Which Medium Format Scanner

[jonee]

hello. Im looking for a new Medium Format scanner. Something on the

high end. I currently use an Epson 4990 and want to upgrade to a

Canon 9000 or possibly a Minolta Elite. Some say that the holders on

the canon are cheap and you need the glass holders to get good

results. However, doesn't extra glass reduce the quality of the

scans? Any opinions?

[paul_viapiano]

Jonathan...

 

What don't you like about the 4990 you're currently using?

 

Have you checked out the new Epsons? The V700 (available now) and V750 (coming soon)?

 

I really like your portfolio images...the XPan is great as well! What type of tweaking do you usually use after scanning?

 

Thanks!

[ilkka_nissila]

Minolta Multi Pro isn't made as far as I know, but it's a good scanner, as is the Nikon LS-9000. These are entry level medium format scanners, high end is quite a bit more expensive.

[michaelging]

I will second the LS 9000 nikon scanner.

[ken_pops]

I don't know what's considered high end. I have a Nikon 8000 and I recently upgraded the software from their website and its working wonderfully with Contax 645 negs as well as some old 35mm negs that I found.

I just bought a second used one for $300 because I figure its worth stashing it away for that price relative to what flatbeds cost or the more expensive scanners.

 

Ken Pops

[tarashnat]

I like my Minolta Scan Multi Pro and the bundled scanning software (Macintosh). It came with

the glass carrier required for medium format scanning.

 

Taras

[erik scanhancer]

If you're considering a Minolta Multi Pro you might like to see this comparison between it

and an Imacon Flextight 848:

 

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

 

(Yes, I have posted this sample before but it is still real and valid, IMO.) As for issues with

glass holders, look here:

 

http://www.scanhancer.com/index.php?art=41&men=3

 

Multi Pro scanners can regularly be found on the bay and they sell for around 1700 US

dollars. I love this scanner because of its built quality and the great scans (color neg/pos,

B&W silverbased) you can get out of it once you know how to stroke it.

[philippartridge]

<p>There are a few sites on the web with information about high quality desktop film scanners - here is one, <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/minolta/mp.htm">Ken Rockwell's take on the Minolta Multi Pro</a>. I also have one and am another satisfied user. <p>

[prashanteju]

Minolta Multi (if possible Pro)

Nikon LS 8-9000

or

Not mentioned here but another good candidate is Microtek 120 TF. It scans at 4000 DPI and comes with Silvefast Pro. I recently purchased one to scan my best 30-40 slides and selling again at 321(today is the last day). At around 1500$s new it is a great scanner. It comes with IT8 target and other things. Of course if you want to scan old slides and need ICE then perhaps Nikon or Minolta is the way to go. But if you keep your slides clean and dust free then Microtek is a better option. Silverfast is fantastic when it comes to color matching, something I was not happy with my Minolta. 0.002C.

[a_petkov]

Has anyone used both the Nikon 8000-9000 and the Minolta Scan Multi Pro. Which one delivers better results?

 

Does the MF holder for the Minotla Scanner take only one frame? As far as I know the Nikon takes a strip of 3 frames?

[jonas_yip1]

> Does the MF holder for the Minotla Scanner take only one frame? As far as I know the Nikon takes a strip of 3 frames?

 

The Nikon MF holder takes a strip of 2 6x7, 3 6x6 or 4 645

[erik scanhancer]

The Minolta MF holders take strips up to four 6x6 frames while they will allow for scanning

one frame at the time. The advantage of this is that the scanned frame will be supported

as good as possible because it is clamped all around. Tensions in the rest of the film strip

do not affect the frame that is being scanned this way.

 

As a bonus the Minolta MF film holders that are supplied with the Multi Pro allow for easy

combining the top half of the glass holder and the adjustable bottom half of the non-glass

holder. The scanned frame gets very well supported this way (film bends up against the

top glass under heating) while the number of glass surfaces is limited to only two. That

means the loss of some dust traps and sharper scans because there is no glass between

the film and the CCD housing (with taking lens). The danger of getting Newton's rings is

strongly reduced this way too.

[david_simonds]

Jonathan, I shoot with a Rollei camera, scan with a Nikon 9000 and print to an Epson 2400. I rush home at night to make images that I never in my wildest imagination I thought would be possible. I get better all the time because the tools are there, and I will never likely outgrow them. I used a 4990 for a short time. The Nikon, with the glass holder is in an entirely different league (as is the cost). But the output compares very favorably to drum scans I have had done at A&I. I have a Nikon D70 as well. For certain subjects it is quite extraordinary. But I am looking at seven of my best images, framed and under glass. All but one are Rollei made. If you want to do the best work you can, take the plunge and get the 9000. Hold your nose and spend a couple hundred more and get the glass carrier. My best advise is that you get the best tools as soon as you can. Learn how to use them and you will make your best work. After all, it will only be as good as the weakest link in your work flow. At this point, that would be me, and I am getting better all the time.

[george briggs]

I'm on a very limited budget, have you had success with the Epson 4990?

Thanks,

 

Geo

[terence_patrick]

I've got the Nikon 9000 and it scans my 35mm & 6x7 negs wonderfully.

[jonee]

Thanks for all the posts. There are many problems with the Epson 4990 that may or may not be fixed by buying something like the Nikon Coolscan 9000 or Minolta Elite.

 

Problem 1 - Dust. The digital ICE doesn't work wonders (especially when i only use transparency medium format film). I constantly have to clean my trannies.

 

Problem 2 - Poor holders. Sometimes medium format film can bend towards the glass due to the holders not stretching the film flat enough. This produces newton rings and distortion.

 

Problem 3 - Its a flat bed! The extra glass reduces quality. If you want to print photos really huge dont use this. Its good if you dont wanna blow things up too big.

 

Problem 4 - Not very fast. Could just be my computer, but because its so big it takes time for that scanner to move.

 

Thats about it. I think i may go with the Minolta rather than the Nikon. Don't ask me why. I think the reviews are slightly better. Check out my website www.jonathanee.com to see all my scans with the Epson 4990. Judge for yourself.

[wayne_campbell]

Epson Schmepson....look at the Microtec i800

[ilkka_nissila]

<i>Problem 1 - Dust. The digital ICE doesn't work wonders (especially when i only use transparency medium format film). I constantly have to clean my trannies. </i>

<p>

Hmm. I don't have any problem - ICE4 on my scanners do exactly what it's supposed to do. If you have badly scratched or really dusty film or you use an old version of ICE then it can require extra work.

<p>

<i>

Problem 2 - Poor holders. Sometimes medium format film can bend towards the glass due to the holders not stretching the film flat enough. This produces newton rings and distortion. </i>

<P>

This can be avoided using wet mounting. The LS-9000 can take wet mounting platforms though Nikon doesn't make one.

<p>

<i>

Problem 4 - Not very fast. Could just be my computer, but because its so big it takes time for that scanner to move. </i>

<p>

The 4990 is ridiculously slow if ICE is used, without it it runs in ok time, but no way is the time spent worth it considering the quality of output. This is why I sold mine - it was a waste of time for me.

[george_caramanna]

I use the Nikon 8000 with an Aztec wet mount, no ICE, and get very good results. I suggest

wet mounting for medium format film.