is there any reason NOT to buy a plustek 120 scanner?

[liebermann]

<p>... since I note they're on sale $200 off at a couple of places. Just hoping this isn't a 'closeout' promotion before they release a newer version with the many annoyances fixed!<br>

I missed out getting a Nikon 9000 years ago because they were always out of stock whenever I had the $$, so I got a 5000. But interested in 120 scanning, and willing to take a chance on the plustek despite the variable reviews.<br>

Also thinking I ought to while they're still available (who knows?)</p>

 

[User_6502147]

<p>Just like with anything, some people will be happy with the product and some not. Despite the hype and spin, the 120 unit never measured up....and many walked away disappointed. My suggestion is to update/service (if you can) and enjoy your 5000.... and you still will be ahead of the game. If I'm going to be lied to by a manuf....I'd rather have a drum rig....and have those stats/numbers be artificially inflated.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>Not sure about the Plustek discounts: end of the line or impending new and improved? Sadly, Nikon no longer supports the CoolScans. With scanner technology effectively stagnant, DSLR scanning is an option now.</p>

[liebermann]

<p>Well, my 5000 still works fine, I just want to scan some 120 and since I missed out on the 9000 feel like I ought to jump on the 120 while I can.<br>

(and maybe try easier scanning of 35 with plustek's bigger holders). Boy, I sure wich i had my old Polaroid 4000 though; (esp. for b/w) -- the scan interface on that was the best!<br /><br />Leszek Vogt - have you used the 120 and found it lacking? Why?</p>

[danielheller]

<p>The Plustek had a lot of issues from what I can recall. It was forever on "back order" at B&H, and I am not sure if the technical issues were ever resolved. In the end I personally did the unthinkable. Purchased a new Flextight X5. Never looked back and enjoying the pleasures of scanning. After following the news about the Plustek 120, and reading all the posts about it, I personally would not acquire it.</p>

<p>But, your post states "... I just want to scan some 120...", so if it's just "some", why not use a lab to scan those few?</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>No, I have not used the 120. I've read reports on it at nausea (and reviews too). We (many P-netters) waited for what appears to be 2 yrs (?) for the product to launch and we were getting many 1/2 truths (later turned to lies) about various specs on this machine. You should be able to find various posts (here on Pnet) on this very issue. Later this machine was tested by several people that deal with scanners daily....and know quality when they see it. Having said that it's "little better than Epson V750" does not sit well with anyone who spends 2 grand on a machine.</p>

<p>My take is: if you want decent reference the V800/850 would probably work for you (again, not much improvement over V700/750) + support. If you want quality and want to print larger than 24x24, then have the negs done on a drum scanner.</p>

<p>I'm still looking for a better 35mm scan and I may just do the DSLR copy and if I want a serious enlargement I'd go to the drum.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p> </p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I'd be looking for a used Coolscan 8000. The 9000 are typically twice the price but you can resell either unit after you are done without losing much, if anything. You don't need Nikon support for either of these. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Echoes from another thread... You do indeed not need Nikon support. These machines did not stop working the moment Nikon decided they would no longer make them.<br>A Coolscan 8000 would be good. The 9000 also, but the difference is not that big (almost no difference at all) that it would be worth the difference in asking price.

[lenny_eiger]

<p>No one can answer this question appropriately. There are a number of options. I don't consider the Epson a good scanner for much, but certainly not film smaller than 4x5... but I tend to be interested in the high end...</p>

<p>The reason that no one can answer your question is that you haven't indicated what you are going to do with the scans. Are you going to make 60 inch prints? Or are they just for the web? Are you interested in printing as well as Edward Weston? Are you working with family snapshots, are you a commercial photographer, etc. Without knowing the intent of the scans, it is impossible to make a reasonable judgement.</p>

[Aoresteen]

<p>I need to scan 645,6x6, 6x7, & 6x9 size film. I missed the boat on the Coolscan 9000 so what do I buy now? 16x20 is as lard as I will ever print - 11x14/10x15/16x16 would be normal sizes for me.</p>

