Scanner for Medium Format

wakarimasen

wakarimasen

Well-known
Local time
6:02 PM
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
1,010
Hello Folks,

Having already got a Minolta Scan Dual II for 35mm, I am now looking for a scanner for medium format (6X4.5 and 6X6). I know the Epson 4490 is well thought of for this task, but have also seen (at half the price) the Epson 3200 and the CanoScan 9900f. Does anyone have any experience of using these?

Best regards,
RoyM
 
I use an Epson V500... a bit newer model than the 4990. It's become very affordable lately, I think I paid $350 for mine a few years ago and they're down to about $199 now.

One think I CANNOT recommend more is make sure you get one that betterscanning.com provided ANR glass plates for. The film holders that come with most scanners are crap at best, and if there's any curl to your film it will bow and you wont get a sharp scan, or worse it will bow and touch the glass above or below it and give nasty Newton rings. I have the glass inserts for both 35mm and 120... you can get away without them for 35mm but I think they're pretty much a necessity with 120 unless you want to flatten your negs in a book for a week before scanning :)
 
I'm using Canon 8800f for MF scans. It costs one third of the amount needed for Epson 700 and does its job very good. I too recommend betterscanning.com neg holder.
 
The V500 is approximately £200 ($320) in the UK and the 4490 goes for around £140 ($230). I called Epson this week and was told that they don't offer refurbished models - unfortunately! As I'm an occasional film user I wondered if a slighter older model - perhaps with the betterscanning holders - would be a more cost effective route...
Best regards,
RoyM
 
Disaster_Area said:
I use an Epson V500... a bit newer model than the 4990. It's become very affordable lately, I think I paid $350 for mine a few years ago and they're down to about $199 now.

One think I CANNOT recommend more is make sure you get one that betterscanning.com provided ANR glass plates for. The film holders that come with most scanners are crap at best, and if there's any curl to your film it will bow and you wont get a sharp scan, or worse it will bow and touch the glass above or below it and give nasty Newton rings. I have the glass inserts for both 35mm and 120... you can get away without them for 35mm but I think they're pretty much a necessity with 120 unless you want to flatten your negs in a book for a week before scanning :)
Click to expand...


Thanks for the recommendation about betterscanning.com. I have a V500 which I like, but flatting film has always been a challenge.
 
I recently got a 4490 off of Craigslist for $80, and the guy had been advertising it for a couple of days at that point already. So deals can be found.

+1 that the stock film holders are unbelievably crappy. I recommend you budget for better ones if you plan to do a lot of MF scanning. I've been getting away with makeshift solutions so far, but of course this makes scanning even more of a drag.
 
Just a word about the film holders, definitely plan on getting them. I have an older Epson 1640 that does a fantastic job up to 4x5 but is worthless for 120 because of the holders. It is almost impossible to align the film and keep it flat. Works great with 4x5 since the film lays flat.
 
I somewhat fault this cheerleading for the Epson V700 or 750, or the 500 which I think is an earlier predecessor.
I use negative film (Portra). I think slide film is generally a little too saturated for my taste - but slide film produces - on a good day
-somewhat acceptable results.
I think the flatbeds are crap for 120mm film,
grainy and getting the colors right is very difficult - always that hideous Orange. And I bought the hyped ANR glass carrier from
abetterprinting.

Again the best results are with slide, and it's still a compromise from what my lab produces with a Noritsu QSS model, which produces
a quick and dirty 10-17 megabyte Tiff file, that is much better than anything I ever got off the V700 I sold on Ebay.
Presently I am scanner-less, but thinking that I am going to have to bite the bullet and spend upwards of $2000 for a Nikon Coolscan 9000
to get an acceptable negative - think about a dedicated film scanner, but then its the software as well,Vuescan vs silverfast.

I think that when there is promotion for the flatbeds on the forums, bear in mind the majority of these recommendations are slide shooters.
 
I got an old Dimage Scan Multi (SCSI model) but still use my Epson 4490 for MF with glassless holder from Betterscanning because the Epson has ICE dust & scratch removal and the Dimage glass holder I have is not very nice.

Can't agree with mrisney above as I found flatbeds useless for slide but generally excellent with colour (or C41 B&W) neg!

Cheers, Robin
 
Last edited:




Both these are from my V500 w/Betterscanning glass holders. And they look just as sharp and stunning as a 20"X20" print and probably could go bigger. I really don't see the need to spend thousands on a really expensive scanner. Would I buy one if I could afford it... most definitely... but don't discount the cheap alternative if you can't afford the more expensive one.
 
mrisney said:
I somewhat fault this cheerleading for the Epson V700 or 750, or the 500 which I think is an earlier predecessor.
I use negative film (Portra). I think slide film is generally a little too saturated for my taste - but slide film produces - on a good day
-somewhat acceptable results.
I think the flatbeds are crap for 120mm film,
grainy and getting the colors right is very difficult - always that hideous Orange. And I bought the hyped ANR glass carrier from
abetterprinting.

Again the best results are with slide, and it's still a compromise from what my lab produces with a Noritsu QSS model, which produces
a quick and dirty 10-17 megabyte Tiff file, that is much better than anything I ever got off the V700 I sold on Ebay.
Presently I am scanner-less, but thinking that I am going to have to bite the bullet and spend upwards of $2000 for a Nikon Coolscan 9000
to get an acceptable negative - think about a dedicated film scanner, but then its the software as well,Vuescan vs silverfast.

I think that when there is promotion for the flatbeds on the forums, bear in mind the majority of these recommendations are slide shooters.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree with most of what you're saying :)

Firstly, if there's one thing most flatbeds are not good at it's slides. The density of a properly exposed slide (not overexposed) makes it hard for most flatbeds to get out enough shadow detail unless they have an adjustable light source (which most don't have).
As for the "hideous orange"...well that's actually not the scanner but the color profile of your software. Take a photo of a grey card to get the colors right. Not that hard to do. Also, I'm not sure why your scans come out grainy as that's usually not a problem with flatbeds. Sharpness usually is the biggest issue.

For what it's worth, I scan on a Nikon 9000 now but used to scan on an Epson 4990. Sure, the Nikon is much sharper but in hindsight the Epson scans weren't too bad, either. And yes, the labs Noritsu will beat any flatbed but it's also a lot more expensive. In fact, the Noritsu will probably also beat the Nikon.
 
What is the difference between the Epson V700 and V750 pro? I've read the specifications and cannot figure it out. Does the 750 have a different film holder? And if it does is it better than the betterscanning.com one?
 
Jamie123 said:
For what it's worth, I scan on a Nikon 9000 now but used to scan on an Epson 4990. Sure, the Nikon is much sharper but in hindsight the Epson scans weren't too bad, either. And yes, the labs Noritsu will beat any flatbed but it's also a lot more expensive. In fact, the Noritsu will probably also beat the Nikon.
Click to expand...

If you are so satisfied with the Epson flatbed, why bother with a Nikon Coolscan ? This admission - reaffirms my opinion.
 
mrisney said:
I somewhat fault this cheerleading for the Epson V700 or 750, or the 500 which I think is an earlier predecessor.
I use negative film (Portra). I think slide film is generally a little too saturated for my taste - but slide film produces - on a good day
-somewhat acceptable results.
I think the flatbeds are crap for 120mm film,
grainy and getting the colors right is very difficult - always that hideous Orange. And I bought the hyped ANR glass carrier from
abetterprinting.

Again the best results are with slide, and it's still a compromise from what my lab produces with a Noritsu QSS model, which produces
a quick and dirty 10-17 megabyte Tiff file, that is much better than anything I ever got off the V700 I sold on Ebay.
Presently I am scanner-less, but thinking that I am going to have to bite the bullet and spend upwards of $2000 for a Nikon Coolscan 9000
to get an acceptable negative - think about a dedicated film scanner, but then its the software as well,Vuescan vs silverfast.

I think that when there is promotion for the flatbeds on the forums, bear in mind the majority of these recommendations are slide shooters.
Click to expand...

Another disagreement. My experience doesn't match yours and I'm using an Epson 4990 with the stock holders (and Silverfast). I have a 30 x 20 print from a 35mm frame of NPS160 that is as sharp as I'll ever need it. I have absolutely no problems with 120. However, you may set the bar higher than me and I don't doubt that the Coolscan 9000 is probbaly a lot more capable. BTW I mostly shoot B&W film - I tend to use digital for colour.
 
mrisney said:
If you are so satisfied with the Epson flatbed, why bother with a Nikon Coolscan ? This admission - reaffirms my opinion.
Click to expand...

A fellow photographer offered it to me for $1k. It was too good an offer to pass. And what opinion does it reaffirm? That the Nikon is better than the Epson? Sure it is. Like I said, it's much sharper and the resolution is obviously better but "hideous orange" and grainyness was never a problem with the Epson.
 
One question, I seem to always get some dust or tiny threads in the scanned image (MF negative). Any recommendations on prepping the negative or scanner setting. I use Epson V500 and the included film holder. Thank you.
 
mrisney said:
If you are so satisfied with the Epson flatbed, why bother with a Nikon Coolscan ? This admission - reaffirms my opinion.
Click to expand...


Why do people buy BMW when a Civic will get you where you're going just as well? It's just a matter of what you can afford that gets the job done... it's a fact with almost everything we buy that there's a diminishing return on investment the more you spend on something... for every notch up the quality scale you go the amount you pay goes up and the amount it's better than the last step goes down. No one's arguing that the Nikon or Noritsu isn't better than a flatbed... we're just saying they're FAR from unusable. I don't think you can argue that the Nikon that's 6 times the price of my Epson gives 6 times better scans :) And there's no way you can say the two pics I posted above are unusable.
 
bwidjaja said:
One question, I seem to always get some dust or tiny threads in the scanned image (MF negative). Any recommendations on prepping the negative or scanner setting. I use Epson V500 and the included film holder. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Some amount of dust and threads is unavoidable... I use an air puffer to blow off any specks I can see... and I just got really good at cloning :)

If you're processing yourself, good water in your dev tanks is really important.. some of those flecks are crud in the water... and keeping your film drying area and scanning area dust free really helps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom