High End Scanners for MF film; Reflecta MF5000, Braun FPS 120 and Plustek 120.

[l_t5]

<p>Okay....<br /> <br />.... so I am a proficient, er... not beginner, film photographer and scanner.<br /> <br /> Historically I used an Epson 4990 and Silverfast to scan whatever negs I had. The results were proficient, not professional, but plenty good enough for the age (5 years or more ago) and the equipment (old laptops and 4990, which was not as robust as the more professional Epson models). Now... I should also state that I am poor. The 4990 was separated by a crap landlords incompetence about 3 years ago and I was not able to replace it. <br /> <br />Fast forward to today... I have, unexpectedly, come into a bit of money. So I can look at replacing and updating various pieces of equipment. Including my scanning equipment....<br /> <br /> My initial desire was to for an Expression 11000XL and full Silverfast and also a Plustek Opticfilm 120...<br /> Silverfast do an "All-in-one" deal on the 11000XL and the Opticfilm 120 comes with a very upgradeable version of Silverfast bundled.<br /> <br /> However soon my Lottery fantasies were quelled.... the above scanners and software would come in in excess of £4500/$6500... I mean, the money would cover it, by my wife would kill me and rightly so.<br /> <br />So I moderated my plans... an Epson 850 Pro... and then I started searching and I here I have hit choppy waters.<br /> In essence, since Nikon stopped making the 9000 in 2010, there has been no real challenger for the negative feeding type scanner.<br /> <br /> There are two main ones on the market... the Reflecta MF5000 and the Plustek Opticfilm 120. Both have terrible reviews and doubts over them.<br /> <br /> The Reflecta has more modest, but honest, technical claims (as reviewed and verified at filmscanner.info) but does not have an automatic feed and is cumbersome to use, meaning that scanning is lengthy to the point where users question why they bought the machine.<br /> <br /> The Opticfilm 120 claims more high end stats but filmscanner.info rebut them as wildly inaccurate and inflated:<br /> <br /> <strong>The Plustek OpticFilm 120 achieves an effective resolution of 3450 dpi at scans with the optical resolution of 5300 dpi and thus achieves effectively 65% of its nominal resolution.</strong><br /> <br /> Most damming is that at the bottom of the review is written this:<br /> <br /> <strong>Since we and lots of our customers had many problems with the Plustek OpticFilm 120, we have taken that scanner out of our assortment.</strong><br /> <br /> Bloody hell!<strong><br /></strong><br /> That is not what you want to read when you are thinking of making a £1500 investment. Of course there is no date on this review but it has to be 3 years (or more) old - yes... there have been no new MF scanners onto the market! Could Plustek have tackled these problems?<br /> <br /> Reviews at Amazon.co.uk do not help. There are 3 giving the product 1.5 stars out of 5. On Amazon.com there are, similarly, 3 reviews giving the product 4 out of 5 stars - confusing. The Brits are mainly complaining about Plustek's CS. The Americans are gushing over the scanners resolution (which filmscanner.info are saying is erroneous).<br /> <br /> The advantage, I should say, of the Plustek system is that the tray is motorised and allows batch scanning, set it off and walk away. Professional reviewers, who are not filmscanner.info, and whose professionality, knowledge of scanning and relationship with Plustek cannot be determined, praise the machine (although some tell you to ditch Silverfast for more user-friendly OS for this machine.<br /> <br /> Help!!!! Anyone!!!<br /> <br /> Filmscanner.info have a ranking of filmscanners.... it is only in German. But from what I can glean from it, it puts the Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED at the top of the pile. Really? We have not progressed beyond that point in 6 years? If I want good results I have to buy a £1000-2000 secondhand 6 year old scanner with no tech support, no servicing options, no guarantee the drivers will still work with modern OS's and no modern things (like 48-bit support, not that 48-bit is that necessary.... but still...).<br /> <br /> <strong>Okay... if you got through the rant, well done, here are the questions....</strong><br /> <br /> 1) Anyone own a Plustek Opticfilm 120? What is your review of the product? Are you being happy and silent? Are 75-95% of Plustek scanner owners squirrelled away happily scanning and not writing their thought out there?<br /> <br /> 2) Similarly Reflecta MF-5000/Braun FPS120 owners... is it that onerous to use?<br /> <br /> 3) Is there anyone out there that can provide some useful insight or have faced this problem themselves? If so what did you choose/do?<br /> <br /> 4) Finally does anyone know if there is another solution? Maybe Plustek/Braun/Reflecta or (praise be to God) Nikon are about to blow us all away with a new product in 2016!.<br /> <br />Any help gratefully appreciated.</p>

