What are the best options for a flatbed 120 BW film scanner?

[william_p]

I'm looking to replace my canon 9000f, I've had it 5 years, and last year it decided to rip itself apart. Now the whole scanner is screwed

down onto a piece of wood, to hold the motor in place, It works as well as it ever did, but I was never hugely impressed by it. Now it also

looks hideous, so I'm allowing myself to replace it. I also have a plustek 8200 for 35mm and as you can imagine, it blows the canon out of

the water with quality. I'm not looking to spend dedicated 120 film scanner money, I'd probably say around the £200 mark. I'd also rather

not get another canon 9000f, as again it wasn't that amazing, I dunno if the mk2 would alter in anyway from my mk1. I just found it to be

unsharp, blotchy and terrible with colours (though I usually only shoot ilford hp5 nowadays, so not a great issue).

 

Digital dust removal isn't important to me, I've always preferred to do it myself (when I do shoot colour).

I'll only be scanning the odd frame, no contact sheets or bulk scanning.

I won't be printing big, so a flatbed is good enough, but I still would like to get as much detail as I can. 40cm X 40cm or there about.

It'll be mainly used for b&w, but good colour rendition would come in useful from time to time.

I shoot 6x6, so a scanner where a 3rd party has designed some good film holders would be great. The canon one is designed to be used with all MF formats, so keeping the film flat isn't as straightforward as my plustek 8100 35mm holders.

The £200 budget isn't set in stone.

 

 

Basically I know that the epson v700/v800 are probably the best flatbed scanners around atm, but I would like to know if there are any

cheaper options that do just as well with b&w film, and would handle my needs well, or whether I should spend a little bit more. Due to me

not really rating the canon 9000f, I feel like its competitors might not impress me either, so paying more might be the only option, unless

there's a gem of a scanner about? How is the v600?

 

Thanks :)

[User_6502147]

<p>If you want quality, Nikon 8000/9000 would be the way to go. But, one can get a drum scanner and be more satisfied + be able to get things serviced. Tough call, tho. The latest Epsons (800/850) are not much better than the 700's series, tho you could get a decent wet scan. I''ve seen really nice 120 scan from 750, but that may have to do with the operator's expertise and less with the unit.</p>

<p>If you intend to go larger than 1/2 meter, I'd go with a drum scanner, otherwise a refurbed 700/750/800/850 would do the work. Sure, the Nikon units are superior, but service for them is nearly nonexistent.</p>

<p>Les</p>

 

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>An Epson V600 should fit the bill. The big difference between it and the V800 is the size of the transparency scan area.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>I use a V600 on 120 BW and color film with the furnished Epsonscan software. I also bought the Betterscanner holders recently but haven't used them yet. frankly my lab furnished flat negative that aren't curled so the Epson scanner holder seems to do the job. If you insist on better holders, figure around US$75. The v600 in your price and spec range. Check my sites for samples. Good luck on whatever you decide.</p>

[william_p]

Cheers, you have some nice images in your rb67 landscape gallery. If that's the results you can get from the v600 then I

think it'll do fine for my needs :)

 

Thanks, people!

[bgelfand]

<p>My Epson V600 is sufficient for my needs. Although I scan my black and white negatives only for online use and for cataloging; I prefer to make prints in a traditional darkroom. For posting on Photo.net, I usually scan the print. As Ansel Adams wrote comparing photos to music, "The negative is the score. The print is the performance."</p>

[bob_ogden]

<p>Les Vogt,<br>

Did you read the part about budget, or are you offering to sell him a drum scanner for £200? If that's the case, I'll take one, too. Or even a good condition Nikon 8000 or 9000.</p>