Are older medium format film scanners still good?

[rick_robinson2]

I have just purchased a used Pentax 645n medium format outfit (they

are at bargain prices right now!). Now I am trying to locate a

reasonable dedicated medium format film scanner. I really cannot

afford the $1500+ for the top of the line Nikon or Minolta film

scanners. How good or bad are the older medium format film scanners,

like the Minolta Scan Multi II, Polaroid 120, Nikon 8000, etc.? Is

the older technology reduced these older film scanners to not being

so good? Or can they still produce high quality results? Does the

better software, like Vuescan, allow these older film scanners to

perform well?

[miha_steinb_cher]

There shouldn't be much difference in image quality between Nikon 8000 and 9000. On the other hand, scanners tend to accumulate dust and like anything mechanical, they wear out. A cleaning and/or repair may be very costly.

 

Best regards,

 

Miha

[andre_noble4]

I think the Epson 4990 is at the point to provide Pro-caliberscans of Medium

format film.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204990/Page%208.htm">Check

this page out</a>, at the bottom you will see a comparison of 35mm scans from

the Epson 4990 vs. the Nikon 4000 dedicated film scanner.

[robert_martin5]

I have experience with three scanners - Minolta Dimage Scan Multi II, Epson 3200, and Nikon 9000ED. They are listed in the order I purchased the scanners.

 

Minolta Dimage Scan Multi II will scan 35mm at 2820 dpi and medium format at 1128 dpi. The scanner does not have Digital ICE and this is something you need in a scanner. I spent more time correcting dust and scratches than I did scanning. You can see every defect in the scan. I consider resolution was acceptable for 35mm, but I wanted more for medium format.

 

Epson 3200 was purchased because it had 3200 dpi capability for all formats. This scanner did not have Digital ICE, so this was still a problem. I found this scanner was unacceptable due to resolution. It generated files with 3200 dpi, but they were not as good as medium format scan from the Minolta at 1128 dpi. The Epson flatbed scanners are fixed focus and the overall system is not capable of resolving the detail of a dedicated film scanner. I think the current Epson scanners have the same problem.

 

My current scanner is a Nikon 9000. This scanner has everything I wanted and works excellent on all formats. Digital ICE solved my problem with dust and scratches and I almost never have to fix a scan due to this problem. I considered purchasing the Nikon 8000 when they were available, but did not due to banding on some scans and clipping when scanning color negatives. Nikon has corrected both these issues with the Nikon 9000. The Nikon 8000 banding issue is solved by scanning in a mode that only uses one of the CCD strips, which increased scan time by 3x - not acceptable in my opinion.

 

I know people indicate good results with the new Epson scanners, but I shoot medium format because I wanted excellent detail and I don't want to give it up at the scanner stage.

[rick_robinson2]

I guess that the answer is, as with most anything, you get what you pay for. I can buy the first Minolta Scan Multi for less than $200, the second Minolta Scan Multi II for around $500, or the current Minolta Scan Multi Pro for $1400+. I can understand the need for digital ice and do not really want a flatbed scanner (despite their improvements). So, I think I will have to bite the bullett & buy the more expensive Nikon or Minolta. Anyone know of any good sources, other than ebay, to get a decent price on a quality scanner? Also, are the Microtek 120tf scanners comparable to the Minolta & Nikon scanners?

[Ed_Ingold]

Banding is not a significant problem with the Nikon LS-8000. I've only encountered once or twice it in a couple hundred rolls of film.

[john_amiet2]

VueScan significantly improves the performance of Nikon LS 8000, or any other scanner for that matter.

 

While using VueScan on my Nikon8000 I have never had banding problems. I can find no reason to upgrade to Nikon9000 other than to part with some money!

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

Here's what I see with the Nikon 8000 vs. the 4870 (note that the color rendition is due to my adjusting colors during the scan in NikonScan but not for the Epson).

 

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original

 

IMHO, for enlargements up to 6x or so you won't see the difference, but you do want the better scanner for enlargements over 8 or 9x of your best slides. The Pentax lenses are wickedly sharp, so you will appreciate the difference.

 

My 8000 began to lose contrast after 2 years and Nikon (Japan) cleaned it for me (for about US$150 or so) and it's back to being snappy (that scan is about a year after said cleaning), so a refurbed 8000 should be similar quality.

[heller_harris]

I'm happy with the quality that I'm getting from the Dimage Multiscan II. There are two versions of the Dimage software. The version I'm using captures MF at 2820dpi, which produces a 165mb/16bit file from a 645 chrome. Once you add some sharpening, a couple of layers, and pretty soon, you've got a huge file that slows my computer to a crawl. If you scan larger MF formats, your files will be that much harder to manage. Be sure that you have enough computer horsepower before you invest.

<br><br>

You <i>will</i> spend some time cleaning up images, but you can add the software later. The MultiScan II has a SCSI interface, which makes it slower - but also a whole lot cheaper. You can now get them for under $350 on Ebay. <br><br>Heller<br><a href="http://www.hollywoodscriptanalysis.com">HollywoodScriptAnalysis.com</a>

[fpa]

Heller,

 

Do you actually get any more usable information from the MSM-II at 2200 PPI than at it's native resolution of 1128? I saw early reviews of it stating that it actually did small enough steps in one direction to get usable information, but haven't seen a scan to prove/disprove.