[diegobuono]

Do not waste time and money on consumer low quality scanner; you will never know how big the difference is untill you have your

negative or slide scanned on a professional scanner. After years of using epson flatbed I bought an used hasselblad Flextight 646. The

quality diference is astonishing as is the simplicity innusing it and the fig advantage of the 3f file format (sort of raw file). The qulity

delivered is the same as the newer models (X1 and X5),?only slower (and no folding light table where you put th film, only for more

compacteness when not in use). They are not so easy to find on the used market but with a bit of patience and research you will find one

soon or later. The price range is 3000 - 3500 Euro. The Pro Centre in London (no connection of any sort) had one for 1995 £.

 

http://www.procentre.co.uk/sales-secondhand-medium-format-digital.php

[david_henderson]

<p>A couple of points.</p>

<p>First and most important, you haven't said what you want to achieve with your scans, which makes it impossible to advise on what you might do to realise what you want.</p>

<p>Second, you seem surprised that advancing technology hasn't produced better solutions. But in the opinion of those that could conceivably make quality film scanners for use at home, there is not the volume potential to make such efforts worthwhile, so there is no advancing technology, and it doesn't look to me like there will ever be. So its a question of making the best out of what you can see, used or new, right now. </p>

<p>If you're happy to make prints up to say 12" square or so, perhaps with the aid of a third party holder/AN glass: or maybe a little more if you're prepared to wet mount, then you may well find that Epson V700/800 or V750/850 to wet mount, could meet the bulk of your needs. If you want bigger than that from a few originals you can always find a service to scan using a Coolscan 9000 or (better IMO) an Imacon. Few people I'd suggest actually need vast quantities of scans big enough to make very large prints and indeed that might be why none has bothered to pick up the balls dropped by Nikon, Minolta et al. </p>

<p>You say you've looked at filmscanner.info, and there's not entirely uncomplimentary reviews of the bigger Epsons on there once you get used to the fact that you won't actually achieve the resolutions they claim along dimensions other than file size.</p>

<p>Alternatively there are a number of threads on here about methods of using a Dslr to photograph film frames.</p>

<p> </p>

[c_watson1]

<p>Scanner technology is stagnant for the reasons David outlined above. Above all, there's simply insufficient demand, galling as that might be to some. Google "DSLR scanning." I picked up a Nikon D7200 this fall and got around over the holidays to plunking some 6x6 and 6x7 b&w negatives on a lightbox and Manfrotto copy stand dredged from the basement. Though a work in progress, the results were nice even with haphazard set-up and quick&dirty LR tweaking. I looked hard at the big Epsons and just didn't see the value there I did a few years ago. If anything, the DSLR will get my Bronica and Mamiya cameras off the shelf again after my local pro lab folded and cut me off from affordable 120 scans.</p>

[ondebanks]

<p>Having read most of your post, and noticing that you were quoting prices in £, I was about to say forget about the Plusteks and Reflectas, and point you to Ffordes who have a bunch of Nikon LS8000ED scanners at £949...but then I got to this bit:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I want good results I have to buy a £1000-2000 secondhand 6 year old scanner with no tech support, no servicing options, no guarantee the drivers will still work with modern OS's and no modern things (like 48-bit support, not that 48-bit is that necessary.... but still...).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>...so I'll just back away slowly...</p>

