dedicated film scanner

Hello forum members:

I am getting serious about MF photography. Enjoying it more and more:) Right

now I am scanning my negs with a Canon 8400 flatbed and using Vuescan program.

Quality is okay after USM and other adjustments in PS for a A4 print size. I

am also following the scanner related postings for last six months or so and

decided to try a dedicated film scanner (despite tons of good remarks about

Epson 4990, V700 etc). I want to see what difference does it make first hand.

Period.

I was searching for a comparison between Minolta scan multi pro and Nikon

8000/9000 and got some info. I am kind of inclined towards Minolta. I

understand that it is discontinued and I may not get tech support. However

when I am froogling (wow, I just coined a new word!!), I see few vendors

(Royal camera, Servie One computers)are advertising new equipment.

So I have two questions. First and more important one is whether forum members

can enlighten me about the pros and cons of both Minolta and Nikon models. I

know the specs of both and have seen enough pictures from both. Thats the

reason I have decided to buy a film scanner. So if you just tell me that you

have one particular model and you are so happy with it, the chances are I

already know about it. It would be really helpful to get a comparison (sort

of) and I guess Photo net is the only place where I can get it. Question two

is whether I should trust these vendors and purchase the scanner from one of

them. I will definitely call these guys and check it out myself.

BTW, I will have to declare bankrupcy if the majority of the forum members

press for Imacon :))

Subho

Royal Camera: http://www.resellerratings.com/reseller_list.pl?keyword_search=Royal RUN!

 

I couldn't find anything on Service One Computer, but i wouldn't rust any vendor advertising a new Minolta scanner - they are not being made anymore and that for quite some time. If you are on a budget, then get the Minolta scanner and buy it used, if you can afford it, get the Nikon 9000 - it is better and you can get suppport.

I can only comment on what I have, which is the Nikon 9000.

I find it to be an excellent scanner for MF. I would think it could rival many drum scanners.

I went through this a few months ago. Basically, forget the flatbeds - they basically defeat any rationale for using medium format. As for Minolta vs. Nikon, you really should not be blowing a couple thousand on a scanner that was discontinued a long while ago. The Nikon 9000 is the only game in town unless you want to spend a lot more.

 

By the way, I just spent $300 on a drum scan because someone wants to buy a 40-inch print of one of my photos, and I'll tell you that, compared to the Nikon, there is very little difference. And this was a scan done by an acknowledged world-leader with state-of-the-art gear. The drum scan has noticably more dynamic range, and a tiny bit less noise, but it is not one bit sharper. The difference is visible, but it is so subtle that I will not be getting any more drum scans.

Beau (or anyone else with the facts):

 

Let's say your $300 is the right sort of price for a drum scan, done by skilled folk. What would be the going price for a Nikon 9000 scan of the same negative/slide, by folks who are equally competent?

 

Put differently: How many first-rate Nikon 9000 hired scans does it take to buy a Nikon 9000? (That ignores, of course, that having paid for it, you still need to develop the right skills!)

I recently bought a used Multi Pro from someone I know, and am happy with it. I got the Scanhancer unit and like it. I am just beginning to get into scanning medium format seriously and have never used a Nikon 9000 so I can't comment further than the above. The lack of service support is somewhat troubling, but I hope that I can get a good period of use out of the scanner before it needs servicing, if at all (fingers crossed). I use VueScan and my first beginner scans from negative film were pretty close to perfect without my doing anything special.

I own a Nikon 9000 and am very happy with it. The scanner can actually produce a slightly wider color space than the Adobe RGB space. After I scan a slide and apply the scanner device profile, I have to compress the histogram a bit to the right (brightening the shadow a little bit) before I can convert the color space to Adobe RGB. If I don't do that, the resulting histogram will show clipping on the left hand side.

 

One other thing to watch out for is you have to get the optional (and expensive) medium format film glass holder for the scanner. The default holder does a lousy job with keeping the film flat. With the glass holder, I get Newton Ring 5% of the time, requiring me to rescan and reposition the film to eliminate the Newton Ring problem.

