iml
Well-known
OK, I'm looking to buy a decent scanner for b&w negative scanning. I've narrowed the choice down to these two, which seem to be the top two options around the budget I have in mind. Has anyone compared these two, and, if so, what conclusions did you come to?
I have a vague inkling to acquire some MF kit at some point, given how cheap it is nowadays, which is leading me towards the Epson, but if the Nikon really does give significantly better 35mm results than the Epson then I would be prepared to go with the Nikon and use a lab to scan MF, and eventually acquire another scanner just for MF if I find myself shooting more in that format. So, opinions welcomed. I've read everything I can find and still can't decide. What I haven't seen is any direct comparisons between these two.
Will be scanning to produce prints up to A3/A3+ size, no larger, and for day to day web imaging, of course.
Ian
I have a vague inkling to acquire some MF kit at some point, given how cheap it is nowadays, which is leading me towards the Epson, but if the Nikon really does give significantly better 35mm results than the Epson then I would be prepared to go with the Nikon and use a lab to scan MF, and eventually acquire another scanner just for MF if I find myself shooting more in that format. So, opinions welcomed. I've read everything I can find and still can't decide. What I haven't seen is any direct comparisons between these two.
Will be scanning to produce prints up to A3/A3+ size, no larger, and for day to day web imaging, of course.
Ian
Last edited:
xvvvz
Established
Since 35 mm is what you are shooting now and most likely what you have in your film archives, go with a decent dedicated film scanner now because it still has a slight edge with 35 mm. If you do get MF later, then worry about another scanner at that time.
My $.02,
Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com
My $.02,
Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com
iml
Well-known
Thanks, probably sensible advice. I just wish I could find some images somewhere showing just how much of an edge the Nikon has over the V700.
Ian
Ian
MikeL
Go Fish
Hi Ian,
I used a v-750 for two weeks with Silverfast and Epson software. The difference between it and a Coolscan 5000 was noticeable in 8x10s despite a significant amount of tweaking on my part. This difference of course, is noticeable due to having both to compare. The 700-750 are plenty good but having images from both allowed me to notice the differences. I didn't like having to sharpen each photo with the v750 (and sometimes de-noise after), and even then the detail like fabrics and hair were less defined than on the dedicated film scanner. Slight differences in shadow detail as well. The big plus of the Epsons is the number of images you can scan in one click and medium format. Just my experience.......
I used a v-750 for two weeks with Silverfast and Epson software. The difference between it and a Coolscan 5000 was noticeable in 8x10s despite a significant amount of tweaking on my part. This difference of course, is noticeable due to having both to compare. The 700-750 are plenty good but having images from both allowed me to notice the differences. I didn't like having to sharpen each photo with the v750 (and sometimes de-noise after), and even then the detail like fabrics and hair were less defined than on the dedicated film scanner. Slight differences in shadow detail as well. The big plus of the Epsons is the number of images you can scan in one click and medium format. Just my experience.......
iml
Well-known
Thanks Mike, that's exactly the kind of input I haven't been able to find anywhere else so far. Very helpful.
Ian
Ian
pmu
Well-known
I haven't used that Epson, but just today recieved my Coolscan V and have been scanning for few hours. Couple of things to think of:
If your films are curly / not flat you most likely wont recieve sharp results from 35mm films with that Epson. Just look at those film holders...no way those can flatten curly strips of film. I have most of my films so curly that I even can't get a sharp scan from Coolscan V without additional FH-3 filmholder. If you decide to buy nikon, I really recommend buying that FH-3... That additional film holder will improve the quality of your life
If your films are curly / not flat you most likely wont recieve sharp results from 35mm films with that Epson. Just look at those film holders...no way those can flatten curly strips of film. I have most of my films so curly that I even can't get a sharp scan from Coolscan V without additional FH-3 filmholder. If you decide to buy nikon, I really recommend buying that FH-3... That additional film holder will improve the quality of your life
.JL.
Established
iml said:
iml, there is a V700 review here if you haven't seen it. It is being compared to a Nikon 4000, not exactly the comparison you are looking for but somewhat relevant.
The same person reviewed the V750, and compared the results to Nikon Coolscan 9000.
.JL.
Established
pmu said:I haven't used that Epson, but just today recieved my Coolscan V and have been scanning for few hours. Couple of things to think of:
If your films are curly / not flat you most likely wont recieve sharp results from 35mm films with that Epson. Just look at those film holders...no way those can flatten curly strips of film. I have most of my films so curly that I even can't get a sharp scan from Coolscan V without additional FH-3 filmholder. If you decide to buy nikon, I really recommend buying that FH-3... That additional film holder will improve the quality of your life
I agree with that. I have been using the Coolscan IV for 4 years, and back then it came with the FH-3 film holder as standard equipment. Funny that Nikon took it out to become an optional accessory heh.