<p>Seriously though, the only worry with this Nikon LS8000ED deal is servicing. The hardware interface is Firewire, which is still very well supported. Drivers and modern OS's? Not a problem - Vuescan has its <a href="http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/nikon_ls_8000.html">own drivers for the LS8000ED under Windows, Mac and Linux</a>. What other tech support does anyone need with a scanner anyway? They're very simple devices, and the internet has fellow users to ask if you do have an issue. It has multi-sampling and Digital ICE and they are more important 'modern' features IMO than the 42-bit/48-bit question. </p>

<p>I'd also look seriously at the DSLR + macro lens + stitching alternative, though. Not suitable for bulk film scanning, but I'm going to give it a go sometime. It should majorly outresolve my Epson 4990; I just need to come up with a rig to ensure that dust, flatness and focusing/dof are not issues.</p>

 

[peterbcarter]

<p>I have and use a V700 and there is no shortage of nay sayers that will insist I can't do what I obviously can do. Like the review that got dropped, one has to consider the source. Skill is involved and without it, garbage scans will ensue.</p>

<p>Sooo, for the best bang for the buck is the Epson V7/8 series with a wet mounting system. Know it will take time to learn what it takes to get a good scan and you are off to the races.</p>

<p>A sample form my V700 with wet mount tray.....The film was ORWO N74+, which is a grainy film...</p>

<p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5778/21216237831_acc55af9ce_o_d.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>If you want a machine that factors you out of the equation, it will cost you.</p>

 

[l_t5]

<p>Hi guys,<br>

<br />so I am a bit overwhelmed at the number of responses and the time you have taken... I kinda expected there to be a bit of wind whistling and prairie grass over this one.<br>

<br />I am relatively new here (joined a long time ago but did not really log on) so I do not know how to respond is a slick forum way so I am just gonna type my responses here.<br>

<br /><strong>Diego Buono</strong>: Yep, I have been on the Pro Centre. I had not really considered Imacon/Hasselblad scanners because they are either too expensive or too old... I know I am looking ageist towards old hardware here but my concerns are both practical and technological. Practical because who knows where the machines have been, what their usage is, what nightmares lurk beneath, in terms of spare parts, servicing and longevity and technological because things have moved on in scanning/CCD tech and an old product will not have the long term drivers/support that a newer product will.<br>

I collect old amps... you know amplification technology is largely stagnant? I mean people come up with different amplification circuits but an A-class amp is largely an A-class amp. The way the technology drives forward is in electromagnet shielding and cooling and integration of things like DACs. So I do not mind buying old amps. I also buy old cameras a lot... and that is a different story. Half the time you are buying a whole heap of trouble. I am sending them around the world for repair and my flat is littered with lenses and camera bodies (sounds like heaven, eh?) that I do not have the money or time to deal with. And I would never buy a vintage digital camera... at least with the mechanicals there is hope.<br>

I would consider an secondhand X1, if it was from somewhere like the Pro Centre, but it would have to be south of £5000, maybe south of £4000, and I do not think that that will happen.<br>

<strong>David Henderson</strong> - I am gonna sound snippy and I honestly hate that and apologise because I do not want to be that person (and am genuinely not) but I work part time at a pro-film developers in London. So I want to do what I want to do with the scanning... ie batch scan at low res, or concentrate on scanning a single image at stupid high res, importing it into PS/LR and taking it all the way through to A3+ print, although I understand why people always want a definition of the end product before they offer advise.<br>

I understand why no-one has taken the ball forward (when it comes to sales volumes) I am just surprised that no-one has produced ONE good machine in the face of the problems posed by these particular mid-range/premium machines. I would think (probably erroneously) that there would be enough consumers to support one good product, but if that were true then I suppose Nikon would still be in the game, eh? At this point I do not want to wet mount (maybe an avenue for the future) and I do not want to photograph and stitch.<br>

