Which Scanner

[menos I M6]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The professional photo lab, I used before developing TX400 by myself (which I still use for big prints) uses an Imacon flextight for scanning 35mm.

 

The scans blow everything, I have seen from consumer/ lesser scanners (including sample scans from Coolscan models) completely away.

 

The sharpness and detail even with smaller files (15 − 50MB Tiff) is astonishing.

It is impossible, to get this detail with a flatbed, be it my cheapo EPSON V300 or the highest scaled V750 with wet scanning equipment.

 

If somebody can shell out the money for a Imacon/ Hasselblad (running business or rich amateur), it is well worth, just for the moments of astonishment with big enlarged prints.

 

I don't see myself, to shell out more than 10.000,- for a scanner privately unfortunately :-(

[Leitzmac]

Considering an X1 Hasselblad myself - no prior scanner experience. What will I need to learn?

 

 

A second hand scanner should come with all the tutorial discs which will take some time to watch, absorb and put into practice and ultimately you'll work out your own workflow, set up your own profiles - either by tweaking settings from the included profiles or starting from scratch (I think just about every film made is available in the extended list).

 

However, it sounds to me as if you're considering buying new. If this is the case you are in luck as you will receive a one-to-one tutorial on delivery - at least you do in the UK by a guy called David Summerfield who was at Imacon before Hasselblad so he knows his stuff. For someone who's never scanned before this will make a big difference and get you on the road to good results much quicker. It helped me as although the interface was almost identical there were a few differences in capability.

 

The 3F (RAW) feature is great and if you've got the hard drive space, scanning 3F and storing both that and an adjusted TIFF is the way to go. The reason I say that is that the 3F retains all the data (as RAW files should!) but also that it can only be opened in Flexcolour (the Hasselblad software).

 

Being a photographer in the first place is a great help and carries with it a wealth of knowledge, I'm sure you'll suss it out without too much trouble and over time you'll simply refine things, learn about the idiosyncrasies of various emulsions when put through the scanner and get what you were looking for: great scans!

 

I almost forgot: When I bought my scanner Hasselblad were doing a promotion on Flextights which saved me a fair amount, it's worth looking into on the related area on their website or calling Hasselblad in your country.

 

Hope that helps.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Leitzmac]

I've got a couple of sample scans from the X1 sent to me by Hasselblad. Sadly they're copyright so I can't post them up - and to be fair they're just MASSIVE (and I really do mean that - I think one was 180mb!!) but they are very detailled.

 

It'd be very interesting to see a comparison between the X1 and 9000ED or similar though if anyone could do that? (probably unlikely I realise!)

 

The scans can be huge!

 

Obviously because of forum restrictions, common sense and broadband speeds no one is going to post an entire, full res 16 bit Flextight scan, that said I could post some crops if anyone would like? Someone with a 9000ED could then post theirs, unfortunately it would be a different picture but we could ensure greater objectivity by using the same film and format (perhaps even camera and lens) if that's at all possible.

 

Not ideal, but i'd be interested to see how they compare.

[ndjambrose]

.... i have reduced this a lot, but even at twice the size, it's still sharp.

 

Thanks for posting. I do question the sharpness though. I've peered at this quite hard and it seems to be very soft across the entire frame. I'm unable to identify the point of focus. Am I missing something (better eyes, perhaps )?

 

I think this is the interesting this about scanning. Unless someone has experience working with a wide range of scanners it's quite hard to reach objective conclusions. What one person asserts in all reasonableness as sharp tends to be based on comparative measures with their own scanner. But another person may find the exact same scan unacceptably soft if baselined against a different model.

 

FWIW, I used to have a flatbed 3780. I thought it was great. Then I tried a V750 and realised the 3780 was junk in comparison, and rescanned the core of my portfolio. Then later I upgraded to a 9000ED and everything I'd scanned with the V750 immediately looked substandard, and I was back to rescanning. The higher you go up the upgrade curve, the more you see the difference in quality.

 

An X5 owner may be laughing at my 9000ED scans. Who knows?

[carlosecpf]

I am considering a scanner as well and found really positive reviews online about the Minolta DiMAGE 5400 e 5400 ii. Those are hard to find, but seems to be at the same level or above of Coolscan 5000.

 

Scanner Review: Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 II

Shutterbug: Konica Minolta’s DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 II

 

I thought it was almost state of the art scan for consumer level, but found interesting and surprising it not being mentioned enough in this thread....

