Imacon Flextight Precision II -- still worth buying today?

[rondal]

<p>Hi,<br>

I want to digitize several hundred b&w 6x6cm (2.5x2.5") negatives. Simply put, the scans should be good enough to publish in a coffee table book. At the same time, I'd eventually like to go through my entire archive of 6x6 and 35mm negatives, which probably includes a couple thousand usable photos that it would also be nice to have as digital images.<br>

My options are:<br>

1) letting a professional lab scan and optimize my negatives on a drum scanner for € 20 apiece<br>

2) using someone's Hasselblad X5 scanner for € 380 per work day (9 hours including toilet breaks)<br>

3) buying an Imacon Flextight Precision II scanner for around € 2000<br>

The obvious benefit of buying my own dedicated film scanner is that I can use it for as long as I like, and scan as many negatives as I like for no cost other than the initial investment.<br>

2000 Euros is about as much as I'm able to invest in a piece of hardware right now.<br>

But does it make sense to buy electronic equipment that was built in 1998 (that's 13 years ago!) and may not even work with a 2008 PC laptop? Is this scanner even up to current standards?<br>

Thanks for your advice.</p>

[wgpinc]

<p>There are several less expensive options for scanning medium format negatives and positives. The one still in production today is the Epson V750 which gives very good results for the price and is used in a lot of pro labs. Not being sold today except on the used market are excellent scanners from Konica Minolta (Multi-pro), Microtek(ArtixScan 120ft), Nikon 8000/9000, and Polaroid (Sprintscan 120). Used is of course where you find it at the time you are looking but all of these I list here have excellent reputations and strong adherents. A good scanning software like Silverfast or Vuescan can be very helpful. Good luck.</p>

[rondal]

<p>Hi,<br>

thanks for your response and suggestions.<br>

1) The Epson is a flatbed. As someone who only scans film, I've had lousy experience even with the best flatbeds.<br>

2) A used Nikon 9000 is significantly more expensive at around €3000 than a used Flextight is at €2000.<br>

3) The Minolta, Microtek and Polaroid scanners don't seem to be available anywhere, even used. I'll keep looking, though.<br>

4) Thanks for reminding me of the Nikon Coolscan 8000, which I've added to my options.<br>

5) Yes, I'm definitely planning on getting Vuescan once I find an appropriate scanner.<br>

6) I still want to know whether I can physically get a Flextight Precision II to work with a contemporary laptop, and whether it's at all worth reviving this dinosaur.#<br>

Thanks again!</p>

[ericnelson]

 

<p>The Nikon 9000 routinely goes for <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260723834020&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:US:1123">$3000+ here in the US on ebay</a> but bears looking for if price point can be met as it is a good scanner. Also, keep your eyes open for drum scanners as those can be as low as $500 as my Screen 1030ai was. It's a circa 1995 machine and does great scans at 5200 dpi. The question for any of these used items is their longevity as breakdowns would be costly and probably cost prohibitive to repair. Then you have to start all over again.</p>

 

 

[david_henderson]

<p>I'm sure there's a person or two on Photo.net who has this scanner. Have you run a search of the site- IIRC there's quite a lot of material on here and it might be better than waiting for a new answer? Just looking very quickly at the available material, the scanner does work with Vista via the latest software which is aparently available as a download.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm sure there's a person or two on Photo.net who has this scanner.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I did (among quite a collection of others, from Leaf to ScanView). Its a very good scanner. Pretty good software. Its quite capable and will do a fine job. I ended up doing so little scanning I sold mine many years ago to buy a 5D which I used a lot, then got a V750 for the once or twice a year scan work. Its quite nice! But it ain’t no Imacon.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>a Imacon is still a pretty good scanner.. but for a coffee table book a epson v700, 750 and similar is more than perfect to do the job at a fraction of the time and the cost of the hardware.</p>

<p>Scanning a 6x6 could take let say 5min with a imacon, with the epson 750.. maybe a 1min? multiply 5min x several hundred 6x6 and you get yourself some really nice month in your basement scanning 24/7 ; )</p>

<p> </p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>I used to own and use the old 343 a great deal. It is far superior to my Epson V700. That said, for 6x6 and coffee table books, you won't notice much of any difference. One thing that could be an issue is that the Imacon can dig a fair bit deeper into chromes than the Epson. </p>

<p>I'd do the Epson and not worry about it. </p>

[rondal]

<p>I sold my high-end backlit Epson a few years ago. It was a pain in the neck to get the negatives flat, and on the correct focal plane. Dust was also a big problem. The contrast of my b&w work was always too low, and impossible to correct in PS. For a while I thought all my photos were murky and blurry until I saw prints (and professional scans) of my work.<br>

To summarize, I am highly wary of flatbeds.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>There is a huge learning curve to them Rondal. That said, with the proper holders (not the Epson holder) and a fair bit of practise, they can output very well. </p>

[murat_oruc]

<p>Is it too late to write something about this subject?</p>