Are there no good scanners <7y old designs?

[bkkstudios]

<p>It seems the Epson V700 is still recognized as one of the best scanners. But it's almost an antique, being released in 2006. Are there no plans for an updated (and shrunk) version, or the scanning market is now dead?</p>

[starvy]

<p>I think it is a shrinking market and other than bringing out high end scanners, there is no money to be had for the excellent all round amateur shooters scanner. That said, I think the V700 is an excellent scanner for medium format. It is not bad for 35mm but fares worse against dedicated scanners for 35mm films. Have you tried the Pacific Image offerings? Price is an issue but I think that is the way.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p><em>[T]he Epson V700 is still recognized as one of the best scanners.</em></p>

<p>I don't think that's correct. I think a correct statement would be that--among scanners that (1) will scan medium- and large-format film, and (2) are widely available for under $1,500--the V700 is one of the best scanners (after the V750). If all you need to scan is 35mm film, there are several better scanners out there, some readily available at low prices. And if you're willing to spend $2,000 or more, you can certainly get better scanners for medium-format film, and maybe / at some price large-format film.</p>

<p><em>Are there no plans for an updated (and shrunk) version, or the scanning market is now dead?</em></p>

<p>Only Epson really knows, but I suspect that the scanning market is a lot like the medium format film camera market: there may well be more decent to good ones out there than there are people willing to pay real money to acquire one. If the film scanner market showed a lot of demand, at least the last models once sold be Nikon, Konica Minolta, Polaroid and others would still be on the market (manufactured by <em>someone</em>). Sure, lots of people want a Nikon 9000 or a Minolta Scan Multi Pro--but the number of people actually willing to fork over $2,000 or $3,000 for one is much smaller--and probably getting even smaller every year.</p>

<p>Even higher up the food chain, I'd be curious to know how sales of Imacon (Hasselblad) scanners have done over the last ten years. I suspect the market for $15,000 desktop scanners is substantially smaller than--and very different from--the market for Nikon- and Minolta-type medium-format scanners.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>or the scanning market is now dead?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe not dead but on life support? It's not a growth market. It costs a lot of money for someone like Epson (let along Howtek, Scanview, companies from the high end that are essentially gone) to design, manufacture, market a product that has such a small market. </p>

<p>Some of the most awesome quality film scanners are a lot older and significantly better than the Epson V700! </p>

<p>I suspect if you are in a market for a scanner, your options are out there. I wouldn't hold my breath that someone is going to introduce a new film scanner. </p>

[DWScott]

<p>There are <strong>two</strong> brand new film scanners on the market this year. I think that is remarkable. Someone noticed how much money the old Nikon 8000/9000 scanners were fetching.</p>

<ul>

<li>Plustek OpticFilm 120</li>

<li>Pacific Image PrimeFilm 120</li>

</ul>

<p>Both are more expensive than an Epson flatbed, but should be worth it for medium format.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Many of the older scanners are still good if you can rig the interface and when combined with VueScan software.</p>

<p>As said, except for perhaps very high-end applications, most people who wanted to scan film have already done so. It's another of those "demographics" which is declining by natural processes.</p>

[Member69643]

<p>A hundred or so years ago <grin> I invested in a Nikon Coolscan 5000, slide feeder, and also received a rollfilm adapter. It, knock on wood, just keeps going and going. I would guess I've scanned a thousand rolls of film with it. When it dies I will adapt in one of three ways - a new dedicated film scanner if available, a flatbed, or direct image acquisition via DSLR. Nobody knows what the future will be. I've been tempted more than once to pick up one of the cheap $99 or so scanners "made" by like Wolverine.</p>

[sfcole]

 

<p><em>There are <strong>two</strong> brand new film scanners on the market this year. I think that is remarkable. Someone noticed how much money the old Nikon 8000/9000 scanners were fetching.</em></p>