<strong>C Watson</strong> - Many thanks for the response. As I told David I do not want to photograph, it may well become the future but I have not the space to set it up (one bedroom flat) and it seems fiddly. I actually think that an Epson V850 represents, for the machine it is, amazing value... the problem is that some days I just cannot be arsed with the dust and the fiddling and frustration of flat bed scanning... although I do love the scanners themselves. The promise of the Coolscans/Plustek/Reflecta (well not so much the Reflecta, it turns out) is that you load it up and leave it to scan and the dust is not such an issue. Sorry to hear about the Pro shop, it is a worldwide malady, much like Dutch Elm Disease and the death of the frogs and bees.<br>

<strong>Ray Butler</strong> - your response I have the most complex reaction to (in a good way!). First of all thanks for the tip regarding Ffordes. Historically I have little dealings with them because they are in Scotland and can be pricey... although did used to window shop/drool over some of their stock (and regularly trawl them for a GF670).<br>

Now.... Are Nikon Coolscans totally off the table? No. If Nikon still made the scanners would I buy one? Yes. And after you pointed out how much they are still holding their own technologically I researched and found that Silverfast still publish the latest software for them... always a good sign as it means that the drivers are still up to date on Windows 10.<br>

But my reservations are this... would you buy a 6 year old car (at least), for the same price as a new one, where the mileage was not known, the service history and treatment not clear and the company that made the car had gone out of business, no longer made spares, there was no warranty and you are not sure if it is able to be serviced (due to lack of people, spares, know how)?<br>

You know I am about to buy a new laptop too? Each time I buy a new laptop I spend more and more.... and each time, because it is a big deal for me, I think this laptop better last me a long time... thought the same when I saved up enough for a Nikon D800... this camera, I thought, is all I will ever need. But the reality is that these products age quicker than dogs. 5 years down the line and they perform and look like they were designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel. I just have severe doubts about buying an old Nikon scanner... not because I am some weird snob who cannot see that they were (and to a large extent) still are quality, but it just feels like a shaky deal. However you make a strong case for the 8000 and I am considering it strongly now.<br>

<strong>Peter Carter</strong> - I rate the Epson V7/8 series... I really do and, due to the recommendations here will look into wet mounting (nice scan btw, I mean I am looking at it on a laptop screen, so I am limited, but it looks juicy and would have loved to see it on higher res, calibrated screen) but as you say flat bed scanning can be... tinkering, some days I want to slap some negs into a holder, throw it in a front end of a square box and do fairly medium to large file scanning of film without all the fiddling that goes with the flatbeds... but I am beginning to think that, unless you go down a Hasselblad X1/X5 route it is just not possible... and that feels wrong (especially if you have a fairly decent low 4 figure budget) and hard to accept, but it appears to be the reality.<br>

Gentlemen, honestly, many thanks for the responses.<br>

You might see this question repeated over in the Scanning section, I did not find it until after I posted this question and I could not delete this question and as a new user I can only post one question per day (?). As I said I am a newbie and may have gotten that wrong... still finding feet.</p>

 

[l_t5]

<p>Oo-er... apologies for the weird spacing/formatting... it was properly spaced when I wrote it.</p>

[l_t5]

<p>Blimey <strong>Ray Butler</strong> the Coolscan 8000 is 16 years old this year! I mean I honestly hear what you are saying when you praise this scanner and I would love it if Nikon produced a slightly updated model, would buy it in a second (if I could afford it).... but it is a hard sell to buy a £1000 16 year old scanner. Under those circumstances going for a Hasselblad Flextight looks like better bang for the buck. I will still look into it all, take advise, but it does not seem like a good bet to spend that amount on hardware that age.</p>

[steve_rasmussen]

<p>I have owned a Plustek 120 for 2 years now. Here's some history. The first unit I received failed under warranty after 10 months; it refused to accept the film tray. The second unit, after much scanning, had a mother board problem in which I had to cover the cost. This scanner does well with neg film, especially Ektar. Few modifications are necessary to bring the image to reality. Slide film is another matter. Velvia 100f and Velvia 100 are troublesome to scan. SilverFast just can't bring them to look real without huge effort. Velvia 50 does ok, as does Provia 100f and 400X. But a lot depends what is in the slide. Some Velvia 100 shots scan easily (lightning shots over a city). </p>

