Medium Format film scanning

[barry685]

Which is likely to produce a better result for Medium Format color negative scanning. An Epson V750-M PRO or a used Nikon 8000 ED?

[Kirk Gittings]

Which is likely to produce a better result for Medium Format color negative scanning. An Epson V750-M PRO or a used Nikon 8000 ED?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156226\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I wish I could give you a direct answer. I have owned both but not at the same time. Definitely an 8000 in good working order is better than a 4990. Definitely a 9000 is better than an 8000. Definitely a 750 is better than a 4990. All of these tests I have done, but an 8000 against a 750?

A few points which might matter. IMO, for batch scanning the 750 will shine. Batch scanning is a pain in the b--- with the 8 or 9000 and limited to two 6x7s. Multipass scanning is better on the 9000 because it has a superior step motor. Wet scanning is easier on the 750.

I went back and looked at some scans I did on the 8000 vs. the 750 and they are pretty comparable in terms of resolution with a very, very slight advantage to the 8000, which would be barely visible with a loupe at 16x20 and not visible at normal viewing distances. But since I am not comparing the same negative or a target this is just an impression.

There used to be a review at Photo-I, that compared it favorably to the 9000, but I cannot find it anymore.

[geotzo]

Hi, I own a Nikon Coolscan 8000 and a 4990 both working under silverfast. I agree there is big difference between them two with 8000 having the obvious advantage in color depth and sharpness  my assistant owns a 750 and I think its results are very good, but then I can still see a difference with 8000, meaning I find 8000 better. Downside is the 8000 is a very very slow scanner when used with multipass etc.  I have also used it with vuescan software which is dramatically cheaper than silverfast and the results are about the same. Hope that helps,
George

[barry685]

Hi, I own a Nikon Coolscan 8000 and a 4990 both working under silverfast. I agree there is big difference between them two with 8000 having the obvious advantage in color depth and sharpness  my assistant owns a 750 and I think its results are very good, but then I can still see a difference with 8000, meaning I find 8000 better. Downside is the 8000 is a very very slow scanner when used with multipass etc.  I have also used it with vuescan software which is dramatically cheaper than silverfast and the results are about the same. Hope that helps,
George
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156332\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank You both for your replies.

For that matter how would any of the above compare with a used Imacon in the $1500-$1800 price range.

[Ken Doo]

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interacti...V750/page_5.htm

[alba63]

For that matter how would any of the above compare with a used Imacon in the $1500-$1800 price range.

Hi, film scanners is something I'm also concerned with right now, as I still use a Pentax 67. I happen to have a Minolta Multi Pro, the last MF scanner they did  (no longer in production). I also have a 4y old Epson Scanner, the 2450. I have read several review of photo-i.co.uk, and as everyone knows, the guy there always tests the Epsons very favorable against the dedicated film scanners.

My impression is that somehow you can get them to look quite sharp, but normally only with insane loads of USM. Maybe what a V700 gives is enough, I never tried it, but I believe you only will be able to judge on quality when you use it by yourself and after a week or so. I have read many reviews on other gear that tested very well, and when I tried it out, I found it to be much less good than promised.

The problem with all dedicated CCD scanners is that while they are very sharp, the also enhance (make stronger) the film grain. This is true for the Nikons, the Minolta and also the Imacon. The Imacons have the advantage to avoid film flatness problems wit their "virtual drum" technology, but the grain problems are the same. For the Minolta there is a kind of fix, a diffuser kit that is made by a guy from the Netherlands, site is called scanhancer.nl - I have yet to modify the indside of my scanner, it will make the light source more diffuse which is a good thing for grain.

The Epsons are hard to beat when it comes to price, and according to photo-i.co.uk the cheaper one (v700) is practically the same quality as the more expensive model. Generally the Epsons never make it to grain problems or only mildly, due to their unsharpness.

Bottom of the line: I suppose that any Nikon or Imacon is better, shows sharper detail than the Epson, but this is expensive (if you dont find a cheap used one as I did) and you might be quite happy with the Epson. The difference between consumer flatbed and filmscanner has certainly become much smaller.

The frustrating thing is the insane amount of time it takes to buy, bring, get back and scan your film. Scanning is not a very amusing pass- time.

greetings
bernie

[Kirk Gittings]

Thank You both for your replies.

For that matter how would any of the above compare with a used Imacon in the $1500-$1800 price range.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156451\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The ones in that price range are Mac OX9 only and require a scsi card. I have used these older Imacons extensively, they will out perfom either the Epson 750 or the Nikons, but they lack one crucial feature, which I find very useful at times, Digital Ice. Prior to the newest generation Hassleblad Imacons their dust removal was crap, far inferior to the DI of either the Epsons or the Nikons. While there is some degradation (more with some software than others_more with Vuescan than Silverfast for example) for clients using small images, like magazines, it is invaluable.

Currently I wetscan useing an Epson 750 for magazine work (though I primarily shoot Digital now it is used mainly for stock) and I have an old professional Creo/Scitex Eversmart for scanning my 4x5 b&w for gallery/museum prints. There is still nothing that compares to a primo scan from a professional scanner.

[larryg]

I have used both and now only have the Nikon 8000 Cool Scan with ICE

I use exclusively digital now but have a large stock of mf slides that I will still be scanning.

I personally believe the Nikon does a far better job with resolution  to produce superb digital files.