what scanner to get

T

tlitody

Well-known
Local time
3:12 AM
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
1,768
I'm looking a new dedicated film scanner. Primarily for 135 film. Which is the best of the current crop or do I need to get a Nikon 9000 ED or s/h 5000 ED..
 
typo

typo

-If you plan to scan *only* 135 then the 5000ED is a great choice (if you can find one).

-Nikon 9000 is a big fellow and allows you to scan everything from 135 to 6x9 size. The downside is that it costs a lot and you need to add some costly extra options, at least a glass carrier. If you have the budget this is the one you'll ever need (except LF).
 
Last edited:
im using Minolta Dimage 5400. really good to use. it works with VueScan but i find the native software more intuitive to use.
 
Among those still in production and therefore offering warranty support and repair, the Nikon units get very high marks.

I also read the initial review of the Epson V750 in Shutterbug, which said that the results using the wet mount were very close -- possibly identical -- to a dedicated film scanner.

My own feeling is that the dedicated film scanner will give your best results.

If you're scanning for Web output, I think that the flatbeds give very good results.
 
make sure you never want to try other formats .....

make sure you never want to try other formats .....

Says the man who has owned 3 different Epson scanners ...

I ended up with a V700, probably would have saved $200 if I just started there.

:bang: why did that 4X5 bug bite me?

Dave
 
Is the adapter which allows auto scanning a whole roll of 35mm film, in the 5000 ED, any good or do you get better results scanning a 6 neg strip at a time.
Is there a glass carrier for the 5000 ED?
 
I've never used the whole roll adapter myself. It's kind of expensive. Btw. there's a hack to circumvent the adapter. Forum member "Mabelsound" knows the trick (I couldn't find the thread where he presented it).

I scan 3 to 6 neg strips so that I scan first a quick preview and choose those frames that I scan properly (4000dpi), those that I give just a "quick and dirty" scan (2000dpi) and those that I don't scan at all.

There's another quite handy adapter FH-3 which lets you scan neg strips (1 to 6 negs) one frame at the time. It doesn't cost very much. I use it a lot.
 
The Plustek 7600 has a real (measured) resolution of 3250dpi, less than half its rated resolution of 7200dpi. Which is also just shy of the Plustek 7500 at 3500dpi. Not bad really, twice what any cosumer flatbed is able of. I don't know what the real life resolution of the Nikon is, but would be surprised if it exceeded 90% of the rated figure.
 
Ezzie said:
The Plustek 7600 has a real (measured) resolution of 3250dpi, less than half its rated resolution of 7200dpi. Which is also just shy of the Plustek 7500 at 3500dpi. Not bad really, twice what any cosumer flatbed is able of. I don't know what the real life resolution of the Nikon is, but would be surprised if it exceeded 90% of the rated figure.
Click to expand...

I think the cheaper scanners double up the sensor lines so instead of having 3 lines with one each for R, G and B, They have 6 lines with 2 each of R, G and B.
The second set of lines are offset by half a sensor so they overlap. The result is they claim twice the resolution but infact all you really get is a bigger file with no extra detail. Hence half the claimed resolution. Flatbeds do the same.

Just read the Nikon spec. It has one line of 3964 pixel sensors and uses R, G and B LED's to illuminate. So I guess it does three exposures and combines them. The good thing is that because there is only one line it should give sharper scans than multi line sensors as there is no angle offset. I think.

The Coolscan V has one line. The 500ED has two lines and the 9000 has 3 lines. Go figure:confused:
 
Last edited:
tlitody said:
I think the cheaper scanners double up the sensor lines so instead of having 3 lines with one each for R, G and B, They have 6 lines with 2 each of R, G and B.
The second set of lines are offset by half a sensor so they overlap. The result is they claim twice the resolution but infact all you really get is a bigger file with no extra detail. Hence half the claimed resolution. Flatbeds do the same.
I don't think the Nikon does that but not sure. Reading the sensor spec should tell you how many lines it has. If its only 3 then its true native res should be 4000.
Click to expand...

If you plan to reproduce image from a scanned file, more the merrier. I seldom scan more than 2400dpi in tiff, after photoshop and scale down for web/album, I can't see the difference. Otherwise I will have the image blow up using the pro-labs.
 
The Nikons are really the only choice left for a reasonable desktop scanner, scanning on even the best Epson flatbed is a far-second.
 
tlitody said:
I guess its a new plustek or a used nikon unless there is something else worth looking at.
Click to expand...

Ok I'll admit I don't have much experience with dedicated film scanners but based on using a plustek 7500 for 6 months and then a Minolta Scan Dual IV for about a month now I'll take a used Minolta hands down over a new Plustek any and everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom