ReeRay
Well-known
Having recently acquired my first dedicated film scanner I was amazed at the quality increase over my Epson V700 flatbed.
I'm now using a Konica Minolta Dimage Multi Pro with the ScanHancer inserts and the detail rendition in both the highlights and shadows was a shock.
As good as the Epson is with MF it just doesn't cut it with 35mm.
I wonder what other members use and how you feel about your scanner?
Leica SL - 50mm - Velvia converted to B+W
Not the most artistic of images but the detail described above is obvious.
I'm now using a Konica Minolta Dimage Multi Pro with the ScanHancer inserts and the detail rendition in both the highlights and shadows was a shock.
As good as the Epson is with MF it just doesn't cut it with 35mm.
I wonder what other members use and how you feel about your scanner?
Leica SL - 50mm - Velvia converted to B+W
Not the most artistic of images but the detail described above is obvious.
Attachments
Svitantti
Well-known
Scan Dual IV and Epson V700. I like the speed of Minolta, even though I guess V700 is not that far in quality, if you have luck with the film holders and do a good sharpening. At least for some slide film phpto I tested... There could be more difference when comparing negs.
I found a comparison somewhere here(?) from a Coolscan V with a blank paper attached in front of the light source and the quality looked just like what I get from my Minolta. Before that I thought the Nikons were just much better, but I guess the different light source just makes it look so. So I'm happy with my cheap alternative (for 35mm).
I found a comparison somewhere here(?) from a Coolscan V with a blank paper attached in front of the light source and the quality looked just like what I get from my Minolta. Before that I thought the Nikons were just much better, but I guess the different light source just makes it look so. So I'm happy with my cheap alternative (for 35mm).
dmr
Registered Abuser
KM SD IV. Excellent results with both negatives and slides. I've made some stunning 13x19 prints from scans on that.
brianbek
Member
I use the Nikon Coolscan 5000 - very satisfied. I does take its time though.
/Brian
/Brian
mfogiel
Veteran
Nikon CS 9000, after moving from Epson V750 I had to learn a bit how to scan B&W efficiently, but now the results are good, however for critical work, even the 35mm film has to be scanned in the glass holder.
maddoc
... likes film again.
V700 for 120 and Coolscan 4000ED for 135.
Chris101
summicronia
Microtek 800 for contact sheets and anything bigger than 35mm. Coolscan 5000 for 35mm.
Matus
Well-known
I send my negs off for scamning - the 35&120 are scanned with Coolscans 5000/9000 , the 4x5 with Imacon X5. No complains. The rather reasonable price makes it hard to justify a purchase of some disputably inferior flat bed scanner, though it would be much faster and great for previews and scans where not so much enlargement is needed.
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
Nikon Coolscan V for 35mm and Epson v500 for MF. Both work admirably.
Before the Nikon I used a Minolta Scan Dual II. That I worked to the death. Not a bad scanner but slower and much noisier than the Nikon.
Before the Nikon I used a Minolta Scan Dual II. That I worked to the death. Not a bad scanner but slower and much noisier than the Nikon.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I'm now using a Konica Minolta Dimage Multi Pro with the ScanHancer inserts and the detail rendition in both the highlights and shadows was a shock.
I have been using a Minolta Multi Pro to do MF and 35mm for about 5 years. I really like it. I used the Scanhancer for color but not for b&w.
Cron
Well-known
I#m happy with my Konica Minolta 5400 II for 35mm and a Canon 8800F for medium format films
Matt(1pt4)
Established
I've used a much loved KM Scan Dual IV for the last couple of years, only recently hacing switched to a Coolscan 9000. Both great machines, but the Coolscan has a slight edge in resolution and shadow detail. It also seems a bit finickier with VueScan than the KM was. Slower too, which is somewhat offset by being able to batch scan two strips of 35mm in the 9000.
ReeRay
Well-known
I have been using a Minolta Multi Pro to do MF and 35mm for about 5 years. I really like it. I used the Scanhancer for color but not for b&w.
I haven't got around to B+W yet. Is there a reason why you don't use the scanhancer for B+W? And may I ask which software you favor?
gdi
Veteran
I use a CS9000 and a Epson 4870 for 4x5.
cweg
Well-known
I use a Reflecta CrystalScan 7200 for 35 . It's handling is a little slow but the results are pretty ok.

mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Nikon 5000ED for 135 (with the SA-30 roll adapter); Canon 9950F for everything else.
...Mike
...Mike
rbsinto
Well-known
I have been using a minolta Dualscan II for the last couple of years, but just got a Dualscan IV on Sunday from a Phottobud, which I'll be hooking up in the next few days.
kiemchacsu
Well-known
I've just purchased a Plustek Opticfilm 7200 and quite happy with it. Take some time to get used to Silverfast SE scan program.
Darkhorse
pointed and shot
I use the V500. It's pretty good with medium format, I struggle with 35mm but I get OK results. I tried scanning some 35mm velvia 100 but couldn't get anything good. So I'm a bit wary of trying to velvia 50 in 120 I have.
Mudman
Well-known
I use the Epson V500 for 35mm and 120. I get great results from slide and b&w film, I have trouble with it and color negative.
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.