[taildraggin]

I went through the same questions and since Nikon stopped making the Coolscans, I've decided to 'punt' and use a cheap scanner to make something akin to a contact sheet.

 

I develop my own Tri-X and scan on the inexpensive Epson, sending Velvia out for processing/scanning (infrequent). Anything on TX that looks particularly good is printed the old fashioned way. The urge for digital immediacy is satisfied and the print process can be planned out better.

 

I bought an Epson V300 Photo for less than $100 (making it almost disposable) and will use this until the Next Path (Coolscan replacement) is cut. The negative/transparency is what matters.

 

The little Epson won't set the world afire, but it quickly throws scans like this (from its lowest, default setting with negatives), which are adequate for my personal use:

 

IIIf, 5cm Elmar 3.5

 

I find it a satisfying process to swish some chems, dry, snip, scan and review on a Sunday afternoon or evening.

 

-Charlie

Edited March 2, 2010 by taildraggin

[carlosecpf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After spending almost the whole weekend doing an intensive research on scanners, I gave up on buying and old dedicated film scanner like the Nikon Coolscan V or Minolta DiMAGE 5400 II. I considered buying one of them or the well known Epson 4990 on eBay, but gave up when I saw the prices going over $400... It's too much money to pay for a old scanner that does not have warranty and could go out of order any day...

So I started considering some current flat bed scanner: Epson v300, v500, v600, v700 and v750. After reading tons of reviews, I learned that both the v700 and v750 could perform close to or equally to a high quality dedicated film scanner like the ones I mentioned before from Minolta and Nikon. I did some research online and found that Epson is selling refurbished versions of both scanners with 1 year warranty (plus 2 or 3 years extended warranty plans) in their website at very affordable prices IMO. So I bought a v700, which seems to be a better value for my needs, for $415 plus shipping. It should arrive this week. A total saving of at least $150 in comparison to other retailers.

 

I am pretty happy not only because I bought a top scanner at a fair price, but also because I stopped doing this crazy research and I will get back to taking pictures this weekend!!

[Julian Thompson]

A second hand scanner should come with all the tutorial discs which will take some time to watch, absorb and put into practice and ultimately you'll work out your own workflow, set up your own profiles - either by tweaking settings from the included profiles or starting from scratch (I think just about every film made is available in the extended list).

 

However, it sounds to me as if you're considering buying new. If this is the case you are in luck as you will receive a one-to-one tutorial on delivery - at least you do in the UK by a guy called David Summerfield who was at Imacon before Hasselblad so he knows his stuff. For someone who's never scanned before this will make a big difference and get you on the road to good results much quicker. It helped me as although the interface was almost identical there were a few differences in capability.

 

The 3F (RAW) feature is great and if you've got the hard drive space, scanning 3F and storing both that and an adjusted TIFF is the way to go. The reason I say that is that the 3F retains all the data (as RAW files should!) but also that it can only be opened in Flexcolour (the Hasselblad software).

 

Being a photographer in the first place is a great help and carries with it a wealth of knowledge, I'm sure you'll suss it out without too much trouble and over time you'll simply refine things, learn about the idiosyncrasies of various emulsions when put through the scanner and get what you were looking for: great scans!

 

I almost forgot: When I bought my scanner Hasselblad were doing a promotion on Flextights which saved me a fair amount, it's worth looking into on the related area on their website or calling Hasselblad in your country.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Thanks very much indeed. Yes I have spoken with David and am considering a new one if I can get my head around the cost. Usage in a professional sense will be tiny - it's really just for my own fun and that makes it a big decision. Thanks for the heads up on the discount - it doesn't appear that they're going to be too keen to chop too much off one to be honest - maybe a few percentage points to 'close the deal' so to speak.

 

I will post up some crops, out of interest - great idea.

[redbaron]

This may sound stupid, but have you considered re-shooting your film shots with your digital M? I've not tried it, but someone must have.

[Michael Tyler]

It's a sad fact that film scanning is one of the few categories where yesterday's technology is as good or better than today's. Turn of the millennium I used a cheapish Canon film scanner, complete with SCSI connection via PCI to my homebuilt computer. Those scans are still high quality by today's standards. Today you can't buy a scanner of that quality under $1000. The flatbeds turn out soft garbage by comparison. If scanning weren't in such a sad state of affairs, I might not have switched to all-digital except for a few pleasure-rolls a year scanned by the lab.

[Julian Thompson]

Just had a look to post an example from the X1 but really every image is properly copyrighted and it's not the right thing to do so I won't.