<p>Would a Cool Scan 8000 suffice?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Anthony, the 8000 and 9000 produce the same results. They tweaked the 8000 a bit to produce the 9000, resulting in slightly faster scans and the 9000 is supposed not to suffer from banding problems some 8000s probably had once in a while (mine never did - should it happen the solution was to switch to single line scanning, which results in considerably longer scan times. The problem is said to stem from the 8000's calibration procedure, which would calibrate only one of the three scan lines). There is a really tiny difference in dynamic range. And the 9000 supports a software thingy the 8000 doesn't, which is such an important feature that i don't even remember what it was...<br><br>If you can find a 8000, but not a 9000, or can afford a 8000 not a 9000, there is nothing to worry about getting that 8000.<br>So yes, a 8000 would certainly suffice.<br><br>Make sure though, with both, to get the film holders you need. And also the glass carrier for MF film, which was sold as an expensive extra. The supplied glassless holder works, but allows the film to sag and it will be difficult to get good focus across the width. Though getting the film aligned properly in the glass holder, masking it, and most of all keeping dust away from it is more difficult than when using the glassless holder, i never regretted the purchase, have never used the glassless holder since.

[liebermann]

<p>Well, all I was really wondering was if anybody had any inkling about the future of this scanner being discontinued or updated with a newer version - in light of the discounted prices.</p>

<p>In response to an inquiry via the plustek website asking that, I got the following from a "Bubbles P." (who I think was maybe in the 1970s glam band 'boney-m', but I can't remember):</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"In regards your question many of the resellers could be having sales due to the holiday season. The opticfilm 120 will not be discontinued and many of the previous bugs when the scanner was shipped have been fix." </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>[...ed].</p>

<p>Another consideration is my buyer's regret for never being able to find the Nikon 9000 in stock for the last couple years it was allegedly in production except once in a while when I was broke (and, of course, immediately after I'd decided to buy the 5000 when <em>that</em> was available). Reminds me of shopping in the USSR!</p>

<p>So anyway, I think I might go ahead and try it while I can and it's on sale a little. As they used to say in the ussr: 'if you see it and want it and have the money, buy it now, because you may never see it again'.</p>

<p>My other gripe was that adorama and b&h offer 'free shipping*' on this, which as any Alaskan knows is actually included in the price shipping that is charged to all but offered only to lower-48 customers. However, upon asking if they'd consider me paying the difference between the avg. l48 shipping and the AK cost [<em>on principle!</em>] good old B&H (in caps now) offered to discount my shipping to AK by 50%, which is something like $30 and fair. adorama declined, but maybe B&H remembers I bought my 5000 from them (and a lot more). I cannot offer any words of help to our poor European, Asian, etc. fans of cheap shipping though!</p>

<p>A lot of the vitriol to the P120 across the web seems to be based largely on reading of other vitriol (as usual), rather than actual experience. A real poo-storm flared up in particular on rangefinderforum when the initial announcement was followed by production delays!<br /> RE: the first-hand vitriol, however, well, I can't say I've had a 100% pleasant experience with my Nikon 5000 either (crashes, misalighnments, refusals to recognize either the slide holder or the film holder depending on the day, etc., etc. and of course the godawful software) and counting the different annoyances reported with the 120 and my 5000 (many, many many!) the score seems similar!I hope the P120 does well; I've been reading through threads and a lot of people who actually have it seem to like it and get good results.</p>

<p>Scanning /is/ a hassle, and I assume always will be to get decent results, but still fun and in my opinion a worthwhile poke in the eye to our digicam world. Besides, with film I also get to run my freezer full of 2, 5, 10, 20-year old films (even at -40, since the coolant has to remain circulating even if no 'freezing' needed!), guess on exposure times with the ancient emulsions, mix and store the chemistry, keep the temperatures in the tanks spot-on while developing, dread the water spots and curling, AND unfurl the beautiful wet film after that to gasp at the magic of it all (esp. e-6!) before sitting idiot-like in front of the komputer for hours swearing at the scanner.</p>

<p>Again I state how much I miss my old Polaroid SS 4000 and it's scanning software interface (ca. 2002)! Don't really want to think about scsi, though. </p>