<ul>

<li><em>Plustek OpticFilm 120</em></li>

<li><em>Pacific Image PrimeFilm 120</em></li>

</ul>

<p><em>Both are more expensive than an Epson flatbed, but should be worth it for medium format.</em><br>

<em><br /></em>No, so far there's only one, the Pacific Image. I've only been able to find one review at BH (not good). Maybe no one wants to admit they spent so much $$ on one...<br>

So far there is no Plustek. </p>

 

[dhbebb]

<p><em>It seems the Epson V700 is still recognized as one of the best scanners. But it's almost an antique, being released in 2006. Are there no plans for an updated (and shrunk) version, or the scanning market is now dead?</em><br>

I agree with the above postings and would ask you - what features would you actually like on a scanner that the V750 and V700 don't have? The only constant market for scanners is for high-end models for museums etc. - with 600 years of printed matter and 170 years of analog photos to digitize, this work won't be finished any time soon! But as said above, most amateurs who want to digitize their own pix will have done so by now. Personally I'm still using my Epson Expression 1680 Pro flatbed scanner which I must have had for 10 years or more - I don't feel there have been any technical advances significant enough for me to replace it!</p>

[lwg]

<p>The Plustek is slowly making it's way to customers. I have seen a few reviews, which were mixed. I imagine in a month or so we will have a good idea if it's decent or not.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

The V700 and V750 are very fine scanners...if you wet mount your film.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Hasselblad is having a sale on the X5 Flexscan.

[dave_redmann]

<p><em>Hasselblad is having a sale on the X5 Flexscan.</em></p>

<p>Indeed--my $15,000 figure is not accurate at the moment. I see that as of now, B&H's prices are down to $12,000 for the Flextight X1 and $19,000 for the Flextight X5. (I'm sure that when I mention this to my wife, she will suggest I order two, one for use and the other as a spare!)</p>

<p>As for the Plustek OpticFilm 120, B&H still lists it as "New item, not available yet". On US eBay, there's one working, complete Minolta Scan Multi Pro, for buy-it-now for $2,900; and buy-it-now Nikon 9000's run $2,750 to $4,200 (plus one new-in-box for $6,500!). Yes, there's the Pacific Image PrimeFilm 120 available for $1,500--in stock but with mixed reviews.</p>

<p>So basically, if you need to scan film larger than 35mm and want something better than an Epson flatbed, pick your poison from above (or choose something <em>really</em> ancient or exotic).</p>

 

[mattb1]

IMO none of the Epsons are worth my time. I had one for a couple of years and have only a handful of scan to show for

it. I was better off saving money and buying a dedicated scanner. I wish someone on this forum had warned me.

 

They can do web stuff and small prints if you work long enough. IMO buy any other band and you will get better results.

[bkkstudios]

<p>Thank you for all the feedback. I guess it's what I expected.</p>

<p>My main purpose was scanning mounted slide film first, and second, to archive some pics and important documents. I have the Nikon Coolscan V, but found it very slow and cumbersome. For scanning docs and old (not so important pics), an all-in-one is probably good enough.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>I just flicked to the Epson site - as I knew, the 1680 Pro has been discontinued and Epson's recommendation is the V750. A quick glance at the specs reveals an increase in Dmax capacity from 3.6 to 4, particularly useful for b+w negatives with more than bare minimum exposure, and, as others mentioned, a wet mount capability (the standard film holders with the 1680 were not ideal for getting MF film totally flat). The general position is as before - a good flatbed is fine for MF and LF, a dedicated film scanner with a good spec is preferable for 35mm film.</p>

[lwg]

<p>Ziggy, if your main purpose is mounted slide film then I would suggest getting a bellows, a high resolution DSLR and a decent macro lens.<br>

With the D800E, PB-4 bellows and a good enlarging lens I am getting better results for slides and black and white film than I was from the Canon FS4000 (in theory close to the Nikon scanner, but not as well built). With a better lens I might be able to get even better results. Results are far better than the Epson 4870, but not as good as a drum scanner.<br>

Another advantage is it's fast. Tethered to Lightroom I can scan a roll in 10 to 15 minutes. Doing a whole roll on the drum scanner would take me hours, and wouldn't be worth the effort or cost.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

For mounted slides , I agree with "L G".

