35mm equiv fl = 42mm) (similar in design to Tessar) on 100 ASA Fuji RDP slide film.
Epson 4490 scans
Here are my first color MF scans from the 4490. The scans are all factory presets, with no manipulation by me. All I did was re-size, decrease data density and convert to JPG in PS.
The first image is a crop of the flower in the second image.
The camera is a Zeiss Super Ikonta A with a Schnieder Xenar f3.5 75mm (35mm equiv fl = 42mm) (similar in design to Tessar) on 100 ASA Fuji RDP slide film.
Attachments
Last edited:
