Best scanner for 35mm + med format

[jeff_kim3]

<p>What is the best scanner that can do both?<br>

Should I get a separate 35mm and another for med format only?<br>

I am guessing Nikon 9000 does both but really out of my price range.</p>

[fredonian]

<p>Hi Jeff, Many will still suggest the Nikon 9000 even though you state it is out of your price range. You should first mention how much you are willing to spend for a scanner and this might sway anyone from suggesting the BEST scanner and perhaps the best one you can get for what you are willing to spend. I would love the Nikon 9000, but can't justify spending that much for the level of work I do. I'd rather find someone who owns one and pay them to scan my negs for me. I was about to post a question along the same lines as you and hope you don't mind my adding to your post. I'm looking for something "decent" to display work online in the neigborhood of roughly $450. I'm pondering the Epson V700 which can scan negatives up to 8x10, or getting an optical PlusTek 7200 scanner for my 35mm work along with a Epson V500 for medium format work. Either choices could be purchased within a $400-500 price range. I currently still use an Epson RX500 which is only passable for 35mm scanning. I wonder how the PlusTek 7200 rates against the Epson V700 or V500? Most post seem to try to compare it against the Nikon 8000 or 9000, which obviously renders a black and white difference hands down.</p>

[jeff_kim3]

<p>I am a hobbyist just shooting random maybe 1-2 rolls a month. And consider <br>

I did consider Epson V700 but I keep reading that it maybe ideal for med format but not for 35mm. But I think most of the folks in here who scan film are doing prints but I only do online display only so I really dont see the need for high end. There is another factor of color and how software it comes with interprets it. <br>

I recently used Nikon coolscan V but wasnt really impressed with it. Your question of PlusTek 7200 vs Epson V700 / V500 is valid. Most seems to be one or the either but have not seem clear compatibility. <br>

Alternatively, a member suggested ScanCafe http://www.scancafe.com/ but only downside is that you dont get the control over the actual scans. Seems reasonable, $0.25-0.29 per 35mm scan and $0.99 for med format.. I may try it to see.. I wished they did developing also but that may have its down side also..</p>

[yoshio]

<p>My own experiene with a Epson 4870 (same ancestry as the V700) is that for prints of 35mm up to A4 in size I get better results than almost anything I ever got from professional printing. I prefer using a Nikon LS-40ED scanner for 35mm mainly because the ICE is so good at getting away the dust. The Epson shows badly this dust compared to scans made by the Nikon. In terms of image quality, what difference I see in 100% pixel view in photoshop is not seen easily on prints. After some adjustment (Eg sharpen twice step1 -> 1.3pixels radius at 90%; step2 50 pixel radius at ~20%) the images print quite similarly.</p>

<p>I use two scanners one for 120 one for 35mm because the two cost less than the 9000 which I too desire.</p>

<p>The Epson does well enough for the 120 film because it needs less magnification, but my sigh is when I cut up some 120 and use that in the Nikon. My 6x9 and 6x12 images looks so beautiful (but I don't need to print so big.)</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The Nikon LS-9000 is the best choice. Consider saving your pennies until you can afford one, or look for an used LS-8000.</p>

<p>The next best alternative is to purchase a dedicated 35mm film scanner, like a used Nikon LS-50 (= Coolscan V), and an inexpensive flatbed scanner for medium format and prints. The best consumer flatbed, an Epson 700/750 is woefully inadequate for 35mm, but acceptible for medium format if you don't want prints bigger than about 11x14 inches. You can get a rebuilt Epson 2450 for under $80.</p>

<p>Medium format photography is expensive - at least 3x the cost of 35mm for both equipment and materials. It's not worth the money unless you get something way beyond that of 35mm film. The only consolation is that once you get an adequate scanner you can revisit your old films.</p>

[michel_leclerc]

<p>Edward,<br>

is the 2450 really good for print up to 11x14 for medium format negs? <br>

I 'm looking to upgrade mine. I was looking to buy a film holder from better scanning but i tought it will be useless to buy it if i was going to replaced my 2450.<br>

Is there any big improvement going up to V700/V750?</p>

<p> </p>

[matthew_newton]

<p>I just got an Epson 4490 a week or so ago. I've had pretty good results so far. I wouldn't consider it good enough for 11x14 from 35mm if you have exacting results, but it is fine for 8x12 from 35mm negatives. I would assume from Medium format you could probably do up to about 12x18" or maybe even 18x24", but that might be pushing it a bit. The Epson 4490 is the cousin to the V500 without the LED light source and a slightly lower resolution CCD, but the V500 is pretty optimistic about its DPI as it is (I don't know that any of the Epson flatbeds can really handle over about 3200dpi and make it decent, I don't bother with 4800dpi or the interpolated 9600dpi on my 4490). At $130 from B&H or Adorama is it pretty cheap and Epson has a $30 mail in rebate if you buy it in January. If you want I can post one or two 100% scans at 2400 or 3200dpi if you want to see what it can manage.<br>

The V500 or V700 are most likely better scanners then the 4490, but the 4490 is also about half the price of the V500 and much less then that of the V700.</p>

[martin_savoie]

<p>I did test some 6x7 scaned on both: a Nifon 9000 ED with FH-869G and on a Epson V-700.<br /> The scaners were set to no corection of any sources.<br /> The output is made on a Epson 9800 large printer,think 44" large.<br /> The result were to my point of view very conclusive.I was glad that i was the owner of the Nikon 9000 ED.The V-700 is a very good machine for flat work.<br /> The problem with Nikon 9000ED is (some are talkink about it on photo.net) that a 6 x 7 scan at (9000ED) 4000 dpi gives you so much détails that when you look at your file in PSD some erea will be out of randge for focus (blur).But there is some way to get a good job without going(mineral oil mont) wet.<br /> One of my client that works free lens came to my studio and we scaned few 35 mm related to his National Geographic assignement. We did print one of is shot 35mm retouch at 180 dpi resized and printed 44" wide.And we were very please with the result.For 35 mm 9000 ED scaned were evenly sharp compare to 6 x 7 that need a bit more work.<br /> For,i think 100$ a day some places here in Québec province let you scan your work on Imacon Flextight X5.I am talking about le centre VUE in Quebec city.You propose a project and get to stay in there artist residence.<br /> http://www.meduse.org/vuphoto/laboratoire/f_infogr.html<br /> i will test 6 x 7 film scaned on a Creo IQ smart one and the nikon 9000ED in the next future.</p>