Choosing a film scanner

[Gilo25]

There was another similar thread some time ago, but then it deviated from its title topic, so I am re-proposing it here.

I used to have a reasonable Nikon Coolscan IV which I sold when I decided to switch to digital a few years ago. :bang: Now that I am going back to using film quite often, I would like to get myself another one, but I can't really decide because I find the prices of good scanners quite high. At the same time I am not happy with the services of local labs.
Any suggestions for a scanner which offers ease of use, good quality for (mainly) 35 mm BW negs and 35 mm slides, without being extortionate in terms of price? I understand that Nikon has discontinued the 5000 and has only the 9000 which is extortionate.
Thanks to all

 

[pevelg]

Hmm, thats strange, I did not know that the 5000 was discontinued. I just bought a new 5000 from B&H a week ago!!! The trick is to check the link daily, as it goes out of stock EXTREMELY fast. You can also check ebay, I've seen a couple used ones on sale there. I am very satisfied with my 5000 after some friendly advice from the members of RFF.

 

[Gilo25]

In Bhphoto it is actually still shown as in production. Ii was a Nikon dealer in Singapore who told me it had been discontinued, but that may not be true, or it may be true only for Singapore.

 

[majid]

Amazon.com has 1 LS-5000 in stock.

 

[Gilo25]

I read very mixed reviews on the 5000. Particularly negative on the software and on its capability of scanning Fuji slides, which apparently come out all underexposed when scanned by the 5000. Also I read negative reviews about the Nikon technical assistance. That's why I was asking for alternatives, but unfortunately Microtek M1 seem even worse. Has anybody tried it? What about the cheap Plustek?

 

[windraider]

If you don't mind flatbeds try Epson V700 or V750?

 

[joachim]

I think the Coolscan V (LS50) which is the follow on to the Coolscan IV is also still in production.

Concerning the Fuji slides, many people report better results using the Nikon scanners with the vuescan software. Just a pointer, please do your own research if interested.

 

[jamxo]

Ive been using an Epson V700 for over a year now and whilst it is very good for larger formats, and the speed and ease of use of a flatbed is handy, I played around with a Coolscan V at college and the difference in grain and sharpness is really quite noticeable. On the V700 the grain, details and tonal variation all seem quite 'smushy' for lack of a better words (and this is with the optimum film holder heigh and sharpening applied in PS) where as the coolscan V is very crisp and lovely.

I would say the Coolscan V is probably the best bang for your buck if you are mainly interested in 35mm. Using Vuescan makes the softwear side of things easier too.
J.

 

[Gilo25]

I heard though that Nikon scanners are not compatible with the latest Mac???

 

[venchka]

I'm shopping too

I'm shopping too

I need a film scanner and have been shopping around.

1. Consumer grade dedicated film scanners produce better images than consumer grade flatbed scanners. Minolta made scanners as good or better than Nikon. They are discontinued, and repair is probably not an option. On the used market they seem to be cheaper than the Nikons.

2. Compatibility problems are the main reason why I didn't buy an Imacon 35mm to 4x5 scanner a few weeks ago for less than 10% of it's original price. It used a SCSI interface and I don't own a SCSI equipped computer. I don't know anything about the Nikon scanners and latest Mac computers. I'm sure you can get first hand information on the internet.

3. The Mictotek M1 flatbed scanner is reportedly a slight improvement over the Epson V700-V750 twins. Not enough improvement to justify trading an Epson for the M1. To get the best from an Epson flatbed you need to spend more money on aftermarket film holders.

4. The early software glitches in the Silverfast AI software shipped with the M1 have been corrected. The M1 and Silverfast work with the latest Mac computers. I think. Verify that!

5. I will probably buy a Microtek M1 Pro this year. I need a scanner for 35mm, 6x7 & 4x5. If the M1 doesn't meet my needs for 35mm, I may buy a Nikon 35mm scanner next year.

Good luck!

 

[fbf]

Me too. I have been looking around for the last two months.
I've seen many complaints about customer support of Microtek and it is a big issue for me. I will probably choose v700/v750 over m1.

 

[venchka]

Join the Large Format Forum

Join the Large Format Forum

Me too. I have been looking around for the last two months.
I've seen many complaints about customer support of Microtek and it is a big issue for me. I will probably choose v700/v750 over m1.

Read all there is to read about the M1. Folks there are probably the ones who found & reported the software problems. And that's what they were: software problems. Microtek couldn't fix those problems. Silverfast fixed the problems very quickly AFTER they were able to recreate the problems, isolate them, and make corrections. The whole process took 2-3 weeks. The fix was free to the customer. All for a product selling for less than $800. Compare that to the "fixes" for the Leica M8 in terms of cost and time.

