Help me decide between lens or scanner

[sf]

Ick. Forget the 9950F scanner. It's awful compared to the Epson V700. I've seen scans from both and the Epson blows it away.

 

[Keith]

Definitely the scanner ... I am just about to get a V700 Epson and I need the emotional support.

... I knew I shouldn't have bought an MF camera! 😀

 

[maitrestanley]

Ick. Forget the 9950F scanner. It's awful compared to the Epson V700. I've seen scans from both and the Epson blows it away.

The V700 is more expensive by $100. And I've seen scans from it and I wouldn't say that it blows the 9950F away. It's a good scanner, I know, but I can't justify paying an extra bill for it.

 

[ncd_photo]

Either get a decent dedicated film scanner or buy the lens and shoot XP2 and have it scanned by the lab when you have it developed.

I faffed about for years with different flatbeds which are 'ok' for B&W but not very good for transparencies and have recently got a Nikon Coolscan V ED - its awesome and I should have just bought one in the first place!

Its also tiny and takes up hardly any desk space. (you can just about see it behind my cup!)

However, if you plan to shoot MF sometime, the Epson V700 would be a better bet.

 

[rxmd]

Ick. Forget the 9950F scanner. It's awful compared to the Epson V700. I've seen scans from both and the Epson blows it away.

I've used both. At least with the films I'm using I didn't see much of a difference. To me at least it wouldn't be worth the price difference either. I would say they're pretty much at the limit of what can be done nowadays with respect to film scanning through a glass plate.

Using a decent piece of scanning software is much more important.

 

[ncd_photo]

I scanned this earlier on the Coolscan V, from a Fuji Provia 100 filmstrip.

Had I used the Epson 3200, it would be quite soft and the black areas would be full of red and blue flecks of noise.
I'm suddenly finding that my Nikon lenses were actually quite sharp after all!