Recommendation on negative scanner

[Borna]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I managed to score for a quite good deal an Plustek 8200i SE. Coming from Epson V300, very cheap and considered a "crap" and plastic flatbed scanner. Although happy with the results with the V300 but I thought that the grass is much greener at the other side, I kind of reflect if the upgrade was worth it? When I pixel peep on my 4k-monitor, then of course, major difference in sharpness and other details. But when looking at it, just at first glance and at a smaller picture, there is quite little difference? I think the result I managed to get from the V300 was quite good. 

Epson scans are @ 16-bit BW and the Plustek at 8-bit because of silverfast software limitations. The Epson offers much more grain than the plustek. I will have to scan further photos to compare deeper with the cheap V300. 

What is your opinions? 

Epson V300

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!

 

Plustek 8200i 

 

Epson V300

 

Plustek 8200i

 

 

[Borna]

Another interesting comparison with the cheap Epson V300 versus 8200i. I still think the V300 produces good scans. 

V300

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!

 

8200i

 

Details at 100%, here we can of course see that the 8200i excels in the structure and certain details. example, the sign on the right shoulder, V300 it is just a blurr while 8200i you can see some letters. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Huss]

The face is much sharper with the 300, even though it is grainier.  It also has much better shadow detail, and if you look at the buttons on the uniform, it looks like it did a better job there is far more apparent detail.

 

[Borna]

8 minutes ago, Huss said:

The face is much sharper with the 300, even though it is grainier.  It also has much better shadow detail, and if you look at the buttons on the uniform, it looks like it did a better job there is far more apparent detail.

 

Yep, when you mention it, I see it too. Also here in the details, I think that the pillows offer more texture and details, also the sofa in the V300 photograph. 

Funny... 

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!

[Borna]

In for example portraits, the 8200i was much sharper. Which I hope was to be expected. 

 

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!

[Nick--]

Is it the same software being used in both cases? I prefer the look of the 8200, there are more natural tones in the face. The v300 from a distance can look quite sharp, but actually it’s a lack on tonality (bit rate) that makes it appear a bit more contrasts and sharp, but the 8300 is definitely better

[Jimmyp82]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I currently use an epson v650 I think it is, for the cost I don't think you can go wrong. I have been very tempted to move over to a DSLR scanning setup, but I'm not sure if I would see much quality improvement? It would be faster mind you which is why its tempting.

[Greenhilltony]

1 hour ago, Jimmyp82 said:

I currently use an epson v650 I think it is, for the cost I don't think you can go wrong. I have been very tempted to move over to a DSLR scanning setup, but I'm not sure if I would see much quality improvement? It would be faster mind you which is why its tempting.

 If your DSLR is not very outdated and you have a nice macro lens already, DSLR scanning is worth a try. But if not, and you don’t enjoy taking photos with the DSLR system, I don’t think it is a good idea to invest more money on the DSLR system just for scanning. 

[Borna]

1 hour ago, Greenhilltony said:

 If your DSLR is not very outdated and you have a nice macro lens already, DSLR scanning is worth a try. But if not, and you don’t enjoy taking photos with the DSLR system, I don’t think it is a good idea to invest more money on the DSLR system just for scanning. 

I just feel that DSLR is such a space consuming thing, specially compared to an negative scanner such as plustek or nikon. One day I hope to meet someone locally that uses DSLR for scanning that lets me try out my negs to see the difference. 

[Huss]

12 hours ago, Jimmyp82 said:

I currently use an epson v650 I think it is, for the cost I don't think you can go wrong. I have been very tempted to move over to a DSLR scanning setup, but I'm not sure if I would see much quality improvement? It would be faster mind you which is why its tempting.

I've been 'scanning' which a digicam for years now, and it has been so much better than any pro lab outside using a drum scanner.

The upside is the 'scanner' can also be used as a camera!  Many people already have a digicamera that can be used.

Edited September 14, 2023 by Huss

[Huss]

9 hours ago, Borna said:

I just feel that DSLR is such a space consuming thing, specially compared to an negative scanner such as plustek or nikon. One day I hope to meet someone locally that uses DSLR for scanning that lets me try out my negs to see the difference. 

Space consuming?  it is a camera with lens and film holder.  I use the Nikon ES-2 film holder - there now is a copy on Amazon for 1/2 the price.

Take up as much space as a camera, lens, and film holder..

[logan2z]

On 9/14/2023 at 4:31 PM, Huss said:

I've been 'scanning' which a digicam for years now, and it has been so much better than any pro lab outside using a drum scanner.

The upside is the 'scanner' can also be used as a camera!  Many people already have a digicamera that can be used.

I've been thinking about improving my scanning setup.  I'm currently using an Epson V500 and the quality of 35mm scans is not great.  Good enough for proofing photos before wet printing or sharing images on social media etc., but I want to start making some zines/books and the scans aren't good enough.  Unfortunately, I don't own a digital camera so going the camera scanning route means investing in that and a macro lens.  If the results are that far superior then I may just go for it.  I likely won't use the digital camera for much else, though, so I'm reluctant to spend too much on it just as a dedicated scanner.  Been thinking about a Fuji X-series mirrorless (XT-5 perhaps, although a crop sensor isn't ideal), or the new Nikon Zf depending on what I hear when it is finally announced.  Any other full-frame digital cameras to consider as a dedicated film scanner that produce good results but won't completely break the bank?

