rayfoxlee
Raymondo
After a break from shooting TLRs for about 6 years, I am about to get stuck in again, having just bought a Yashica Mat 124. It is being serviced right now and should be good enough for a re-entry point to see if I can get on with focussing on a TLR screen now that I have to wear reading glasses. This is the only issue I have with TLRs, having been a long-time Rollei user over the years.
The weak point in my hardware is scanning MF. What I want to be able to do is pull as much detail out of a flatbed (a dedicated MF is not an option on cost grounds) as I can get from 35mm on my Nikon Coolscan V ED. My old Epson Perfection 2450 is showing signs of problems, with a feint hair line running from top to bottom of most scans – not scratched negs, as the line may appear in different places on the same neg on subsequent scans. For such ancient technology, this scanner has been great for MF, but this latest issue just causes so much time wasting on cloning out the line.
Now I know that there are all sorts of issues with comparisons like this (grain, quality of lenses, film flatness, etc etc), but there must (surely?) be a point at which it could be said that flatbed A output will give better results than flatbed B, when compared to 35mm from the Coolscan. I don’t need to produce massive print sizes – most will be A4, but I will sometimes want to go to A3. Also, I may (possibly) get a better quality MF camera (Rollei 3.5F or Hasselblad??) if I think it will give me better results than the Mat 124.
So, do I need to spend £££s on an Epson V700 or V750, or are these overkill for what I want or is there a cheaper option, such as V600 or CanoScan 9000F or the new 9000F Mark II?
Have any RFFers faced a similar dilemma with similar kit and found a good solution – without breaking the bank?!
I hope someone can help!
Thanks to you all.
Ray
The weak point in my hardware is scanning MF. What I want to be able to do is pull as much detail out of a flatbed (a dedicated MF is not an option on cost grounds) as I can get from 35mm on my Nikon Coolscan V ED. My old Epson Perfection 2450 is showing signs of problems, with a feint hair line running from top to bottom of most scans – not scratched negs, as the line may appear in different places on the same neg on subsequent scans. For such ancient technology, this scanner has been great for MF, but this latest issue just causes so much time wasting on cloning out the line.
Now I know that there are all sorts of issues with comparisons like this (grain, quality of lenses, film flatness, etc etc), but there must (surely?) be a point at which it could be said that flatbed A output will give better results than flatbed B, when compared to 35mm from the Coolscan. I don’t need to produce massive print sizes – most will be A4, but I will sometimes want to go to A3. Also, I may (possibly) get a better quality MF camera (Rollei 3.5F or Hasselblad??) if I think it will give me better results than the Mat 124.
So, do I need to spend £££s on an Epson V700 or V750, or are these overkill for what I want or is there a cheaper option, such as V600 or CanoScan 9000F or the new 9000F Mark II?
Have any RFFers faced a similar dilemma with similar kit and found a good solution – without breaking the bank?!
I hope someone can help!
Thanks to you all.
Ray
Athiril
Established
They're all very similar, they all have a severe lack of resolving power and look like they're totally out of focus. If you are after the detail that's on the film/similar performance to CoolScan or Plustek, you will be severely disappointed in any flatbed choice. It is just that simple.
There is one way I know of to actually increase detail on a flatbed (as opposed to mounting in snakeoil):
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130731
The down side of this technique is that it requires time and effort, so not a solution if you want to lots of frames like this.
The more expensive flatbeds are just more convenient in that they let you scan multiple frames of 120 at once.
Here is some Velvia, on a 4490, then a Plustek (the 7400 ver would do better than the one I used, and so should the 120, but it is still excellent), then an Imacon.
Here is some FP4+ in Rodinal on V500 (3200dpi), and dSLR copied (100% crop is about 2500 dpi)
There is one way I know of to actually increase detail on a flatbed (as opposed to mounting in snakeoil):
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130731
The down side of this technique is that it requires time and effort, so not a solution if you want to lots of frames like this.
The more expensive flatbeds are just more convenient in that they let you scan multiple frames of 120 at once.
Here is some Velvia, on a 4490, then a Plustek (the 7400 ver would do better than the one I used, and so should the 120, but it is still excellent), then an Imacon.
Here is some FP4+ in Rodinal on V500 (3200dpi), and dSLR copied (100% crop is about 2500 dpi)
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
My old Epson 1640U does a fairly sharp scan from 6x6 and 6x9, when used with the correct mask. As the mask holds the frame a couple of millimetres clear of the glass, I assume that the scanner uses a different focus point when the transparency hood has control.
thegman
Veteran
I had a V700, my brother has a Canon 9000f (maybe 9500, or something like that), with the BetterScanning holders on each, I found them both very good, and the V700 not notably better.
You can find examples of the flatbeds performing poorly, and also performing well, some people have better luck than others with them. Personally I think the Canons represent superb value, and if you search around on Flickr etc. for example, it's amazing what people can get out of them.
I also really like the BetterScanning holders, just use the holder and the anti-newton glass, it pins down the negative flat, so you get better results and they are easier to load.
You can find examples of the flatbeds performing poorly, and also performing well, some people have better luck than others with them. Personally I think the Canons represent superb value, and if you search around on Flickr etc. for example, it's amazing what people can get out of them.
I also really like the BetterScanning holders, just use the holder and the anti-newton glass, it pins down the negative flat, so you get better results and they are easier to load.
Joao
Negativistic forever
I have just one scanner and it needs to perform both document scans and negative scans. My option was for a Canoscan 8800F and it gave quite good results for web posting.
I recently bought a Betterscannng holder for MF and there was a remarkable improvement in quality in MF scans (not so evident with the ANR glass for 35 mm film). Ocasional small size prints with an inkjet printer sorted out acceptable but I don't know how it performs for prints above A4 format .
I recently bought a Betterscannng holder for MF and there was a remarkable improvement in quality in MF scans (not so evident with the ANR glass for 35 mm film). Ocasional small size prints with an inkjet printer sorted out acceptable but I don't know how it performs for prints above A4 format .
RObert Budding
D'oh!
I used an Epson 4990 for a while. It was fine for scans to post to the web. But anything larger was less than acceptable. So I bought a Nikon CS 9000 while they were still in production. Prices are now pretty crazy, so I'm not sure what I'd do if I were buying today.
robert blu
quiet photographer
I'm facing a similar question, in order to scan the negs from my Rolleiflex or my Holga. Not planning to print larger than A3+ and being this not my main photographic activity I'm thinking to go the V600 route. In the rare cases I need higher quality scan I will use the services of a pro lab.
robert
robert
Mcary
Well-known
Since getting the V700 a little over a month ago I've rescanned some of the medium format negative that I'd scanned with the V600 and really couldn't see any difference in the quality of the scans. As far as output quality goes I think medium format scans from the V600 make excellent 11x14 and 12x12 prints, which more then meet my needs, as I feel photographs should be looked at and appreciated not zoom by like some billboard on the side of the road.
*Note got the V700 due to my switch from medium to large format*
*Note got the V700 due to my switch from medium to large format*
Rogier
Rogier Willems
Get a Canoscan with a Betterscanning holder and you are in great shape for relatively low cost!
2013-Myanmar-Bagan-Yashica-0053 by Rogier Diver, on Flickr
2013-Myanmar-Bagan-Yashica-0053 by Rogier Diver, on Flickr
dpt2014
Established
I find my 9000f more than pleasing for MF, but severely lacking for 35mm.
Rogier
Rogier Willems
Indeed for 135 you need a dedicated film scanner like the OP has 
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
This is just about the equation as I see it: Scanning 6x9 film on my Epson V500 gives image quality about the same as scanning 35mm on my Coolscan V ED. I like a sharp print, and I get this at 12x18" from the V500. An Epson V700 would be somewhat better.
Here's a test image of the Cheers Pub shot on 6x9 color negative with a very good lens (Mamiya Press 100mm f/2.8) on a tripod.
Here's a larger file for the above image ready to print at 12x18" (8MB). I think it's sharp enough. In a test, I made the same shot on 35mm and scanned with the Coolscan V ED. The image quality is very, very close.
So, I think you can get image quality out of a flatbed that matches 35mm scanned on a Coolscan V ED.
BardParker
Established
I am very happy with my V700 for MF. I use Epson software and vuescan, but prefer the Epson scan software.
Kent
Kent