Scanner choice

[zerobuttons]

I dare ask this question here, since I gather that some of you probably have some experience with this. Please redirect me if you believe there is a better forum for this at this site.

I am on the verge of going back to film again for some purposes, and I´m looking into the M7. I will still need to transfer some pictures to digital format, however, and I will need a scanner.
The reviews of the Epson Perfection V750 Pro praise it pretty highly. Some sources still say that a flatbed scanner is not an option for scanning film, though.
Would a dedicated film scanner like the Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED still be the best choice?
Anyone here with an even better suggestion?

Best regards,
David List

 

[infrequent]

a dedicated film scanner would be the best bet. flatbeds can get you there with the proper holders and lots of prayer. that seems to be the general opinion.

 

[Mackinaw]

I can tell you that my Nikon Coolscan V will do a better job scanning a B&W negative than my Epson Perfection 4490 (better gray tones, less noise in shadows, etc.).

Jim B.

 

[mcgrattan]

I'm sure everyone above is right, however, I found comparing an Epson 10000XL with a Nikon Coolscan at work, that the 10000XL was close enough and required a lot less work from me to get decent scans.

The Coolscan was super-sharp but often overly grainy [depending on settings] and incredibly slow. I needed to tweak the settings a lot to get the best scans. They were better than the 10000XL but they weren't so much better that the extra work seemed worth it to me.

 

[sahe69]

If you're not planning to scan other than 35 mm film then go for the Nikon. If on the other hand your're also planning to scan MF or even LF, then the answer is simple.

 

[antistatic]

I am scanning with the Coolscan 5000 at this minute. The results are good. I can not compare it to a flatbed.

Be warned scanning is still a PITA. Not as much fun as shooting, developing, PPing or printing.

 

[sleepyhead]

If you're only goiong to scan 35mm (not larger formats) then I would not use any flatbed. They just don't compare to a regular scanner.

I use a Minolta Dimage 5400 (version I) which is now discontinued but going strong after several years. If you can find a good one second hand, they are highly reputed, especially for B&W negatives. I'm thinking of buying a second one for if/when my original one dies.

 

[northpole]

The Nikon 5000ED comes into its own when you get the auto slide feeder accessory. With this, you can load up the casette and leave it to feed through. I've done this without problems and it means the slow speed of scanning is not an issue.

Peter

 

[mfogiel]

zerobuttons
The answer is pretty simple: EPSON V750 will give you, at most (i.e. if you buy the extra adjustable film holder from betterscanning ) a resolution of 2300 dpi - if you print at 300 dpi this means a max enlargement of 7-8 times. To obtain something better, you need a dedicated film scanner. Making a 11x14 print form an Epson scan, is like putting a lens from the first world war on your M7.

 

[Blank288]

I still use a Minolta Dimage Dual-II (Af-2820U) which I got for free some years ago from a friend who changed completely to digital. It's quite old, but it still serves me well (with Vuescan scanner software).

 

[januaryman]

Same exact situation here. Even my name and last initial are the same! 😱

The Coolscan was the smartest thing I ever decided to buy, and the one purchase that I was least willing to commit to - indecision went on for years before I committed. And then only after it was taken out of production and the fear factor kicked in. Don't even think of taking it away from me.

And Vuescan software works better for me, as well, but the Nikon scan software is better for color transparencies, for some reason.

I can tell you that my Nikon Coolscan V will do a better job scanning a B&W negative than my Epson Perfection 4490 (better gray tones, less noise in shadows, etc.).

Jim B.

 

[zerobuttons]

Thank you to you all for very swift and helpful answers to my first posting here. I believe I will go with the Coolscan. I´m almost peeing my pants at the thought of using equipment like the Leica M7 - of joy, that is.....
There will be a monetary issue, however, but I know that can be overcome sooner or later. 🙂

 

[Svitantti]

Is that Leica M7 or Mamiya 7? If it is Leica, a cheaper choice as an alternative to Nikon is Konica-Minolta Scan Dual IV.

Makes almost as nice quality as Nikon and costs about half or less.

Downsides:
- No support for Windows Vista except with Vuescan I guess
- Konica-Minolta is no more
- Not sold new (at least not officially), so no guarantee usually. Ebay...

* Nikon has a different light source, which also makes some difference, but I don't think it is so critical.

 

[vieri]

For what is worth, I got them both, used them for a while, kept the Coolscan, sold the V700. Much better results with the Nikon @ 8x pass, 16 bit, full dpi than what I could ever get with the Epson. Now I am waiting for a Coolscan 9000 to use with my MF negs as well. 😀

 

[zerobuttons]

For what is worth, I got them both, used them for a while, kept the Coolscan, sold the V700. Much better results with the Nikon @ 8x pass, 16 bit, full dpi than what I could ever get with the Epson. Now I am waiting for a Coolscan 9000 to use with my MF negs as well. 😀

Hey - someone who actually knows both animals first hand. You are confirming my by now firm belief that I´m best off with the Coolscan.

Best regards,
David List

 

[capitalK]

I use a Coolscan 4000ED at work and I love it. It gives me way more of a scan than I'd ever need but so much information to play with. I tend to downscale my photos before I start working on them in Photoshop because otherwise I am needlessly cloning out dust.

 

[Keith]

In defence of the Epson V700 it can produce far better output if you work at it. Lately I've been scanning a few negs as positives with no sharpening, exposure adjustment etc ... the whole lot turned off so that the information that the scanner collects is very basic. It produces an 80 to 100 megabyte tif negative that looks pretty strange on the screen but you can do a hell of a lot with the file once you flip it back to a positive image. I've only just started doing this recently and I'm encouraged by the results. Scans of black and white negs done this way seem to look a lot better in the grainy areas to my eyes.

 

[maddoc]

I had the Coolscan V ED and now use the Epson V700 (with glass inserts). The Coolscan V ED gives marginally better results if you tweak settings very carefully (focus and exposure), let it work in multipass mode (4x or 8x) and use the optional film holder FH-3 to keep the film flat. Disadvantage is that you have to manually insert every single frame, and scanning time per frame is roughly 10 times longer compared to the Epson (total time for scanning one frame with the Nikon V ED, 8x mulitipass, and finding optimal setings was ~ 20 minutes for one single frame ...). BTW, prints upscaled by a factor of ten (that is 36cm x 24cm) are of very good quality when scanned with the Epson V700. 🙂

Cheers,

Gabor

 

[zerobuttons]

Again, thanks to all for your answers, and thanks to the admin who moved the thread to what seems to be the right place here.

To maddoc: I have gotten the impression from others too that the FH-3 is imperative to use sometimes, so I do plan to get that with the Coolscan when it´s time for me to shell out some money on this equipment.
As far as I understand it was in the package when you bought the 4000ED, but it´s not when you buy the 5000ED. Am I right?

 

[nightfly]

Where do you get or how do you make glass inserts for the flatbed? Will they work with a 4990?