[frame-it]

7 minutes ago, logan2z said:

Been thinking about a Fuji X-series mirrorless (XT-5 perhaps, although a crop sensor isn't ideal), or the new Nikon Zf depending on what I hear when it is finally announced.  Any other full-frame digital cameras to consider as a dedicated film scanner that produce good results but won't completely break the bank?

i wouldn't use an xtrans sensor to scan negatives with a macro lens

 

get a used Fuji GFX50 or GFX50R

i use a GFX50R with a Leica 90mm APO summicron-M + macro adapter M OR macro elmarit-R 60mm to scan 6x6, for 35mm i use my plustek

 

[Huss]

13 hours ago, logan2z said:

I've been thinking about improving my scanning setup.  I'm currently using an Epson V500 and the quality of 35mm scans is not great.  Good enough for proofing photos before wet printing or sharing images on social media etc., but I want to start making some zines/books and the scans aren't good enough.  Unfortunately, I don't own a digital camera so going the camera scanning route means investing in that and a macro lens.  If the results are that far superior then I may just go for it.  I likely won't use the digital camera for much else, though, so I'm reluctant to spend too much on it just as a dedicated scanner.  Been thinking about a Fuji X-series mirrorless (XT-5 perhaps, although a crop sensor isn't ideal), or the new Nikon Zf depending on what I hear when it is finally announced.  Any other full-frame digital cameras to consider as a dedicated film scanner that produce good results but won't completely break the bank?

I've used a Nikon D750, D850 and now Z7.  The only advantage of the 850 and 7 are more mpx, but the 750 has plenty.  The most important thing is to use a camera that auto focuses in Live View, as that allows it to focus on the film grain in a fraction of aa second.  A DSLR does not have accurate enough AF to use their normal AF, but the 750 (if I remember correctly) can focus in Live View using the rear screen, as does the 850.

I'd recommend getting a nice used D750 (which is a great camera anyway), a Nikon 60 2.8 AF-S macro lens, and the Nikon ES-2 (or the Amazon knock off) film holder kit.

Throw in an LED light pad from Amazon and you are set.  Don't get a crop sensor camera, the FF sensor matches the size of the 35mm frame so why mess w that?

Edited September 16, 2023 by Huss

[logan2z]

2 hours ago, Huss said:

Don't get a crop sensor camera, the FF sensor matches the size of the 35mm frame so why mess w that?

The only reason I was considering a Fuji X series camera was because I might end up using it as a bum around camera when going to the beach or other places I don't like taking my Leicas, and the form factor of the XT* cameras is more appealing to me than that of most larger DSLRs or mirrorless cameras.  But of course you're right and it makes more sense to use a FF camera to digitize 35mm film negatives. 

BTW, what are people doing to digitize their MF negatives with a FF camera?  Multiple images and stitching in Photoshop? 

[frame-it]

3 minutes ago, logan2z said:

what are people doing to digitize their MF negatives with a FF camera?  Multiple images and stitching in Photoshop? 

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/382031-scanning-film-plustek-8300-vs-sony-camera-valoi-easy35/?do=findComment&comment=4858012

[pop]

9 hours ago, Huss said:

the FF sensor matches the size of the 35mm frame so why mess w that?

That's utterly irrelevant. If your sensor has enough pixels to show the grain of your film, it's good enough. Some lenses perform better at scales less than 1:1, and using a lens designed for a full frame sensor has the additional advantage that you only use the central part of the image area where distortions are very small.

[250swb]

7 hours ago, logan2z said:

BTW, what are people doing to digitize their MF negatives with a FF camera?  Multiple images and stitching in Photoshop? 

If 24mp are about the right number for full frame 35mm you need a few more mp for MF because unless you are using a 6x9 camera there are wasted pixels due to the crop factor. So you'd have a blank area either side of a 6x6 for example. You would still make an excellent image (better than a film scanner) but you'll be using fewer pixels than in a 35mm exposure. I use a 47mp camera and use it to copy everything from 6x6 to 6x12 and pixel peeping there is no effective difference in grain sharpness between MF and 35mm. Multiple images and stitching would be way over the top. The only thing that changes from 35mm in a good setup is the height of the camera and a different negative holder.

Edited September 17, 2023 by 250swb

[logan2z]

2 hours ago, 250swb said:

I use a 47mp camera and use it to copy everything from 6x6 to 6x12 and pixel peeping there is no effective difference in grain sharpness between MF and 35mm. Multiple images and stitching would be way over the top. 

Thanks, good to know. Because I've heard that stitching can prove very frustrating to get right. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Huss]

11 hours ago, pop said:

That's utterly irrelevant. If your sensor has enough pixels to show the grain of your film, it's good enough. Some lenses perform better at scales less than 1:1, and using a lens designed for a full frame sensor has the additional advantage that you only use the central part of the image area where distortions are very small.

Then why are FF sensors made?  Why even bother make anything larger than micro sensors?  Using a FF to scan 35mm film allows for a true 1:1 reproduction.