Jump to content

Plustek 120 scanner…has anyone used it yet?


james.liam

Recommended Posts

It's been available now for some time but I can't find much written. I have an Epson 750 and am wondering if the Pustek is worth considering.

 

I have trawled through many posts on the Plustek 120 because I also have an Epson. And in the comparisons between 35mm the Plustek clearly wins, and which is why I use a Plustek 7400 for my 35mm work. But for larger format I have yet to be convinced that the people comparing the Epson with the Plustek are using the Epson to its full capacity. A Betterscanning 120 holder with AN glass is almost essential to get the focus right, and it is never clear if the 'testers' have gone into this instead of just dismissing the Epson as junk. I don't have a problem getting sharp scans in 120 from my Epson, and I'm not saying the Plustek isn't sharper, but when reading 'reviews' it is worth considering the competence of the tester and if they truly understand what is required for the Epson to get it to work efficiently.

 

Steve

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a German dealer, who publishes his own evaluation of scanners. Difficult to judge, how objective these reviews are, but they might give some good indication, what to check more closely.

 

The (English) review of the Plustek 120 can be seen here.

 

I remember their main complaint was the slow scanning speed.

 

Stefan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, would it be fair to be critical of the Epson 750 because it needs the add on of the BetterScanning holder to function optimally?

 

Currently, I use a Nikon 8000 for MF work but am paranoid of its failing now that Nikon do not support it for spares. I have the Epson 750 but not the BetterScanning holder. On that basis, the Nikon wins hands down, in my hands. Just wondering about the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I had a series of negatives scanned by a company, who used a Nikon. I use a Quato, which is a Plustek in disguise. Whether it is, because the Nikon was handled by a pro or the difference in quality of the scanners, but my Quato results are OK, however, the Nikon results are much better.

 

For MF scanners, the future appears be even more difficult, from what I read neither the Plustek nor the Reflecta are a match for the Nikon and both have functional disadvantages. I hope one of the two is doing a redesig of their current offering.

 

Of course, one can find an oil well and get a Hasselblad/Imacon....

 

If it needs to be good, I pay my lab for a Noritsu scan.

 

Stefan

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, would it be fair to be critical of the Epson 750 because it needs the add on of the BetterScanning holder to function optimally?

 

The problem with the Epson is the crudity of the height adjustment, and Epson did themselves (or their customers) no favours. Most people will get something to be happy enough with by using the standard holder, but a little bit more movement up or down can make a big difference, especially when you take any curl in the film out of the equation (although with the ANR glass the negative can go the other way and sag). So a new adjustable holder is an easy fix, but compared to the price of the scanner it may seem disproportionately expensive. The holder for 4x5 on the other hand is fine (on mine), I've shimmed it up and down and the stock setting is the best.

 

The other thing the reviewers don't take into account is the light source. I had a Minolta Multi Pro MF scanner, equivalent to the Nikon 9000, and all I got was pin sharp grain with a photograph mixed in amongst it. Not at all like darkroom grain, which is softer because it is multi layered, and even with a condenser enlarger a much more diffused light source. The Minolta, the Nikon, and now the Plustek 120 all seem from the reviews to give this pin sharp grain, which I think is confusing people into thinking it is the best they can do for their image. Similar in the way people perceive it with the confusion over lens sharpness and lens contrast, where contrast is often mistaken for sharpness. So the Epson gives a much less contrasty scan, more like a cold cathode enlarger, and this means a higher level of adjustment is needed in comparison with say a Minolta or Nikon scanner. Just as you'd need a higher grade of paper using a cold cathode enlarger so the Epson scan needs 'turning up' to compensate, and I'm not sure the reviewers are even doing this. But when I re-scan an old 120 negative on the Epson and compare it with the scan from my Minolta I don't really see any difference once all the adjustments are made, except I think the Epson rendition of grain does look more natural.

 

 

Steve

Edited by 250swb
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, both Stephan and Steve. I have just got my Nikon 8000 back from servicing. Thankfully it is in good health at present. Maybe I will experiment with the shimming idea of yours Steve, on the Minolta. I would hate to have to put my Hasselblad kit out to pasture just because I can't scan the negs. Yes, I still a have a fully equipped darkroom, but age is creeping over me. Standing at a wet bench doesn't have the same draw that sitting at a computer has, much and all as I know it is not 'the same'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair to the Plustek120, some reviews seem to have misrepresented key aspects of the scanner and scanning process, and reading the RFF thread in its entirety, and looking at the posted images there, maybe gives a better overview of what's right and what's wrong with the scanner than commercially-influenced opinions.

One particular thing to bear in mind is that Vuescan now supports the 120, and has therefore solved a lot of problems people were having with the bundled Silverfast software.

 

While I wish that Plustek had included auto-focussing, it seems that the current production has more or less solved the initial problems, and in any case Plustek seem to have been very responsive in their customer service.