Hmmm, I don't think "froogling" is that new:

 

http://froogle.google.com/frghp?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wf&q=

 

:)

I just bought a used Nikon 8000 scanner to scan 6X4.5 negatives and slides and results are

very close to professional drum scan, which I used to get at a reputed studio. I don't know

how much is the quality difference between Nikon 8000 and 9000, but I could tell you that I

purchased 8000 for half the price of 9000. I bought it from someone I know and I knew that

scanner was hardly used. If you look around, you may find a good deal. Before I purcahsed

the scanner, I have tried flatbeds at our local university, which were nice but not close to film

scanner in terms of resolution. Hope it helps.

Microtek is releasing a new film scanner in another month, http://www.shutterbug.com/news/112806microtek/ what remains to be seen is how it will compare to the Nikon 9000. I'm going to wait and see the reviews before I make a decision.

Microtek's new model is another flatbed. IMO higher resolution (4800dpi) does not translate into a sharp scan edge to edge. I am not trying to discredit any flatbed model though. The good thing about Microtek's model is glassless technology. But the the down sides (as from web searching) are 1)poor tech support and 2)the light/image goes through a lot of mirrors. I also considered Microtek's 120tf. Right now it has $200 rebate from B&H, Adorama making the price really attractive. However, I saw many not so positive reviews and feeling bit skeptical about 120tf. I would appreciate if Photo net users share their personal experience. I prefer that over a paid review article in an ezine. Thanks...

I've used both the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi II and the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro. I

really like the software that comes with the Dimage scanners. The stock scanner comes

with a medium format glass carrier, which I think is an add-on for the Nikon. A glass

carrier is a must for keeping the film flat. Both the models the I had gotten were

refurbished ones from third parties (retailers/dealers) via Ebay.

 

I'm sorry I can't offer a direct comparison to the Nikon models, as I haven't used them. I

think that fundamentally, the hardware is about the same in capabilities, and it is the

software and some basic scanning theory that will make the difference between good and

great scans. I would guess that you can't go wrong with either.

 

Taras

I think its going to be tough to get contributions from people that have substantive experience with both film scanners that they can compare, because they are ( or rather were) alternatives and users will have tended to choose one or the other and stuck with it. Lets face it, a decision to change horses here would be pretty expensive, whereas upgrading from a flatbed will seem as if you're getting something for the money. So I think most of the input you're going to get is from users of one of them that you're going to have to interpret.

 

And from that perspective you'll note that there seem to be more Nikon users around. If the ability to come on here and get input when you have problems is a criterion, then the Nikon is way ahead.

 

I have the 9000ed, recently bought. I took a couple of my 6x6 transparencies to a dealer, and got them to scan these by way of a demo. I walked the scans round to my London lab and asked them to make a 16" sq print from each, and for comparison got a drum scan and print made from each to compare. I did this because I felt that looking at prints on a computer screen would tell me very little. Whilst this comparison pointed strongly to a need to buy a glass holder if you want edge to edge sharpness, I bought the 9000ed since I was convinced that I could , eventually, create files which would make high quality prints on LightJets and Chromiras.

 

To respond to a couple of the points made by other posters. First, I don't think its necessary to pay $300 for a drum-scan to support a 40" sq print. At 200dpi you need a 200mb RGB scan or 65mb greyscale scan to get to that size and I see internationally reputed labs selling scans that size from Tangos for $50. CCD scans are less, and so the break even on the purchase of a 9000ed with glass holder is likely to be between 50 and 100 large scans over its life. Precisely where it falls doesn't much matter because personally I'm confident I'll beat the higher level comfortably. But there is a point that if you only intend to make a few prints, then you might well get somewhat better results cheaper by buying lab drum scans and a flatbed to handle the web etc .