<p>Don't expect to get Heidelberg Topaz (a great flatbed scanner) results from the Plustek. An optically printed 6x7 slide can look sharp printed at 24 X 30 inches but the Plustek scan of the same slide will not get you anywhere near that (11x14 maybe).</p>

<p>I used to shoot film professionally but wanted to use my film images to sell in the digital age. Using the Plustek for that purpose has been a problem. Customers only bought a few images for printing in small (8x10 inch or less) sizes. </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Braun has a good reputation, but I haven't found any reliable reviews. I have a Nikon LS-4000 (MF), which is very good, but the OEM drivers won't work past Windows XP. Some people have used Vista drivers in Windows 7, but Silverfast or VueScan work too, without fiddling.</p>

<p>Now I use a Sony A7Rii as a "slide scanner," with a PK-13 extension tube, 55/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor and a Nikon ES-1 slide holder. It works as well as the Nikon, but 10x faster. Medium format would require a different holder. I haven't got there yet.</p>

[baisao]

<blockquote>

<p>I have and use a V700 and there is no shortage of nay sayers that will insist I can't do what I obviously can do. Like the review that got dropped, one has to consider the source. Skill is involved and without it, garbage scans will ensue.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. The restriction of 12" is laughable to. I get great results with the v750 compared to other scans I've seen.</p>

<p>However, there's much left on the negative. This is especially noticeable when scanning 4x5s: printable highlights get blown out, fine detail seen under a 6x loup renders as a mere suggestion of detail in a scan.</p>

<p>I suspect to get the most from a negative, and I've seen this with my own eyes, is to wet print with high quality optics. Tonality is much better, even in high contrast prints, compared to a scan of the same negative.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Jim Trahan. I think your post is kind of strange. On the one hand you say a 12" "limit" is "laughable", yet say also that there's much left on the negative, which is exactly what I'd expect from a scanner with clear limitations in resolution and Dmax. For me about 12" does not mark a point where the V700 becomes useless for medium format, but it does mark a point at which I notice a meaningful improvement offered by better equipment such as a Coolscan 9000 or better yet IMO an Imacon. So 12" marks a point where I question whether I should be scanning 120 with my V700 or instead buying in a better scan. If the detail wasn't important then I wouldn't have bothered with medium format anyway.</p>

[baisao]

<blockquote>

<p>Jim Trahan. I think your post is kind of strange. On the one hand you say a 12" "limit" is "laughable", yet say also that there's much left on the negative, which is exactly what I'd expect from a scanner with clear limitations in resolution and Dmax.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To be clear I am only speaking about B&W because I don't wet print color...</p>

<p>Even comparing Nikon B&W scans to a wet print of the same negative, there's a lot more in the wet print. I haven't seen a digital sensor surpass what I can get from a good wet print. Nevertheless, It's exactly what I would expect from a digital sensor. It's not a large format contact print but it's more than adequate for sharing online or printing under 20". </p>

[david_henderson]

<p>And Jim- are you referring to making prints of up to 20" by scanning large format or from MF?</p>

<p>Your comment about more in a neg than you can get out using a Nikon scanner are what I'd expect- the Nikon only delivers 4000 ppi and the film indeed often has more to give. There are better scanners than the Nikon that can do that. However whether an enlarger can draw out more than the best drum scans is a moot point for me. My experience is mostly colour from slides and from labs:- but it seemed to me usual to be able to make larger, more detailed and sharper prints from drum scans than I could get from enlargers. </p>

[marco_ristuccia]

<p>I second Diego's suggestion of considering an Imacon.<br /> I have an 848, payed it €4000 three years ago (second hand), and it was the best choice I ever made.<br /> Before the 848 I had the Epson V700 with custom holders, I thought it was great, but in comparison to the Imacon it is a peace of crap. Very soft unless you boost the sharpness way up to create the sensation of sharpness (but many details are not there in any case).<br /> I would consider the Epson only for images going to a web page, not to paper.</p>