 

[lewis44]

I've used Both the Minolta 5400 and the Nikon LS5000. Much longer scan times with the Minolta, image quality close, but the edge to the Minolta, mostly because of the 5400 dpi.

Most likely no parts or support for the Minolta in the future so if you are looking for a dedicated 35mm scanner, Nikon is really the only game in town for quality scans.
Software??? Either Vuescan or Silverfast offer alternatives to Nikon Scan Software. I have tried Silverfast, but a little pricy so I use Vuescan for my slides (Fuji) and the Nikon Software for Kodak BW400CN. Why use both?? I just prefer the results I get from each on specific film. You need to try each software with each film you use and pick the best one. I have narrowed down my film to two. Velvia and BW400CN.

I also use a roll film adapter and scan the slide film as a roll. I get it developed only and not cut or mounted so I can scan the whole roll in one shot as I do with print film.
The other thing is I have never had a problem with a Nikon Scanner (knock on wood) so your investment is more up front, but may save you down the road.

Hope this helps.
Randy

 

[lns]

I heard though that Nikon scanners are not compatible with the latest Mac???

The Nikon software is not yet compatible with Leopard, according to various internet sources. Nikon has said it will fix this, but hasn't yet. Silverfast (which is pricey) works with Leopard now.

I only know because I've been looking into it, too.

 

[JTK]

I've seen no reports on M1 that begin to suggest it rivals any other scanner.

No comparison to Epson or Nikon means the "review" was only a press release.

Lacking Ice in the US, it's no good for 35mm. There seem to be no reports of Ice in English in Europe...maybe somebody will link us to one.

I've seen reports of people trying to do fluid mount scans with M1...which seems to eliminate M1's purported glassless advantage.

M1 purportedly autofocuses. Epson and Betterscanning.com both provide precise focusing carriers for Epson.

If it doesn't work with Vuescan, who would want it?

Microtek advertises the ability to adjust dynamic range. Call it HDR or something else, but they advertise it. That reportedly doesn't work. But no reviewer has bothered to see if ACDsee works with the files.

Nikon 5000 has no problem with Fuji...but all desktop scanners have problems with badly exposed Velvia, details lost in shadows. Nikon 5000 supposedly does better digging those details out with multiple passes, than do other scanners.

 

[mfogiel]

Gilo25
Everything should be put in perspective: if you are interested in quality of the film output, and don't use the darkroom, get simply the best scanner you can afford, and if you think you can't afford the best one, sell a lens or two and buy it all the same, as it will be your best decision ever. The scanner is already a bottleneck, if it is lousy, you might as well shoot digital P&S.

 

[JTK]

I use a Nikon V with both Nikonscan and Vuescan. They're both great, but Nikonscan's better with 6 frame unmounted strips because it drives the motorized carrier more accurately (with expensive accessories, 5000 can handle whole uncut rolls). Vuescan can be adjusted with more subtlety, which isn't necessarily a big advantage. Vuescan's Infared and Nikonscan's Ice are equally good.

Fuji Astia is incredibly high resolution and has virtually no grain, scanned with Nikon V at 4000ppi and enlarged to 12X18. Fuji Neopan 400, rated at 800 with R-09 is gorgeous at 12X18 (neutral black due to Quadtone). Printing with Epson 2200, OEM pigments using Quadtone.

 

[Quinn Porter]

I use a Nikon 5000 with Vuescan. I'm very happy with the image quality, but the real benefit is the improvement to my workflow. The 5000 is very fast, and with a little "tinkering", it can be made to scan an entire roll without the roll film adapter. You simply set the exposure based on the film being used, hit scan and walk away. Comeback about a half hour later and you've got both RAW and JPEG scans for 36 exposures. I use the JPEGs for proofs, and I use the RAWs for anything worth spending time on. If you like to scan entire rolls, I highly recommend this scanner.

I also have my old Canoscan FS4000 which I was using prior to the 5000. The FS4000 gives excellent scans, but is slow...slow...slow. It takes strips of 6 images. If you don't scan too many images per roll, I can recommend this scanner if you can find one.

 

[amateriat]

Well, the scanner I use can still be found 'round the 'Bay...

There's at least one place that lists the 5400 as an item that they service, which might mean somebody at Sony stumbled across the container with spare parts. (If they had a strong enough flashlight, they might've found the Hexar spares while at it...). But, for what it's worth, my 5400 has been steaming along for years without a peep o' trouble. And I've been quite happy with its performance.


- Barrett

 

[venchka]

The K-M 5400 would certainly be a lower cost option for 35mm only to supplement my MF/LF scanning chores.