Scanner advice needed

[NZDavid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Until now I have resisted buying a scanner, chiefly because I haven't had time and it all seems too complex when I can have a pro lab do it for me and the cost is tax-deductible. Also, technology changes so fast. Now, though, it's worth considering.

 

From what I've read, flatbed scanners have become a lot better, so a dedicated film scanner is not the only choice.

 

These models are all available locally. Which do you believe is best in terms of 1) quality results, 2) ease of use?

 

Canon CS880F

Epson V500 or V700

Nikon LS50 (Coolscan V)

 

I'd be scanning mostly slides.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

David

[Guest Austerby]

I use a V700 and find it to be easy to get good results out of, and better ones with a little more care and attention are possible. I have no experience of the others. The v700 results are more than adequate for displaying on my computer monitor and printing on A4 photo paper but I'm not seeking the full-strength ultra-quality results than some are. I still use my wet darkroom for those, or get them commercially printed.

[stunsworth]

Hi David, the only one of the scanners you mention that I've used is the Nikon, and it really has been excellent. I do also have a flatbed for scanning MF negatives, but not the Epson you mention, so I can't really comment on that.

 

If I were buying a scanner again in order to scan 35mm film I'd buy another Nikon without a second thought.

[Arbo68]

Hi,

I´ve been using Epson flatbed film-scanners - mostly for 6x6, but also for 35mm scans - as well as my Coolscan V for 35mm. Rating depends on what you want to achieve with digital pics: I love to do excessive postprocessing only with a few pics, but than I need 100% quality as a basis. So I go for the Coolscan using 14bit and NEF(RAW) format.

Just for archiving, small printouts or viewing on a TV flatpanel, the Epson works fine...

Cheers, Arndt

[Michael Hiles]

I have a Canon 8400F - a predecessor to the Canon you mention. It works very well, and I am very pleased with the results. Their software is quite good - I tried Vuescan and I cannot tell the difference. I can recommend the unit highly You do not hear much about Canon's units, and many here curl their lips at all but dedicated film scanners. Nevertheless, I am very satisfied.

[Guest jimmy pro]

If you want the best sharpness and d-max out of 35mm scans, forget about bedscanners. Any 3600 or up filmscanner will outscan any bedscanner. If money's an object get a used Nikon, Minolta, Canon (film not bed), Polaroid. Watch out for the socalled 7200dpi filmscanners there selling nowadays. They have a low d-max so your sacrificing tonal range for resolution you don't really even need.

[NZDavid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for all the advice - a vote for each, just about. Tricky!

The new Epson V500 has 6,400dpi and a DMax of 3.4. How does that stack up?

More here: Epson Perfection V500 Photo

The Nikon certainly has a good reputation; not so many people seem to use Canon.

Any more comments welcome, but I'm not in a rush.

[dpattinson]

Given the way the USD is going vs the NZD, I suggest you take a look at what BHphoto have available before you choose. I know that the Coolscan 9000 for example is approximately half the price compared to the UK.

 

David.

[Guest jimmy pro]

Thanks for all the advice - a vote for each, just about. Tricky!

The new Epson V500 has 6,400dpi and a DMax of 3.4. How does that stack up?

 

I've yet to see any bedscanner that when tested lived up to it's dpi claims, and I expect the d-max is prolly overrated to. I'd be shocked if the V500 could get past 3200dpi and 3.0 d-max. All the 4000dpi filmscanners I mentioned (Nikon V, Canon 4000us and Minolta 5400, both those sadly discontinued) run pretty true to there dpi ratings, and dmax which are all >4.

[leicar888]

I recently replaced my old Epson 4180 scanner with their recently released V500 scanner. I have scanned my Leica slides and film and my Leica darkroom prints satisfactorily with it and I am very happy, even though it is a flatbed scanner. My Flickr site's first page shows a few scans from prints of our cat that reveal the V500's wonderful quality. The link is here:

 

Flickr: leicar8's Photostream

[Guest jimmy pro]

My Flickr site's first page shows a few scans from prints of our cat that reveal the V500's wonderful quality.

 

Leica should give away a free kitten with every camera

 

Bedscanners are fine for the web.

[andybarton]

Scanning a print is obviously different from scanning a slide/negative

[fotohuis]

I do not think you will regret a V500 Epson scanner.

 

For internet and monitor it's a perfect solution. The gap between the new generation flat bed scanners and a film scanner is not very big anymore. The V500 has also ICE and the Epson software is not bad at all.

 

Here an example of a Provia 100F scan on the V500:

 

 

About resolution, for most flat bed scanners you can divide it by a factor 2 what it really is. But almost all flat bed scanners are producing over 4000 dpi only more data, not more detail or resolution.

 

But a 3200 dpi scan from a 35mm negative is already a huge file and very detailed. For medium format 2000 dpi is enough.

For prints till A4 I do not think you will have any problem however I prefer always a wet darkroom print from a negative. For slow speed films like (Rollei) Pan 25 (almost 200ln/mm) you can go to 40x50cm (from 35mm). Simmular films like Pan F, Efke 25, Tech Pan films, the same if you have the right lenses, material and film-developer combination.