If you have been doing extensive research you will probably have seen my website:

 

http://www.scanhancer.com/

 

And more specifically this page when you wanted to convince yourself that an Imacon is

not strictly needed:

 

http://www.scanhancer.com/index.php?art=35&men=10

 

Unfortunately I cannot offer you direct comparison scans of the same slide scanned on

Minolta Multi Pro and Nikon 9000.

 

There is one online comparison of a great number of scanners, using all similar slides. All

scans were performed by the respective scanner owners and submitted in JPEG form.

Although I have several objections against the methodology used (even though I joined

myself) you might like to have a look at this "scanner bake-off" 2004 and 2005:

 

http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2004/scanner_test_results.html

I'm still using my Polaroid Sprintscan 120 that I bought back in 2000 (currently the Microtek

120TF), and think it's superb. Wish it had Digital ICE though, as film processed here in China

comes back absolutely filthy. My business partner started out with the Minolta Pro, but

switched rather quicky to the Nikon 9000ED. He's not here right now to tell me exactly why,

but I know he absolutely loves the Nikon.

 

In any case... be SURE to get the glass holder.

The Nikon can produce a better scan (slightly) than the Microtek, but only if you purchase

the accessory glass filmstrip carrier. If you are comparing scans with the supplied

glassless film carriers of both scanners, then the Microtek will deliver better center to edge

sharpness. The Microtek is quite capable of producing professional quality scans. As I

always state though, scanning is a learned skill, and to get the maximum from any

scanner, you have to practice, practice, practice, and read, read, read.

 

McCluney Photo

Thank you all for sharing. Seems like Minolta is fading away from the horizon :(

People who bought used ones, bought from someone whom they knew. So I am also not buying it from a stranger through the big auction site. Now the battle is between Nikon and Microtek !! There are more Nikon users I guess and I am getting more good words about LS9000 for that reason. And its nice to see atleast someone has used both i.e. Nikon and Microtek. Now I am wondering whether the glass holder is the KEY FACTOR for the sharp scans!!! In that case Epson flatbed with anti-newton glass should give similar results......if not, why??? Silverfast is also capable of focus adjustment I guess.

Hope dedicated film scanner users are not going to hunt me down for my greatest discovery of 2007:)))

On a serious note, let the discussion continue. Look forward for more .....

Subho

The best Epson flatbeds, and almost everybody elses (under $6000 or so) simply can't

come close to the performance level of the Nikon or Microtek dedicated film scanners.

Lot's of reasons why, which you can find all over the web.

 

That being said, it REALLY depends on what output size you require and what your

personal quality threshold is. I've been following the results from numerous testers on the

latest Epsons (V700-V750 PRO), and it would apear that 4X is about the point where they

can no longer compete with dedicated film scanners. And even at smaller multipliers, they

can't deal with shadow detail as well. Do the math... this isn't very large starting with MF.

Most who report satisfaction with the sub-$6000 flatbeds are using them to scan LF.

This Polaroid 120 (essentially same as Microtek) owner is extremely satisfied. Used in conjunction with an Epson 7800, colour, shadow detail and sharpness are fantastic. The glass holder is a necessity, though. No Newton's rings have appeared to date.

Thanks to everyone for the valuable suggestions/comments. This is why I love Photo net. Alright, so I am purchasing a film scanner and hope to post my initial results in few weeks. Subho

I am looking for a scanner as well, but I only want to buy one that will handle 6x7, 6x17 and 4x5. From what I have read hear it has to be a flatbed. Does anyone know if a Nikon coolscan 9000 wil scan 6x17? If so I could buy it and eventually get an used Epson 4990 for the 4x5. If not I leaning towards the v750. please advise

Bill,

 

The next step beyond a flatbed would be an Imacon Flextight scanner if you want to scan

6x17. These scanners are in a different price class though. Built like a tank and optically a lot

better than a flatbed. However, only the top models Flextight 848 and 949 are able to

surpass the scanning quality of a Nikon 9000 or Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro. I would stay

away from the 343 and the 646.