 

A lot of opinions are thrown about concerning 'rival' systems (I certainly don't recognize the characterization of the Nikon9000 scans given above, for instance) but if my 9000 breaks irrevocably then I'm extremely happy that Plustek have provided us all with the means to replace it.

I personally don't think we should bite this particular hand.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally don't think we should bite this particular hand.
I'm torn between getting one now, with the focussing glitches from the first production batch behind it, or waiting for an updated model, possibly with autofocus. But they deserve our custom, as you say.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite, they certainly deserve our custom, which will last the longer, the more mature the products are. I'm ready to compromise in some points, but I suspect most customers aren't...

 

This reminds me of the saying 'the best is the enemy of the good'. It strikes me that as soon as any new product is released there's always a chorus of protest that it isn't perfect in some way or other. As I said before, I wish Plustek had made a scanner that was better in some key ways (like autofocus) and maybe even charged more for it. But otoh I've seen some magnificent scans from the 120, and I'm really glad it exists.

 

IIRC I paid something like a total of 3000 dollars (including import taxes) for my Nikon9000 shipped new to Sweden just before they were discontinued. I see that Scandig in Germany is now selling the machine for over $8000 (€5999) - not including delivery.

 

The next stage up after that is the Imacon X1 at about $16,000 plus delivery from Adorama or $18,500 plus delivery from Scandig.

 

In these terms I feel that quite a few customers would be willing to 'compromise' on the Plustek scanner - especially as so many of the examples on flickr and elsewhere are bitingly sharp with wonderful color rendition.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that Scandig in Germany is now selling the machine for over $8000 (€5999) - not including delivery.

 

I saw this too the other day. It's obscene imo. For more appropriate prices on Coolscans one can check for instance Ffordes and (surprisingly, perhaps) Leicashop. Esp Ffordes usually has one or two of the Coolscans and tend to have the 5/8/9000 models quite regularly. They also send them for service, as necessary, before they're sold. And offer 6 month warranty on scanners, too.

 

As much as I am thrilled about the performance of my 9000, I'm also happy the Plustek 120 exists. If/when my scanner dies, I will see what options there are. I don't exclude that I'll go the SLR digitizing route. But it all depends on what's out there.

 

philip

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this too the other day. It's obscene imo. For more appropriate prices on Coolscans one can check for instance Ffordes and (surprisingly, perhaps) Leicashop. Esp Ffordes usually has one or two of the Coolscans and tend to have the 5/8/9000 models quite regularly. They also send them for service, as necessary, before they're sold. And offer 6 month warranty on scanners, too.

 

As much as I am thrilled about the performance of my 9000, I'm also happy the Plustek 120 exists. If/when my scanner dies, I will see what options there are. I don't exclude that I'll go the SLR digitizing route. But it all depends on what's out there.

 

philip

 

+1 for Ffordes - they are like the dark horse of photographic equipment: often when I've searched the online auction sites and all the dealers that usually jump to mind and been amazed at the price or scarcity of whatever I'm looking for, I'll suddenly remember Ffordes and find exactly what I need at a better price and condition than some unknown individual on the bay. And great after-sales service too. But that's another discussion.

 

I saw that Pentax are soon releasing a film duplicating kit for use with DSLRs - somehow it has in-built illumination and some other refinements that may be interesting in the future. Otherwise as I mentioned above, looking at some of the actual results from the Plustek 120 can be more instructive than reading negative posts from people who've probably never used it.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Mine has arrived!

Well, nothing is plain sailing in the world of electronics nowadays. The first Plustek 120 I received had a sensor issue but it was quickly replaced by Plustek. SRS Microsystems from whom I purchased it, and a number of Plustek representatives, have been superbly supportive during this episode.

The second scanner seems to work perfectly, except that, at present, the film holder catches on the door requiring me to hold open the door during scanning to prevent the film holder coming off the transport system. Perhaps I should see about having it replaced too, especially considering the money, but I don't like to make a fuss, and I don't want to risk getting a worse example. Maybe the door will loosen up a bit.

The quality of the scans has been excellent for both 35mm and 120mm using Vuescan. I've only been scanning on the lowest scanning resolution as I'm limited for spare disc space on my laptop at present :o

I can't really post examples here as I haven't scanned any Leica shots. Here are a couple with the Fujifilm GF670:

scan0019c | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

scan0014PP | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

I sold both my M9s and couldn't be happier, now using the cameras and medium I enjoy using. Life seems so much simpler since I went back to film.

Pete

Edited by Stealth3kpl
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Just an indication of the quality of the scans. It's not scientific as I wouldn't know where to start with a scientific scanner test. I hope the mods will allow these pics; they're from a Pentax 67 6x7 negative. It is TriX @400 developed in D76 1:1 @20C for 12.5 minutes. The scan is on the scanner's lowest resolution with Vuescan, and is unsharpenend. It's a raw scan that has been converted in ColorPerfect. Although there was no clipping indicated in ColorPerfect, there is perhaps a little. The crop is approximately 100% and unsharpened. You can make out the paddle pole. I would recommend this scanner.

Pete

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...