Dedicated film scanners under $1000

J

jojoman2

Guest
I have an epson perfection v600 photo scanner. Would a dedicated film scanner give me noticeably better results? I think my relationship with film is going to be a long term one, and I want to show my portfolio online in high quality (though maybe not for the same price as a used m9).

My budget is $1000 (someday it will be, at least), unless results are exponentially better with scanners more expensive than that.
 
I shoot some medium format to shake things up and slow myself down. I want to have the option to do both, I think. Unless that significantly bumps up the price or brings down the quality at a similar price level.
 
does anyone have experience using both a dedicated film scanner and a normal scanner? I'm interested in how the results from each stack up to see if it's worth the purchase. Like I said, I prefer working with film so I think it might be worth the investment.
 
If you shoot 135 only, nothing comes close to the Pakon for quality and speed for the price.

Unfortunately to get the same performance with medium format the entry price is far higher.

I say this having owned probably 7 or 8 scanners; most of the Coolscans, up to the 8000; Minolta Dimage, Pakon, and even a Noritsu.

If I were shooting mostly 135 and some 120 I'd use a Pakon and an Epson flat bed for the 120.
 
jojoman2 said:
...does anyone have experience using both a dedicated film scanner and a normal scanner? ...
Click to expand...

I've used a dedicated Konica-Minolta DiMage Dual IV (35 mm only); unfortunately something broke inside after it slipped from my hands and felt on a table. No worth repairing....
I currently use a Canoscan 8800 and an Epson V500 (flatbeds, both for 35 mm and 120).

But for 35 mm, the Dual IV was better.

Regards

Joao
 
jojoman2 said:
I have an epson perfection v600 photo scanner. Would a dedicated film scanner give me noticeably better results? I think my relationship with film is going to be a long term one, and I want to show my portfolio online in high quality (though maybe not for the same price as a used m9).

My budget is $1000 (someday it will be, at least), unless results are exponentially better with scanners more expensive than that.
Click to expand...

Hey I have a NIkon Coolscan 8000 and it is a nice scanner, but it is a high end amateurish one nonetheless. For small prints and viewing my negs it works great however if I want to make a "professionally" looking print I would use an Imacon, which I use at a local place for $25 / hr. It is a noticeably better scan. Depending on where you live it might be a good idea to see if that kind of service is available. If I were to do it all over again Id stick with a V600 and just keep renting the IMACOn. Hope that helps.
 
A pakon f 135 plus is now sold for price range 6-700$ and it's insane. That's why I recommend a Nikon 5000 for slower speed but you can still scan the whole roll at once with superior quality than the pakon

splitimageview said:
If you shoot 135 only, nothing comes close to the Pakon for quality and speed for the price.

Unfortunately to get the same performance with medium format the entry price is far higher.

I say this having owned probably 7 or 8 scanners; most of the Coolscans, up to the 8000; Minolta Dimage, Pakon, and even a Noritsu.

If I were shooting mostly 135 and some 120 I'd use a Pakon and an Epson flat bed for the 120.
Click to expand...
 
photomoof said:
If you are going to carry a large print portfolio (16x20 and larger) to show potential clients and dealers, you should have drum scans made.
Click to expand...

I just put together a portfolio of 16x20 portraits for showing to prospective corporate clients. Many of the prints were made from 35mm transparencies scanned on my Konica-Monolta DiMage 5400 scanner. They are impeccable, and indistinguishable from the prints made from digital files.
 
Get a Pakon F135! (or the F135+ if you can afford it)
I got mine from HERE on Ebay. Been scanning like crazy since!
There's a great group on Facebook that you can always refer to for help.

Here's a review of the plus version: PAKON REVIEW

They non-plus actually has the same sensor and can also do 6 Megapixels but takes 10 minutes to scan a whole roll instead of 6-7. Still fast enough for me!

Here are some of my shots scanned with this exact machine. The colors are straight from the scanner, I barely have to do any post and the ICE is great!