MikeL
Go Fish
I originally got the v750 for medium format scans. Since my DSLR was gathering dust I sold it and the 35mm coolscan for the 9000. I've been very satisfied with it but keeping the film flat really makes a difference. The 35mm scans have been fine, but I had problems with the medium format scans until I got the film flat. Huge difference on the sides. Here's a thread I started on it:
Keeping film flat
Keeping film flat
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
The V700's film holder is really sloppy. However, with the 35mm holders i get reasonably flat lying film.
Not so with the medium format holders.
But there are solutions (like the holders made by xvvvz, posting above).
Really, the epson has ONLY the advantage of multiformats and multiple frames.
I set each frame as I want it to be scanned and select them all, then hit "scan"and i can go take a walk, go to sleep, cook dinner, or have sex, the job will be done for 24 frames in 35mm without any intervention.
Not so with the medium format holders.
But there are solutions (like the holders made by xvvvz, posting above).
Really, the epson has ONLY the advantage of multiformats and multiple frames.
I set each frame as I want it to be scanned and select them all, then hit "scan"and i can go take a walk, go to sleep, cook dinner, or have sex, the job will be done for 24 frames in 35mm without any intervention.
iml
Well-known
This is all very useful. I think the Coolscan is probably the one I'll go for. MF is a longer term project anyway.
Thanks for the replies.
Ian
Thanks for the replies.
Ian
gdi
Veteran
Try this to see a head to head V700/4990/CS 8000 (V can produce a comparable scan)...
About half way down the page.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/
About half way down the page.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/
sf
Veteran
iml said:
Go to my website and see hte great scanner comparison that some of us RFFers did last year. Go here to see the Nikon V in comparison with some others.
http://www.shutterflower.com/scanner comparison.htm
and then go to
http://www.shutterflower.com/V700.htm
to see how the V700 compares to the Multi Pro.
iml
Well-known
A ha. Excellent stuff, thanks. The V700 scans on your site look pretty nice to me. It does seem fiddling with holder height makes a big difference, but that doesn't seem too onerous a burden to me. The Coolscan does seem to work extremely well out of the box though, as far as I can tell from the various crops I've seen.
It's really hard to make a decision
Having slept on it, I think, given my needs are b&w negs only, and mostly A4 printing (occasionally A3) on a good, but not world-class printer (Epson R1800) and for the web, and that MF may become a requirement, the V700 may turn out to be good enough for me.
Your Konica comparisons are interesting, as I would expect the MultiPro to outperform the Coolscan V ED, so the fact that you sold the Konica and kept the V700 is telling. I know you shoot MF, do you think you would have made the same decision if you were mostly scanning 35mm?
Ian
It's really hard to make a decision
Having slept on it, I think, given my needs are b&w negs only, and mostly A4 printing (occasionally A3) on a good, but not world-class printer (Epson R1800) and for the web, and that MF may become a requirement, the V700 may turn out to be good enough for me.
Your Konica comparisons are interesting, as I would expect the MultiPro to outperform the Coolscan V ED, so the fact that you sold the Konica and kept the V700 is telling. I know you shoot MF, do you think you would have made the same decision if you were mostly scanning 35mm?
Ian
Last edited:
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
I seriously considered buying Shutterflower's Minolta MultiPro when he was selling it. But it was 3x the price of the v700 so i went for the v700. Simply it was way over my budget. If i could have afforded, i would have bought the Minolta.
iml
Well-known
If I could afford something in the MultiPro price range I suspect my decision would be a lot easier
Do you use your V700 for 35mm? If so, leaving aside that a dedicated film scanner is likely to be better, are you happy with the results you're getting?
Ian
Do you use your V700 for 35mm? If so, leaving aside that a dedicated film scanner is likely to be better, are you happy with the results you're getting?
Ian
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
I am.
E.g. i scanned a kodak tmz 3200 I developed myself, and there are some really good images. I printed a few through an online printing place and they look good.
Some colour slide scans (kodak e100 SW) were so good, NO photoshop adjustment was needed. No, not even USM. I wonder how that's possible, but that's what i got. SOme of these are uploaded in my "model no model"folder. Small versions,of course.
Scanning colour negs is a bit trickier, but doable.
I have to say I never printed A3 size from scans with the v700, yet. However judging from images on the screen it looks doable.
E.g. i scanned a kodak tmz 3200 I developed myself, and there are some really good images. I printed a few through an online printing place and they look good.
Some colour slide scans (kodak e100 SW) were so good, NO photoshop adjustment was needed. No, not even USM. I wonder how that's possible, but that's what i got. SOme of these are uploaded in my "model no model"folder. Small versions,of course.
