Which scanner?

[peripatetic]

Please excuse the duplicate thread, but the reason I am doing the scanning is because of my new ZI.

I have posted this in the Scanner section too, so no need to comment in both. Or indeed in either. 😛

OK, so I have read all the threads I can on the subject.

My choice is narrowed to the Epson V750 or the Nikon Coolscan V ED.

Input Format - mostly 35mm. (But who knows what the future holds.)
Output Format - mostly A4/8x12 but good A3/12x18 desired.

I think I will probably want the Silverfast AI software with the Coolscan, and it is included with the Epson. So the relative costs come out to a very similar amount...
Epson V750 (£500) + Silverfast AI upgrade (£75) = £575
Coolscan V ED (£425) + Silverfast AI 8 (£150) = £575

Epson 16bit v Coolscan 14bit.
Epson multi-format v Coolscan 35mm only.

There is probably a small resolution advantage to the Nikon, but will I notice it at A3 print size?

I have somewhat limited desktop space so the Nikon is a little nicer from that perspective.

I am worried about the Nikon drivers for Intel Macs, as I am finding it difficult to get any definitive answer as to whether they will work or not. Obviously if they don't work then it has to be the Epson.

On balance it looks like the Epson is probably the safer bet even though it might have slightly lower resolution, it has the added flexibility of allowing MF scans if I do get hold of some MF gear in future.

I also expect that this line of Nikon scanners may well be the last we see, whereas Epson will probably keep theirs going for a while longer. This gives me some confidence about support for updates for future Mac OSX versions, etc.

So is the V750 up to the job of making good A3 prints from a 35mm negative? Or will they look sad next to A3 prints from a Coolscan V?

Your opinions appreciated.

 

[Rhoyle]

One of the issues with a flatbed, even a fairly high end flatbed is that they are not quite as sharp as a dedicated film scanner. It's not as much of an issue on MF, as there is less enlargement of the image. The Epson will be good but the Nikon will be better for 35mm.

 

[kram]

Could you include the new Microtek F1 in your choice -I want to hear peoples comments about it😀

 

[Papercut]

Peripatetic,

I cannot answer which scanner is right for you. But I just recently purchased a Nikon Coolscan V ED and find it is producing very nice files for me and I am using the Nikon scanning software (for now -- might give Vuescan a try here soon) on an Intel Mac (15" Macbook Pro) running OS X 10.5.2 (Leopard) with no problems whatsoever. I've scanned about 20 complete rolls already and have had no issues with the Nikon drivers at all.

Best,

Kevin

 

[Photon42]

if you're serious about 35mm scanning, take the Nikon. I've never tried Silverfast so far - I'm happy with Vuescan and the Coolscan V. Sometimes a miss MF capabilities, though.

If you only scan for the web and want a versatile scanner in an acceptable price range for larger formats, get the Epson or wait for more in-depth reviews on the F1.

 

[pesphoto]

In my opinion having used one, a Nikon coolscan is the way to go.
I happen to be selling mine right now, it's in great shape and has all the software.
Just 6 hours to go.
Here is the sale

 

[spiderfrank]

mmh... I'm having some problem with my Epson 3170, so I'd vote for Nikon, but it's a shame to close the door to 6x6... My two cents is: go to a cheaper flatbed but able to do 6x6 (I'm thinking to buy a Canon 8800F), use the scanner for the net, and buy a slide projector to enjoy your images at the best level... And in the future, give a chance also to MF !!

 

[Kevin]

And what about the Nikon 8000 and 9000 series? They cost more but can do both formats. On the other hand a Coolscan 5000 ED can bulk scan 40-frame negative strips, which saves you hundreds of hours over the long run. What is your opportunity cost? When you know that you'll make the right decision for sure.

 

[peripatetic]

The 8000/9000 are out of my price range at the moment.

I could afford the 5000, but my current "workflow" is to get the pics scanned at the lab at the time they are developed. That gives me plenty good enough quality for the web, but not for prints. So I'm looking for something where I can go back and spend some time with selected negatives getting the best out of them for A4/A3 prints.

 

[Papercut]

periopatetic,

That's the same workflow I'm using -- the bulk scanning of the higher end Nikons would be nice, but in the end, I'm using the V ED to do higher quality scans of just selective frames, so I felt I could save the price difference. But, I don't have any aspirations (right now anyway!) of doing MF -- although I lust after some of the RF folders ... *must resist* *must resist*

good luck in making your decision!

-- Kevin

The 8000/9000 are out of my price range at the moment.

I could afford the 5000, but my current "workflow" is to get the pics scanned at the lab at the time they are developed. That gives me plenty good enough quality for the web, but not for prints. So I'm looking for something where I can go back and spend some time with selected negatives getting the best out of them for A4/A3 prints.

 

[tedwin]

I've had both..

I've had both..

..the V700 cannot be accurately focused, is huge, and my one left visible scan lines if you were not very clever with your sharpening. I replaced it with the coolscan (which ran fine on my intel imac) this was smaller, quicker and easier to use BUT made a horrible mess of traditional black and white negs (way too grainy)

I have sold both and have gone back to using my D300, a 60mm micro Nikkor and a light box, very very quick, excellent prints comfortably at 10" X 12" much better at handling the grain on traditional black and white negatives. It also has the benefit of working with my 6 x 6 and 6 x 4.5 negatives, plus it makes quick contact sheets too.

If I ever want to go bigger I can use a shop for the odd high res scan.

Ted.

 

[FanMan]

..the coolscan (which ran fine on my intel imac) this was smaller, quicker and easier to use BUT made a horrible mess of traditional black and white negs (way too grainy)

Ted.

good to know that