Medium format scanners

[captainslack]

I'm hoping to get a film scanner for Christmas. Right now, I'm looking at the Konica-Minolta Dual Scan IV. Price is right and I've heard a lot of good things about it. Problem is, it only does 35mm and I've recently started expermenting with 120.

After doing some hunting on the 'net, I found this model at Adorama, the Pacific Image PrimeFilm 3650-Pro3 . Anyone had any experience with it or other products from PrimeFilm? If not, know of any other scanners that do 120?

 

[GeneW]

How large do you print your MF work? The Epson 4990 flatbed appears to be a good choice for prints up to 8x10, maybe 11x14, and it's reasonably priced. I'm unfamiliar with the PacificImage scanner.

The Nikon 8000 and 9000 scanners get consistently good reviews for MF (with the proviso you need to purchase the optional glass negative holders to keep film flat). They are, however, not cheap.

A hybrid option is to pick up a flatbed, like the Epson, for the majority of your MF work then have a few 'killer' frames drum scanned by a lab. Very expensive per scan, but the numbers should be low. With these scans you should be able to make very high quality 16x20 inkjet prints.

There are a few places around that rent high-end scanners by the hour.

Sigh... then there's always an enlarger ...

Gene

 

[dkapp]

I use a Dual IV for my 35mm and the Epson 3170 for 120. I got the 3170 as a refurb from epson for $78.

I'm happy with the results.

Dave

 

[DougK]

I love my Dual Scan IV for 35mm, but it doesn't do 120 and neither does my current Epson flatbed. I'm looking at the Canon 8400, but I just might be better off getting the Epson 4990 since I've been having the urge lately to skip over the small stuff and play with large format...

 

[Pymm]

I have a 4870 epson, cheap and really wonderfull for 120 formats. Does 35mm too but not as good as a dedicated 35mm I would think

 

[Ukko Heikkinen]

I'm pretty sure you would not be disappointed by Epson Perfection 4990 PRO. I have cut MF negatives and scanned them on my Minolta Elite 5400, but I prefer my Epson 4870, the previous model.

Ukko Heikkinen

 

[Richard Black]

IMHO, I have used the older Epson 3170 to scan MF film and have been quite happy with it. I even won the best of the month at a local camera shop, probably says more about those others who submitted than my talent. I've scanned at 1200dpi and had files over 16mb. Care must be taken to maintain a clean environment, but you can get good scans, not as good as a dedicated mf scanner, but acceptable.

 

[Scarpia]

Check out the Canon CanoScan 9950 F. The software is not as good as the Epson 4990, but it, nevertheless, does excellent MF and is somewhat cheaper. It does 4x5 as well, but I don't use that format.
Kurt M.

 

[captainslack]

Hmmm..... Maybe I should get the Dual Scan for 35mm & later on get the Epson for scanning prints & 120. My old scanner is an Epson, but it's about 7 years old & only goes to 600dpi.

Something to think about... Thanks everybody!

 

[Solinar]

I have a refurbished 4870 bought directly from Epson which I use to scan medium format negs. I believe either the Canon 9950f or the Epson 4990 will rock your socks off, provided that you keep your scans to 2400 dpi or less.

About 6 months after getting the scanner I bought Hamrick Software's Vuescan. There are a whole lot features not found in Epson's provided user friendly software. For example: multiple pass scanning, exposure settings to include night scene and color correction settings for interior tungsten rooms, just to name three.

I have no experience using the Canon 9950F, but if it is supported by Vuescan, give a try.

I also sprung for Doug Fisher's medium format film holder and newton glass. Negs stay flat, because they are taped to the glass. The only problem is that you can't use digital ICE with the newton glass insert. Canon's medium format negative holders are better designed than Epson's.

 

[Stu W]

I stupidly sold my Minolta Scan Multi. It did 16mm, 35mm and 120. I miss it.

 

[T_om]

The Nikon 8000 and 9000 scanners get consistently good reviews for MF (with the proviso you need to purchase the optional glass negative holders to keep film flat). They are, however, not cheap.

I have had a Nikon LS8000 almost from the first day they hit the market in the US.

I have NEVER had to use the glass carrier and have run hundreds of rolls of 120 through the machine with zero problems.

I keep seeing these "must have the glass carrier" statements and wonder if they are all repetitions of some ghostly, long forgotten post somewhere by someone that had either a faulty machine or was just guessing at the performance degradation. I also know two more Nikon owners in this area, one with a 8000 like mine and one with the newer 9000 and neither of THEM use the glass carrier either.

Tom

PS: If you are looking for quality MF scans, forget flatbeds unless your are willing to cough up the bucks for a Hell-Heidelberg or similar professional quality scanner.

 

[Solinar]

Tom, you've obviously never had an Epson with its not for prime time, flimsy, plastic film carrier. Keep in mind that the 4870 was a mere $250 mortal when purchase from Epson's refurbished web site. For what it's worth, what is a Coolscan 9000 selling for these days?