 

For film the problem with flatbed scanners there are two problems: film flatness and focus.

 

Film flatness is a problem because frankly the standard film holders are crap. That includes all slide mounts save pin-

anti-newton glass pin-registered mounts - which you wouldn't want to scan through in the first place. The film needs to be

held absolutely flat and that means fluid mounting. This is a problem that predates scanners. Film flexes and bows and

this is the reason astronomers used to use glass plates and some photographers used special large format film holders

for very specialized applications.

 

The next problem is getting the film on the glass plate used for fluid mounting at the exact right distance from the

scanning bar.

 

Solve these problems and the Epsons and Canon film scanners do a great job of pulling all of the resolution out of your

film. Fluid mounting also markedly increases dynamic range and detail resolution in the densist parts of the film.

 

The two problems with wet mounting are keeping everything ultra-clean, you are getting the film wet, and it takes a lot

more time.

 

Better scanning software also helps. When I was scanning film regularly after a lot of testing I settled on SilverFast AI6

(now AI8). Using a better ICC color space helps as well. The best I found is the Joseph Holmes authored ChromeSpace

100 see http://www.josephholmes.com/propages/SpacesandSets.html

[DavidRabinowitz]

<p>I have a Nikon 9000 for scanning 35mm and medium format...it's a great scanner for my needs which is generally to archive images with occasional prints being made (I'm the family photo historian)...i don't believe Nikon makes the scanner anymore and used 9000's are expensive...i bought mine new around 7 years ago for $2,000 and I believe it's hard to find one used for that price...i have a V700 but the 9000 surpasses in quality...</p>

[john_enea2]

<p>I have a minolta Dimage elite 5400 that i use for 35mm slides and love it. beats my dads nikon 5000 scanner for quality (at least i think so). they show up on ebay all the time and you can get one for under $700. works great with vuescan</p>

 

[charles_wood]

<p>You will have to pry my Imacon from my cold, dead hands.</p>

[matti_koskinen1]

<p>I think I had some luck, 50 euros for a used, but in good condition Canon 9950F. Works fine with Vuescan (win7) and can do from 135 film to 4x5.</p>

 

[joel_tunnah]

<p>Ellis Vener wrote:<br>

<em>For film the problem with flatbed scanners there are two problems: film flatness and focus.</em><br>

I've read this before, and out of curiosity I tested my 9000F with the stock film holders vs directly on the scanner glass. Viewed at 100% I saw NO difference in sharpness between them, other than the bad addition of Newton rings on the direct glass scan. I'm no scanner engineer, but I can't imagine scanners would work at all if they were as sensitive to focus/holder height as people claim.<br>

My favorite 35mm print size is 5x7, and the Canon delivers sharp images for me, with very minimal work in LR4.</p>

[lwg]

<p>For a 5x7 print I am not surprised that you are getting good results. For that you only need your scanner to resolve 1200 to 1500ppi, and most flatbeds can easily do that. You may not be as happy trying to get a 10x14 print out of it.</p>

[joel_tunnah]

<p>It's funny, from reading online one could easily get the impression that "professional" acceptable print size is only 20x30 now... but I recently paid $200 for the Saul Leiter book "Early Color", which is all 4x6 (some 4x7) images from 35mm film. Incredible book, and I never think "Gee these are tiny prints" when looking at it. Personally I hate large photographs, except in retail settings. But I guess everyone feels they need to scan to poster size for that future MOMA exhibit they'll be in.<br>

For my purposes, using my cheap and cheerful $150 flatbed leaves me with a smile on my face, which is an important requirement to keep me shooting film. Some examples are in my Flickr.</p>