Scanning colour negs is a bit trickier, but doable.
I have to say I never printed A3 size from scans with the v700, yet. However judging from images on the screen it looks doable.
iml
Well-known
Thanks. I'm edging towards making my mind up...
Ian
Ian
Fotch
Man with a RF Camera
Scanner Folly
Scanner Folly
I have been using the big box retailers for developing and scanning (no prints) of my 35mm color film and basically, liked the results. I could see that although slower than the digital cameras, was better quality, among other things.
I recently was trying to decide between both the Epson V700 and the Nikon V scanners. I needed a general office scanner (replacing older Umax) and decided to invest in a more versatile scanner that could scan film. Since I have negatives up to 4x5, this narrowed the field. In reading some reviews, the claim was the Epson was as good as a high end Minolta film scanner.
So, I hoped I could just buy the Epson V700 and be satisfied. In my initial testing after arrival is that it is a good scanner for everything except 35mm. The 35mm is good, about the same as the Walfart scans (when film is developed and scanned) when comparing sharpness. It does make a bigger file and the colors are a bit better.
However, I wanted something better for 35mm so I then purchase a Nikon V from Central Camera in Chicago at the best price I could find anywhere.
Using the same 35mm negative and enlarging this very large, the Nikon has lots of sharp detail and color depth that the other methods lack. I will post them test pictures when I have some time. Were the other brand film scanners malfunctioning? Or, just not as good? Or perhaps, the Epson film holders can be tweaked to improve its performance. Out of the box, the Nikon was better for 35mm.
My thoughts are: If on a budget and could only buy one, and if only needed for 35mm, get the Nikon V. However, if need medium and larger format, scanning of photos or other documents, I could be happy with the Epson 700.
Best of course, for me, was to bite the wallet and get both. I plan to sell off camera & equipment that I don’t use and bring my budget back into balance.
One last thought. I was horrified to see the damage done to my negatives by having them machine processed. I will check several rolls developed at different stores to see if it is just this roll or just the low level of performance from the big box folks.
Unfortunately, this roll was from a first time trip to the state of Washington. Oh well. I am in the process of getting back into the darkroom and processing my own negatives, B&W & Color.
Good Luck.
Scanner Folly
I have been using the big box retailers for developing and scanning (no prints) of my 35mm color film and basically, liked the results. I could see that although slower than the digital cameras, was better quality, among other things.
I recently was trying to decide between both the Epson V700 and the Nikon V scanners. I needed a general office scanner (replacing older Umax) and decided to invest in a more versatile scanner that could scan film. Since I have negatives up to 4x5, this narrowed the field. In reading some reviews, the claim was the Epson was as good as a high end Minolta film scanner.
So, I hoped I could just buy the Epson V700 and be satisfied. In my initial testing after arrival is that it is a good scanner for everything except 35mm. The 35mm is good, about the same as the Walfart scans (when film is developed and scanned) when comparing sharpness. It does make a bigger file and the colors are a bit better.
However, I wanted something better for 35mm so I then purchase a Nikon V from Central Camera in Chicago at the best price I could find anywhere.
Using the same 35mm negative and enlarging this very large, the Nikon has lots of sharp detail and color depth that the other methods lack. I will post them test pictures when I have some time. Were the other brand film scanners malfunctioning? Or, just not as good? Or perhaps, the Epson film holders can be tweaked to improve its performance. Out of the box, the Nikon was better for 35mm.
My thoughts are: If on a budget and could only buy one, and if only needed for 35mm, get the Nikon V. However, if need medium and larger format, scanning of photos or other documents, I could be happy with the Epson 700.
Best of course, for me, was to bite the wallet and get both. I plan to sell off camera & equipment that I don’t use and bring my budget back into balance.
One last thought. I was horrified to see the damage done to my negatives by having them machine processed. I will check several rolls developed at different stores to see if it is just this roll or just the low level of performance from the big box folks.
Unfortunately, this roll was from a first time trip to the state of Washington. Oh well. I am in the process of getting back into the darkroom and processing my own negatives, B&W & Color.
Good Luck.
iml
Well-known
I'm now the owner of an Epson V700 - and an Olympus 35 SP - that wasn't supposed to happen, but the shop had a nice one and I like my 35 RC so much I couldn't resist
In the end, the Epson's flexibility won out. I hear MF whisperings, increasingly loud, so it seemed sensible to go for the Epson. Looking forward to trying it over the next few days.
Thanks to everyone for the input, it all helped me make up my mind.
Ian
In the end, the Epson's flexibility won out. I hear MF whisperings, increasingly loud, so it seemed sensible to go for the Epson. Looking forward to trying it over the next few days.
Thanks to everyone for the input, it all helped me make up my mind.
Ian
Last edited: