mmabale
Member
Sorry for another noob "which scanner" thread, I'll try to spell out my specific needs as best as I can. Hopefully you can offer some opinions, and/or prevent me from spending on features I don't need.
Limits/Criteria:
1. I don't plan on printing bigger than A3, but mostly A4 and smaller.
2. 99% will be 35mm BW negs, so I won't need digital ICE. (I don't mind dust-spotting the few color rolls I might shoot.)
3. Almost all shots will be hand-held, so I believe there's a lower limit on gains for increasing resolution.
4. Films I like to use: TriX, Neopan1600, Neopan400, Acros 100
5. Developers: Rodinal, HC110, D76
6. I like visible grain.
7. I currently use an Epson 2450 flatbed and looking to upgrade.
9. Mac user.
Scanner choices:
- Minolta Scan Dual IV
- Minolta Scan Elite 5400
- Nikon Coolscan V ED
- Nikon Coolscan 5000 (upper end of my budget)
Thanks in advance.
___________
michael
my flickr
Limits/Criteria:
1. I don't plan on printing bigger than A3, but mostly A4 and smaller.
2. 99% will be 35mm BW negs, so I won't need digital ICE. (I don't mind dust-spotting the few color rolls I might shoot.)
3. Almost all shots will be hand-held, so I believe there's a lower limit on gains for increasing resolution.
4. Films I like to use: TriX, Neopan1600, Neopan400, Acros 100
5. Developers: Rodinal, HC110, D76
6. I like visible grain.
7. I currently use an Epson 2450 flatbed and looking to upgrade.
9. Mac user.
Scanner choices:
- Minolta Scan Dual IV
- Minolta Scan Elite 5400
- Nikon Coolscan V ED
- Nikon Coolscan 5000 (upper end of my budget)
Thanks in advance.
___________
michael
my flickr
Frank Petronio
Well-known
Either one Nikon or two Minoltas. That's about their lifespan equivalents.
I think the scanners themselves are almost as different as film choices in the way they render grain. The Minoltas seem grainier and coarser. I know you could probably achieve the same effect with the Nikons but just as a general theme (I've never tried the 5400 though.)
I think the scanners themselves are almost as different as film choices in the way they render grain. The Minoltas seem grainier and coarser. I know you could probably achieve the same effect with the Nikons but just as a general theme (I've never tried the 5400 though.)
mmabale
Member
I hadn't heard that before. Definitely something for me to think about.
Thanks.
kxl
Social Documentary
I have the Nikon LS5000, and highly recommend it.
But to be honest, unless you foresee being a high volume user where speed is essential, the Nikon V would probably suit your needs.
But to be honest, unless you foresee being a high volume user where speed is essential, the Nikon V would probably suit your needs.
mfogiel
Veteran
It looks like all these scanners are out of production now. If I were you, I'd sell a kidney and buy the Coolscan 9000. It has a diffuse light which is kind to the grain, it will cover up to 6x9, and it is really solid. If you are serious about B&W film, this is the best solution, and I do not think it is expensive, if you consider that people are prepared to pay 6000 USD for one fuzzy Leica lens. On the other hand, if your involvement with film is only temporary, I'd go for an Epson V700, which is actually quite good for B&W and delivers acceptable quality up to 6x , and marginal quality up to 8x enlargement, providing you keep the film flat and adjust the holder height properly.
ZeissFan
Veteran
I've been using an Epson Expression Pro 1600 scanner for about seven or eight years. It's SCSI or USB (works better as SCSI).
The key to flatbed scanning is keeping the negative as flat as possible. That can be a real challenge with medium format, as well as 35mm.
You generally can overcome some film curl, but when the film curls from top to bottom, that's where you can run into problems.
I've thought from time to time of getting some type of glass film holder, but I haven't gotten to that point.
Film scanning is very much like using a condenser enlarger in that it accentuates all of the flaws in a negative, including dust and scratches, as well as grain.
A diffused light source would be better although maybe not possible.
I think a dedicated film scanner is better in terms of resolution and also dynamic range (DMax).
The key to flatbed scanning is keeping the negative as flat as possible. That can be a real challenge with medium format, as well as 35mm.
You generally can overcome some film curl, but when the film curls from top to bottom, that's where you can run into problems.
I've thought from time to time of getting some type of glass film holder, but I haven't gotten to that point.
Film scanning is very much like using a condenser enlarger in that it accentuates all of the flaws in a negative, including dust and scratches, as well as grain.
A diffused light source would be better although maybe not possible.
I think a dedicated film scanner is better in terms of resolution and also dynamic range (DMax).
Gradskater
Well-known
Have to put in a plug for the plustek 7300. I use it with a mac, and no problems after hundreds of scans. All the black and white on my flickr site are scanned with the plustek. You may or may not like the results, but I haven't seen anything drastically better from the other scanners. A 3000dpi scan takes less than a minute and prints well up to 8x10.
mmabale
Member
Thanks for the responses everyone.
What would the average working life for these scanners be, say at 1-2 rolls per week? If it's 3-5 years, then I'd probably not opt for the more expensive models until I get more important variables in my process tightened up.
I'm still very much a beginner and maybe I could better spend my time and money on more film and just shooting more, learning more, and getting better control of my capture and development process. Then in 3-5 years get another scanner upgrade when I'm feeling more confident about the quality of my negs. Who knows how good the scanner technology will be in the future, too?
I don't know that I could pull much more detail out of my handheld, grainy, contrasty shots. I'd say my bigger problem with my Epson 2450 right now is speed and productivity and how often a batch will just freeze after a couple of frames. It's frustrating to start a batch, then go do something for a couple of hours and return to a progress bar that still says "scanning 3 of 12".
I suppose the easy answer is to go completely digital. But I love the look of 35mm B&W film and feel committed to getting better at it.
The Coolscan 9000 ($2K) is definitely out of the running, the 5000 ($1K) is a strong maybe, a used Minolta 5400 ($600) seems like it's closer to my current sweet spot, and the Scan Dual IV ($250) might not be much of an upgrade from my current Epson.
What would the average working life for these scanners be, say at 1-2 rolls per week? If it's 3-5 years, then I'd probably not opt for the more expensive models until I get more important variables in my process tightened up.
I'm still very much a beginner and maybe I could better spend my time and money on more film and just shooting more, learning more, and getting better control of my capture and development process. Then in 3-5 years get another scanner upgrade when I'm feeling more confident about the quality of my negs. Who knows how good the scanner technology will be in the future, too?
I don't know that I could pull much more detail out of my handheld, grainy, contrasty shots. I'd say my bigger problem with my Epson 2450 right now is speed and productivity and how often a batch will just freeze after a couple of frames. It's frustrating to start a batch, then go do something for a couple of hours and return to a progress bar that still says "scanning 3 of 12".
I suppose the easy answer is to go completely digital. But I love the look of 35mm B&W film and feel committed to getting better at it.
The Coolscan 9000 ($2K) is definitely out of the running, the 5000 ($1K) is a strong maybe, a used Minolta 5400 ($600) seems like it's closer to my current sweet spot, and the Scan Dual IV ($250) might not be much of an upgrade from my current Epson.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
B+W only?
An enlarger. Cheaper, more fun, better quality. No room? See
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps how loo.html
(And yes, I own a 5400-II, upgrade from the 35mm-only Nikon. Great for colour. For B+W -- no contest.)
Cheers,
R.
An enlarger. Cheaper, more fun, better quality. No room? See
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps how loo.html
(And yes, I own a 5400-II, upgrade from the 35mm-only Nikon. Great for colour. For B+W -- no contest.)
Cheers,
R.
kxl
Social Documentary
Barring any abuse or a bad sample or an electrical overload or anything of that nature, the Nikons will probably outlive you.... or at least last long enough to have made their cost worth it.
mh2000
Well-known
I don't like my Coolscan V for traditional b&w at all, great for C41, not silver. I had an older Scandual unit and thought it worked really well for silver b&w, nice sharp bite to my prints. I've gone to C41 for my b&w now, and for that the CS V is great.
venchka
Veteran
You do know that everyting on your list has been discontinued? Nikon will probably stand behind their hardware for awhile. NOBODY is standing behind the Minolta scanners.
Epson 4990 and Betterscanning holders and ANR glass.
Epson 4990 and Betterscanning holders and ANR glass.
Mephiloco
Well-known
I've got a CanoScan FS4000US. It's been out of production for a few years, works in osx with vuescan no problem. there's also silverfast.. Canon's filmget (afaik) does not work in modern OS X, but vuescan is fine.
The reviews (all years old) are very good. My scans have all come out really good from it, and it scans up to 4000 DPI. I got mine as new for $65 off ebay recently with no film carriers (impossible to find online, but canon parts in NJ has them for $20 shipped). They're not on ebay as often as coolscans, but usually sell for considerably less despite being favorably reviewed.
The reviews (all years old) are very good. My scans have all come out really good from it, and it scans up to 4000 DPI. I got mine as new for $65 off ebay recently with no film carriers (impossible to find online, but canon parts in NJ has them for $20 shipped). They're not on ebay as often as coolscans, but usually sell for considerably less despite being favorably reviewed.
chrishayton
Well-known
I have just got a used ( although absolutely mint Coolscan IV and I have to say its very impressive. Files come out at an equivalent to 12mp (ish) and brilliant quality. I have to say they latest software does alot better job that the one that came with it.
I payed £240 for it which I think (in the UK at least) is a considerable bargain
I payed £240 for it which I think (in the UK at least) is a considerable bargain
gdi
Veteran
I haven't had any problems with my CS 9000 and B&W - it does great. I definitely prefer the look to C-41 B&W.
However, I did have a hardware problem the first year I owned it and Nikon fixed it - so they are not bullet proof.
gdi
Veteran
Where can I get one? They seem rare these days. I need to scan 4x5, till I get a bigger enlarger.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I would not count on "upgrading" in a few years unless you want to consider an Imacon, Leaf, etc. I have no clue what one of those costs today at used prices, or what the prices may be in a few years. But as the other companies have exited the scanner business, what will you have to choose from later on?
I have a CanoScan FS2710 which works really well and gives me ~9MB TIFF files for b&w, 27MB for colour. It does not do any batch scanning, that is my only dissatisfaction. It is SCSI only, and I had to find software on Canon's Australian (IIRC) site to get it to work on XP.
It works very well for nearly everything I've thrown at it. K25 scans were brilliant, as well as great results for TX, TMX, TMY, APX, FP4, etc.
I have a CanoScan FS2710 which works really well and gives me ~9MB TIFF files for b&w, 27MB for colour. It does not do any batch scanning, that is my only dissatisfaction. It is SCSI only, and I had to find software on Canon's Australian (IIRC) site to get it to work on XP.
It works very well for nearly everything I've thrown at it. K25 scans were brilliant, as well as great results for TX, TMX, TMY, APX, FP4, etc.