Both taken with Hexar AF and Kodak Ultramax 400 film



Contax G2 w/ 28mm lens - Kodak Ultramax 400



Contax TVS - Fujifilm Superia 400
 
kiemchacsu said:
A pakon f 135 plus is now sold for price range 6-700$ and it's insane. That's why I recommend a Nikon 5000 for slower speed but you can still scan the whole roll at once with superior quality than the pakon
Click to expand...

Except the non-plus version has the same sensor and you can also scan Base-16 using the TLX Client. So...you save a lot of money. Only difference is that the non-plus is a tad slower and Base-16 isn't available in PSI.

But I've actually come to prefer using TLX client because all the exposure settings are just easier to adjust.
 
For what it's worth, anything posted on the internet in small size, heck even 100% won't really give you an answer you're searching for.
But.

I work in a professional scanning business, I run about 7 Epson v700s for most consumer ****, people digitizing their dad's or mom's album, negs, slides etc. And it's fine up to 2400 dpi. It all gets edited later anyway. Once in a while we get a major client like a gallery, artist or photographer who request 4000dpi scans of the ****tiest slides they bring you. :) So, I got the boss to buy a true film scanner, a Nikon Coolscan V. Almost the same as 5000 minus the multipass option and whole roll adapter.

Being as it may, I did a lot of tests among the coolscan and the epson v700. I tried slides, i tried kodachromes, i tried negative colour and bw. Obviously I scanned the same photo on both with the exact same settings using vuescan. My main goal was to see which has a difference in sharpness or detail. Well, what do you know, Coolscan blew the epson out of the water with incredible amount of detail, whereas Epson at 4000 dpi is mush. Having said that, the coolscan provides extremely grainy scans, so beware.

If you decide you want high quality results on you web portfolio under 1000 bucks then your only choice is to go double scanner. You get an Epson V600 or V700 for your medium format, and a dedicated film scanner for 135, like Coolscan V/5000 or Minolta dimage 5400. Or any of those useless Opticfilm what have you that take forever. (Tried one of the pacificImage high end ones). The truth is, your web visitors won't give a **** about detail, they will want to see good pictures (usually small anyway). For my personal stuff I use an Epson V600 for 120 and work's Coolscan for 135. So there you go. Unless they produce a multiformat scanner for 120 and 135 under 1k soon, you're screwed. Oh, or do digital camera scans... :bang:
 
I'd like to piggy back a question into this topic if you dont mind, as I am asking myself a similar question the OP is.

Here's the scenario: A single 35mm negative, scanned with a v600 or comparable flatbed vs that same neg scanned on a dedicated 135 scanner like a Plustek (current version, whatever that is at the moment). Will the Plustek scan look "better"? Or, instead of using the term better, would the Plustek scan minimize the flaws that are inherent to digitally scanning an analog negative?
 
gnome chompski said:
I'd like to piggy back a question into this topic if you dont mind, as I am asking myself a similar question the OP is.

Here's the scenario: A single 35mm negative, scanned with a v600 or comparable flatbed vs that same neg scanned on a dedicated 135 scanner like a Plustek (current version, whatever that is at the moment). Will the Plustek scan look "better"? Or, instead of using the term better, would the Plustek scan minimize the flaws that are inherent to digitally scanning an analog negative?
Click to expand...

Yes...
Especially in terms of sharpness.
It's late here but maybe I'll throw up a comparison tomorrow of a scan with my Pakon VS Epson V500. It's night and day!
 
kiemchacsu said:
A pakon f 135 plus is now sold for price range 6-700$ and it's insane. That's why I recommend a Nikon 5000 for slower speed but you can still scan the whole roll at once with superior quality than the pakon
Click to expand...

I've owned the 5000, and it's not even close, the Pakon has far better color straight away, and it's much faster.
 
I shoot black and white film exclusively--shoot digital when I want color, which is rarely. I think folks are right about buying a dedicated scanner for 35mm and using a regular one for medium format. I'm not concerned with accurate color rendition as I am with coaxing every last bit of information off of my tri-x
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom