Film scanner for 35mm (and maybe 6x6)

[erl]

What a tin of worms! Well, here's another wriggler. I don't believe flatbed scanners will ever do as good a job as dedicated film scanners. Flatbed should only be for reflection copying. If you want a flatbed scanner for other purposes than scanning film, buy one. They are cheap! Scanning of prints, which of course is hardcopy reflection work is a compromise. The print you scan is a third generation image, which loses quality at at each generation. Film is only 2nd generation. The subject being the original.

If you are thinking of medium format scanning as well as 35mm, the Nikon 9000/8000 is excellent. I don't know of any other scanner that does both, other than the Imacons, but I have no knowedge of them. The 9000/8000 easily batch scans 12 - 35mm frames in a batch. This can be a great time saver if you have lots to do. You only have to reload twice to scan/proof a whole roll of 36! Typically, I set my Nikon8000 running then retire to the darkroom and work away while the scanner does it's thing.

THe main difference between the Nikon IV & the 5000, I believe, is speed. The 5000 "eats" film it is so fast. You said you need to scan a lot of your old films. If they are B/W, Digital Ice or it's equivalents will not work on any scanner. That may influence your choice.

For bias clarification, I own two Nikon scanners (8000 & 5000) and a Canon flatbed. I use the Nikons for film and the Canon for documents.

[Bernd Banken]

Originally Posted by carstenw

Thanks for all the answer, and please keep them coming.

I intend to use the prints for prints, initially personal, with time hopefully also for sale. I want to use film and digital side-by-side, as well as digitise my old films.

Can anyone compare the Coolscan V and Coolscan 5000?

Btw, the scanner is NIB, I believe never used. The guy who owns it bought two when the model was discontinued. I see them going for $700 used on eBay, so the price is not that bad. Seen in that light, and given that the Coolscan 9000 costs about €2200 around here, the Minolta+Epson V750 is still a great deal, plus I get a flatbed scanner.

Carsten,

this link is helpful for Minolta users:

http://www.scanhancer.com/index.php?art=15&men=15

Bernd

[ron110n]

Minolta Scan Enhancer 5LE... yes the anti Newton glass for MF does help.

I use a Nikon FH-869G Glass Tray for my MF scans.

-Ron
________________
Caveman's Gallery

Neolithic Artistry

[J_Brittenson]

I've been using my DMR and Macro 60 for this recently. Works great for when I'm happy with a 10MP image, which is fine for many uses. The results are less grainy than from any scanner I've used, beats me why this is. I put an extra sheet of transparent white plexiglass on the light table, put the film on top, and flatten it with a 4x5 sheet of antinewton glass. Then place it in front of the camera, which is on a copy stand, set the lens to f/8, and click. For the next frame I simply look through the finder and shift the film. Much, much, MUCH, faster and less hassle than scanning.

[artur5]

The problem with copying directly with a digital camera is dust and/or scratches. Digital I.C.E. does a great job on removing those nasty things. Unless you have the slides/negatives spotlessly clean, you lose a lot of time cloning in Photoshop afterwards. I tried this and gave up after a while. My slides were mostly old stuff and difficult to clean before copying but, even with freshly developed film I don't know .. I think, all considered, using a scanner is faster.
( Of course with B/W silver based film digital I.C.E. won't work so, in this case, direct copy would be fine )

[ruiespanhol]

Originally Posted by earleygallery

What do you intend to do with the scanned images?

I have the Epson flatbed and whilst a dedicated 35mm scanner will no doubt provide slightly better results, the Epson isn't at all bad. I've printed 35mm scans up to A3. Of course for MF its excellent.

I have the same type of scanner from Epson(V350 Photo) and works fine.
They have automatic film loading system and works wery well.
It was not so much expensive and could be one good choice.

Best,

[lambonumber5]

It depends how much B&W you want to shoot.

I have the Mark 1 5400 scanner, and this is reportedly MUCH better than the Mark II for B&W photography. I don't recall what was changed between 1 & 2.

I use mine with my M6TTL & M7, and really like it - i shoot primarily B&W. It's not the quickest of scanners, but it suits me.

I develop my own film and scan the neg's for archive. I generally don't print bigger than 10*8

From searching around various forums, the general concensus of opinion that for the scanners in this price range - this is one of the best choices.

I haven't used the Nikon's but they get good reports for colour shots.
Without spending mega-bucks, this is a great scanner for my Leica & B&W.

Gary

[gdi]

Originally Posted by erl

What a tin of worms! Well, here's another wriggler. I don't believe flatbed scanners will ever do as good a job as dedicated film scanners. Flatbed should only be for reflection copying. If you want a flatbed scanner for other purposes than scanning film, buy one. They are cheap! Scanning of prints, which of course is hardcopy reflection work is a compromise. The print you scan is a third generation image, which loses quality at at each generation. Film is only 2nd generation. The subject being the original.

If you are thinking of medium format scanning as well as 35mm, the Nikon 9000/8000 is excellent. I don't know of any other scanner that does both, other than the Imacons, but I have no knowedge of them. The 9000/8000 easily batch scans 12 - 35mm frames in a batch. This can be a great time saver if you have lots to do. You only have to reload twice to scan/proof a whole roll of 36! Typically, I set my Nikon8000 running then retire to the darkroom and work away while the scanner does it's thing.

THe main difference between the Nikon IV & the 5000, I believe, is speed. The 5000 "eats" film it is so fast. You said you need to scan a lot of your old films. If they are B/W, Digital Ice or it's equivalents will not work on any scanner. That may influence your choice.

For bias clarification, I own two Nikon scanners (8000 & 5000) and a Canon flatbed. I use the Nikons for film and the Canon for documents.

Very good points.

Another thing to consider with the KM scanners is the servicing situation. If you look at the relevant Yahoo discussion groups (MultiPro), users have indicated that it has become Sony's practice to buy back broken scanners rather than fix them. If true, it is something to keep in mind for the longer term.

[harrisfoto]

As a follow up on using the DMR.
I have also been using the R8 & DMR to copy negatives.
I use an APO-Rodagon D 75mm enlarging lens, on a Leica R bellows.
(I had to make an adapter out of an thread to M adapter and an M to R adapter.
For exposure, I use a Bowens Illumitran Slide Copier (available on ebay for about $100 +)
It measure the exposure and uses a flash so it go very quick. The combination of bellows, lens, Illumitran and misc. hardware is less than or equal to a 60mm macro.
If you have a DMR the setup should come together for less than $500.

I have also found that for some reason it tends to reduce the grain effect.
Here are two portraits taken with an M3, 50mm 1.4, and then digitized with the R8 DMR

Stephen Harris Archive
Stephen Harris Archive

[dikdik]

Originally Posted by carstenw

I have read the other thread about the Nikon Coolscan IV, and was wondering about something similar. I have the opportunity to buy a Konica-Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 II, at around $1100, but could of course opt for the Nikon Coolscan V for much less, or the Coolscan 5000 for a touch more than the K-M. I want to use it for scanning all my old pictures, as well as continuing to use my M6 alongside my M8, and I would like to have a very good scanner for this.

Does anyone have experience with any of these and can help me compare my options a bit, for example Coolscan V vs. 5000, and so on.

Hello Carstenw,
according to your registration you are living in Berlin. So, I presume you will understand the German language. There are excellent informations in the web at:

filmscanner.info and scandig.de

Unfortunately, these websites are only in German language. They have performed almost scientific tests to the different scanners and get the results, only the Nikon scanners will produce the best results.This depends not only on the resolution of optics but also on the type of sensor and its capability of pixel distinction. They also offer professional scans for some Eurocents per slide.

To our experience the best quality in digital scanning of slides is the use of oldfashioned drumscanners; very complicated, very expensive, very time consuming but breathtaking results.

Have a nice weekend and
best regards
dikdik

[valtof]

Originally Posted by Peter D Lux 2

I bought the Epson V750 pro and I'm very pleased with it.
Here's my film/scan workflow...
- Have the films developed only.
- Batch-scan my rolls with the V750 PRO in a resolution good enough to judge the photo's.
- Don't worry too much about colour correction.
- Negatives I really like and want to print for customers, I just have scanned by a pro lab.

the difference between the V750 PRO and the Nikon scanners is, I think, not as interesting as the difference between Epson/Nikon and professional Imacon/Heidelberg scanners.

The money and time I save batch scanning my rolls of film on the V750 PRO, is well spent on the pro-lab scans when I really need the quality.

BTW the scanning quality of the V750PRO is quite good, and one roll of film doesn't take a whole lot of time.

Hi, Peter
Sounds like your experience with the V750 is exactly the way I want to go, that is batch scanning the rolls with good res and make the keepers scanned by a pro lab.
However, I didn't buy it yet, trying to make up my mind between a true 35mm scanner or a flatbed.
Could you tell me what max resolution the V750 can reach on a single 35mm frame (in pixels) ?
May be you could post a link to one of your photo at high res ?

Thanks
Cheers

[Olsen]

Carsten,

An alternative you should look at is simply not to buy a scanner. I have a Nikon Coolscan 8000 ED that I bought 2.hand. I see people here praising it into the sky. Could well be. I found the learing curve both steep and long and are really fed up. Now, in the digital age, it is like learing to send morse signals.

A scanner; what is this animal going to cost? How long time will it take to use it to perfection? Think twice. Could it be that a professional lab do the job both better and to the same cost? With limited spare time to spend on photography I have decided to not to put much more time into learning to scan. Wave good-buy to film technology. - Digital photography offers enough challenges.