 

If you are planning to make regular bigger prints from a scan maybe the (dedicated) film scanner will give you more satisfaction. The price difference of a film scanner (certainly in medium format) and a new generation flat bed scanner is huge. Here in the Netherlands the V500 is about Eur. 225,00 and a 9000ED just above Eur. 2500,00 and I am sure that you can make with the last one an equivalent quality print on 40x50cm with the right knowledge and materials via the hybride way then a wet photo print. But you're loosing original characteristics of the film material when digitizing.

[roguewave]

I second this comment. I scan my B&W negs as color transparencies and get incredible detail. I have used the Nikon coolscan & it is good, but not better. Each has it own strengths. The Nikon is faster. I find I have much more control and options with my V700. The density of data is there. It's what you do with it that counts. BTW, get Vuescan, It's much better that the naitive software, Results show this.

[NZDavid]

Some very useful info. dpattison, yes the NZD makes B&H possible. There are a few other models I haven't heard of, too, such as Pacific Image. Jimmypro, I'd be inclined along the Nikon film scanner path but some of the others got me thinking. Nice kitty pics, Leicar888, and also nice garden. And nice mushroom, Fotohuis. Screen pics give me some indication, though they always print differently.

 

Specs alone may be unreliable, so people's experience really does help. Is there a minimum dpi or Dmax figure or anything else I should be looking at? How about build quality? Slide holders? So much stuff seems flimsy or plasticky these days, such as printers.

 

I like the idea of scanning B&W negs. Just how different are the results compared with scanning color and then desaturating in an imaging program to turn them into B&W?

[fotohuis]

Custom film holders for Agfa, Microtek and Epson film scanners. for better holders although the holders for the V500 are not too bad....

[Guest jimmy pro]

I'd be inclined along the Nikon film scanner path but some of the others got me thinking.

 

I wouldn't call what they got you to do as thinking, if your considering a bedscanner over a filmscanner. For medium and specially large format, the latest and gratest bedscanners are ok, in fact unless your printing really big, no need to waste money on a Nikon LS9000. But for 35mm, get a filmscanner. There's nothing to think about if you want the best results for the time your gonna spend. Nothing your gonna do with a desktop scanner of any kind is gonna be as good as 8MP APS-C (and up) digital without a lot of skilled imput, but any p&s POS can beat 35mm on any bedscanner.

Is there a minimum dpi or Dmax figure or anything else I should be looking at?

 

for 35mm, in a filmscanner (not even worth talking about bedscanners) 3600dpi and 4.0 d-max. Unlike bedscanners which the manufacturers seem to be selling to ignoramuses (why else would they think nobody will find out there specs are grossly excaggerated) the filmscanners run very true to there published specs.

 

How about build quality? Slide holders? So much stuff seems flimsy or plasticky these days, such as printers.

 

It's a good point. Most likely in a few years there won't be many (or maybe even none) of the filmscanners left. The film holders are plastic and pretty cheap, so maybe buy a coupld spares. Treat them carefully as you would anything made like crap and likely to brake with force, and they'll prolly last a long time. The scanners have motors and bulbs inside them, which at some point may give out, and you'll have to hope they can be replaced. Also, there's the long-term issue of compatibility. The Polaroid and Canon 4000dpi scanners (discontinued not that long ago) are USB-1 and/or SCSI, and they were made in the days of Windows 98, so whether drivers for future OS's will be made by 3rd party hackers in the future is anybody's guess. I know from people that they both work in XP but not sure about Vista (actually, I'm not sure anything in Vista works right). Not sure about MAC's but generally those have less compatibility issues.

 

I like the idea of scanning B&W negs. Just how different are the results compared with scanning color and then desaturating in an imaging program to turn them into B&W?

 

Scanning B&W negs is a little more complicated. First of all, none of the scanner IR dust/scratch removal software works on silver-halide B&W negs, so you have to be anal with an antistatic brush, and even then you'll end up very good buddies with the clone tool in CS3. I also know people who set there scan software as if it were color slide film and then invert in CS3. They say it gives better results.

 

Jim Provenzano

[Jamie Roberts]

Interesting Jim. I completely agree. I have an Epson 750 Photo flatbed (which allows for wet mounting of negs) and my Nikon 5000 kicks it all over the place for 35mm film.

 

The light source inside isn't ideal for BW, but I've been pleasantly surprised scanning Agfa BW on it. Even though it's not supposed to work, the results are better than the lab scans by a long shot.

[NZDavid]

That's very helpful, Jim, thanks. The pros at the newspaper where I work (as a journo not photog) have both an older Nikon scanner and a new Epson V700 (but that could be for scanning prints, I must ask). Certainly Nikon gear seems to be rugged. I don't think either gets a helluva lot of use as they all use Canon digital. (Interestingly, I think there would be a few Leica M8 converts, especially for specialty uses, but perhaps Leica has given up on marketing to papers and magazines these days...)

 

At home I'm using a new Mac Mini running OSX.5.3 Leopard. Compatibility should be fine.

 

Thanks again to all. Like I say, I'm not in a rush, but will post findings later on.

 

David

 

David Killick, Freelance Journalist and Photographer, New Zealand

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jamie Roberts]

David, a very pleasant surprise between the older Nikon scanners (like 4000ED) and the newer 5000 and 9000 is just how much faster they are--they're at least double the speed and for less than print quality (for proofing) many times faster.