 

Would love to see some examples of your scans though Leitzmac?

[carlosecpf]

Here are some websites I read thoroughly before buying the Epson v700. My decision drivers were:

- scan quality

- price

- manufacture warranty/support (I don't plan to buy other scanner in the mid term, unless a a breakthrough technology is released)

 

I was decided to buy a Minolta DiMAGE 5400 ii or Nikon Coolscan V ED but after seeing their high prices and realizing that prosumer level flatbeds like the v700 and v750 could deliver top quality scan that could rival the ones done by dedicated film scanners, I was sold. Not to mention they have a more affordable price point and come with manufacture's warranty,

 

From the countless reviews and forums I've read, three helped me a lot to decide:

 

Scanner Review: Epson Perfection V700

EPSON V750 review

Shutterbug: Epson’s Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner

 

You can skip to the "Conclusion" section of each one of them, just to have a sense of how good this scanner seems to be. Still, haven't received my v700 so I cannot share with you my own opinion/experience... Probably this weekend it will arrive and I will be able to do some scans. That's when the rubber meets the road.

[xrogers]

I do batch scanning at 1800dpi on the epson V700, and high quality scans on an old Flextight Precision III. Batch scans on the Epson are very fast---preview, some rotation and adjustment, press scan and come back a while later. It's really quite nice, and a great time saver.

 

The old Flextight is a fantastic, sharp, high-resolution scanner, but is slow and SCSI (mine has a firewire adapter and it works fine). I don't use it often, but am amazed at the quality every time I do. Not cheap, but a fraction the cost of an X1.

 

Until later,

 

Clyde

[carlosecpf]

Wow!! A Flextight!! I wish I could get one... it's way out of my price range, but the results must be superb indeed. I know they are in different leagues, hopefully the v700 will meet my amateur needs.

[JWW]

I used a Coolscan V for years and I was really pleased with it but of course it only does 35mm film. So I sold it last year and bought a used Flextight Precision II since it can do medium format. Works great but slow due to the SCSI interface but lots of dollars cheaper than a newer Imacon. One limitation to remember with the Flextight is the lack of ICE, which the Coolscan has, for scratches.

[pgk]

As I rarely now need to scan film it doesn't make sense for me to own a scanner. I got rid of my old Nikon 8000 some time ago. However I do need the odd transparency digitised to a quite high standard. The other day I put together a transparency 'copier' out of extension tubes, RRS components and an old Zeiss microscope stage and set up a flash unit as the illuminator. I have a 50/2.8 Photar which I used to copy several transparencies in two sections using a Canon 5D2. The resulting files were syncronised and adjusted up then stitched together. As a comparator I also copied a transparency that I had a good scan of (off the Coolscan 8000). The results were fine, slightly different from the scan most markedly in the highlights (I may be able to sort this out if I spend more time in PS). So just in case anyone has 'good' macro gear and isn't averse to setting up a slide copier, this may be a useful solution if you don't have loads of film to digitise. Paradoxically, the older, grainier shots (~30 years old) worked very well with grain quite well resolved!

[moberg]

There is a good rant on the lack of good scanners at a decent price here.

Figital Revolution

[cidereye]

There is a good rant on the lack of good scanners at a decent price here.

Figital Revolution

Stephen did indicate some while ago that there might be good news on a *new* scanner being made and it seemed that it might have been Kodak behind it. I've not yet listened to this podcast but the tone behind it seems to indicate that now may not happen ..... off to listen to it.

[SteveYork]

Plustek and Pacific Image (or a used Minolta or Nikon) or an Epson flatbed have the < $800 (US) market. There are options out there. Too bad Nikon stopped making the V and 5000. They were good. There must not have been enough demand.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[hlockwood]

Hi Stefan,

 

I can confirm that I have many years' experience with Imacon (now Hasselblad) Flextight scanners.

 

 

SNIP

 

Finally: I've been needing a scanner over the last year or two since digital has grown in prominence and clients expect a digital or digitised file and consequently I had a good look at my options. Ultimately my decision was based somewhat on the fact I had the prior experience, but also the fact the quality was good and I'd never heard a complaint from a recipient of the Flextight scans so I opted for Hasselblad X1 (essentially a marginally updated 848) which has been giving excellent results for the past couple of months. I suppose that's as good an endorsement as anyone can give because they aren't cheap!

 

Hope the above helps, if you have any further questions just shoot.

 

Just how much would an X1 go for these days?

 

Harry