jake_scafuro Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 Okay so I've been considering getting a scanner capable of handling medium format film, both slides and negs, and I've tossed the idea around between the Epson V700 and Perfection 4990. While I was at a Cord Professional store yesterday I glanced down and saw the Canon Canoscan 8600F but didn't get a chance to ask much about it. Has anyone here had any experience with it? How does it compare with the other two scanners, even in the same ballpark? I realize that these are all flatbeds so they can only do so much compared to a higher end scanner, but out of the three which seems to work the best?? Sorry about this being yet another scanner question but after searching I can't really find a comparison including the Epsons (either one) and the Canon. Jake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beau 1664876222 Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 Take it from someone who learned the hard way: you have to get a Nikon 9000 ED. People carry on about how the Epson flatbeds give you comparable quality, but it's wishful thinking: I'd argue the difference in image quality is about the same as you'd see using a cheap kit zoom lens on your camera vs. a good quality prime lens. I realize $2 grand is a lot to spend for the Nikon, but if you go for the Epson you're eventually going to start wondering why you bother to shoot medium format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stp Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 I agree; a dedicated film scanner like the Nikon 9000 is the way to go. I have the Nikon 8000 as well as the new Epson V750, but the Epson is for large format only. The medium format goes to the Nikon. You may want to consider a used 8000 instead of a new 9000....the differences are not huge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarashnat Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 A used Minolta Scan Multi Pro is also a good choice. I have this one as well as the Minolta Scan Multi II and these came with the glass holder for medium format and holders for 35mm film as well. I really like the software that was bundled with these scanners. I believe that Konica-Minolta has gotten out of the business, and these models are discontinued, but I have been very happy with them. Taras Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_ferguson1 Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 The Nikon 8000/9000 does a great job on medium format film, but for absolute corner to corner sharpness you really need the glass negative holder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_m32 Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 Go for one of the flatbeds and save a lot of bucks. Will the results be good? Yes. Will they compare to those of a dedicated film scanner? Probably not. Personally, if I had 2000$ to spend I'd rather spend it on cameras and lenses than buying a dedicated MF scanner. It really depends on your budget, though. If you can easily afford it, then by all means, do it. Of course, if you have a high-end printer, expensive color profiling hardware and software for your monitor and printer and you have your workflow down to a science then the scanner shouldn't be the weak link. If this is not the case then you're possibly better off using a flatbed for your home use. If you have a photo you're really proud of you can still have a pro lab scan it with a drum scanner and print it for the best results. By the way, I use an Epson 4990 and am happy with the results. My only complains are that the filmholder for medium format that comes with it is not very good. I recently bough an aftermarket filmholder from betterscanning.com which is really good. I also may upgrade my scanner software to SilverFast Ai sometime in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fp1 Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 Another vote in favor of the Nikon 9000--if you can comfortably afford it. I had one, sold it when I got into LF, and started using an Epson. This was after the Artixscan which so many raved about crapped out on me in less that 45 days, leaving ugly streaks in my scans. The Epson does an extremely good job on 4x5 and up, lightyears ahead of the Artixscan in my opinion. But for MF and 35, the Nikon 9000 is simply in another league altogether. After months of trying to convince myself that the 4990 was good enough for MF, I finally broke down and bought(another) Nikon 9000, this time with the glass strip film holder. I like this holder better than the rotating holder I had previously, but I do kinda miss the masks that came with the rotating holder. I still have the Epson, because I also shot 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10. Expensive, but worth every penny if you are obsessed with image quality, as am I I think most people would be happy with the Epson 4990 for MF. I am not most people; I am a black and white fine art photo dweeb, and must have the best I can reasonably afford, but ONLY if the difference in results is significant. Believe me (us), the Nikon is better for MF by far. p.s.....Don't believe the hype about the Artixscan being better (because it costs more); I found the Epson to be far superior with a minimum of fiddling with the software. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fp1 Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 Oh..one more thing... Spending more cash on cameras and lenses becomes a mute issue if you are going to scan it with inferior optics and lesser equipment...it sorta defeats the purpose. This is actually what swayed me. I spent so much cash gathering this Bavarian Super Glass...only to scan the negs on a flatbed??? It's like putting 30 dollar tires on a Porsche... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_m32 Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 "f stopme , oct 19, 2006; 07:20 p.m. Oh..one more thing... Spending more cash on cameras and lenses becomes a mute issue if you are going to scan it with inferior optics and lesser equipment...it sorta defeats the purpose. This is actually what swayed me. I spent so much cash gathering this Bavarian Super Glass...only to scan the negs on a flatbed??? It's like putting 30 dollar tires on a Porsche..." I agree. It always comes down to the weakest link. What's the point in having super glass and an excellent scanner if you're going to print with an average consumer-grade printer and edit your images on a poorly profiled monitor. It takes several thousand dollars and a lot of time to get this all right. If you can't do it right then you're better off paying a pro lab to do it for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolfe_tessem Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 Let me echo the previous responses. Get the Nikon 9000 with the glass carrier and don't look back. It is very, very close to drum scan quality and miles above any of the flatbeds for 35mm and MF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles_patrick1 Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 I've been using an Epson 3200 since it first came out, for 645 and 6x7, mostly slides. I've had the Nikon 9000 for 2 days, and the difference is very significant. I sprang for the 869GR but for some reason Its malfunctioning. Nikon has said to send it in for inspection. I also picked up the 869M off the 'bay, since I had a good number of Gepe-mounted slides. Now I'm not so sure I was wise to buy the GR, since the M holds the film totally flat between anti-Newton glass and allows storage of the film away from air, dust etc. Unless the glass of the GR holder is "better" than the glass of the Gepe mounts. But I doubt it. Re the cost of the Nikon 9000 - I looked at it like the cost of a really nice lens. And I don't have to deal with the concern that there will be a new improved version of this scanner coming soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles_patrick1 Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 I've been using an Epson 3200 since it first came out, for 645 and 6x7, mostly slides. I've had the Nikon 9000 for 2 days, and the difference is very significant. I sprang for the 869GR but for some reason Its malfunctioning. Nikon has said to send it in for inspection. I also picked up the 869M off the 'bay, since I had a good number of Gepe-mounted slides. Now I'm not so sure I was wise to buy the GR, since the M holds the film totally flat between anti-Newton glass and allows storage of the film away from air, dust etc. Unless the glass of the GR holder is "better" than the glass of the Gepe mounts. But I doubt it. Re the cost of the Nikon 9000 - I looked at it like the cost of a really nice lens. And I don't have to deal with the concern that there will be a new improved version of this scanner coming soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 You don't need the dedicated film scanner if all you're making is images for the web. If you're scanning for prints though, no doubt the Nikon ED9000 is the ticket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_hall1 Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 Well, would you buy a large rectangular box from Nikon ? And the Imacon 343 is only $5,000... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
furcafe Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 I agree w/those recommending a film scanner rather than a flatbed, particularly if you want to make a print bigger than 8x10 from your scans. Re: Taras's recommendation of the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro. It's an excellent scanner & a better value than the Nikon 9000, but Konica-Minolta has indeed gone out of business & Sony, which acquired K-M for its digital camera technology, is *not* supporting the K-M scanners, @ least outside of Japan. I know this because my 2 year-old Multi Pro died a few months back, & I couldn't get Sony's official repair shop for the E. Coast of the U.S. (Precision Camera) to fix it because of lack of parts. Instead, Sony gave me a buyback, a generous buyback (over 65% of what I originally paid), but not a repair or replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troyammons Posted October 20, 2006 Share Posted October 20, 2006 The V750 is good for a clean very sharp 1800 dpi with a sharp film shot. Maybe 2400 dpi if you are desperate. If you need more you should go for a Nikon 8000 or 9000. Not sure about the V700 but it should be close to the V750. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timshim Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 Guys!! I'm sure Jake knows the Nikon 9000 would be much better but his question is valid for those who cannot afford scanners in that price range. His question is for a comparison between the 'low-end' flatbeds - Epson's V700/4990 vs Canon's 8600F. Hope there'd be more helpful answers here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timshim Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 Did a bit of research and came across this page comparing a whole lot of scanners: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now