looking for input on scanner

[john cox]

I just bought a used 645 that I intend to use with film. Any ideas of what a good scanner is for a reasonable amount of money (less than $400)?
I haven't shot film in years and when I did last I had an epson flatbed doing the work. Is something like that available? It would be great if this could do 35mm/prints as well, as I have a flatbed on my desk already for those purposes.
I also may as well ask out of curiosity what would a digital back run me for a mamiya 645 afd to lease or buy at the bottom end.

Thanks
John

[SecondFocus]

I use a Canon 8800F and I am very satisfied with it. I do 35mm, medium format, negatives and transparencies, and prints. I believe it has just been replaced with a newer model number but it is essentially the same. Well within your price range. When I need better individual scans I send them out for drum scanning.

There is an Epson scanner slightly more than $400 that people talk about often that seems to be well liked too.

[john cox]

I was looking at B&H and saw the V600 V700 and V750, what's the current thinking on the quality of these scanners and their cannon counterparts? I don't need drum quality results but I want Provia to look better than my Olympus pen digital.
Is that even possible without a drum scanner?
I'm using a mamiya 645 pro tl with N lenses if that means anything.

[vandevanterSH]

Here is a good site for reviews:

http://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html

Film scanning is a contracting market, so new hardware options are limited.   I have both Epson 750 pro and Nikon 9000ED scanners.  I am a hobbyist so I haven't spent years working on scanning.  For 120 film, with a casual comparison between the Epson and Nikon, if I was "blinded" to the output, I probably wouldn't bat better then 500 in picking which scanner produced each scan.  I really like the Nikon and it is my preferred scanner for film but when I got it,  I really tried hard to convince myself that it produced scans that were worth triple the cost.  If you get the Epson, most people recommend getter an after market film carrier.

Steve

[MartinWidmann]

This amateur photographer seems to be statisfied with the Canon CanoScan 9000 F.

Martin

[john cox]

Thanks, for the replies martin and steve.
I don't speak german but I'm getting the gist of the 9000 f doc with googles translator.

[vandevanterSH]

Here is a review of the 9000 f in English:

http://www.filmscanner.info/en/CanonCanoScan9000F.html

Steve

[MartinWidmann]

Here is a review of the 9000 f in English:

http://www.filmscanner.info/en/CanonCanoScan9000F.html

Steve

I know this one as well. He is not very enthusiastic about this scanner. It might be best to test it yourself and see, if the scanner fits your needs. In any way, don't miss to try Hamricks Vuescan. It might look cumbersome at first, but it is easier to use than Silverfast and it is very flexible and gives great quality. The pro version in combination with IT8 targets and the calibration feature is especially useful.

Martin

[john cox]

This is making me wonder if I want a flatbed, it seems I'll need to get a dedicated film scanner at some point and I wonder if the price difference is close enough that it doesn't make more sense to get a digital back.
I may end up getting a used older flatbed until I make up my mind.

[LiamStrain]

Totally depends on your needs. For 645, one of the new gen Epson flatbeds with a holder from Betterscanning.com, often meets the needs of an amateur who does not expect to make large prints from the negatives (prints under 11x14 are usually doable, and you can always have winners drum scanned by a lab, as needed).

If you are needing it for professional client work, this solution rarely is enough though.

Dedicated scanners IMO start and end with the Nikon 9000ED, unless you you are willing to invest in an Imacon or used drum scanner (and time to learn how to use it).

[john cox]

I had the 9000 ed in mind and already checked ebay. Its going for 4k at the bottom end and theres duties on that too (none locally). I think if I was resourceful enough I could get a used p25 back for near that (i've seen some for 5k), or lease a pentax body for around what I would pay in film + developing.
I regularly make 20x30 enlargements for exhibitions with my d700, I would like to maintain that quality.  

[revaaron]

I have never really gotten good/constant quality out of my 9000ED yet... not for 645 that is.  For mounted 35mm slides and 35mm negatives, it's great... but 645, I either get curved film or newton rings.

I have the epson v500 and have printed most of my huge film prints from scans off that. The colors/depth aren't as good as what I get from the 9000ED and it's TERRIBLE for bw, but it did a great job on some 6x6 shots.  I would say go with the v750 if you are going for a epson.  Also, i spent the money on the betterscanning adaptor and never got it to work well at all.

[revaaron]

btw: here is a 35mm mounted slide from 1980-ish
nikon 9000ED

epson v500


I realize that I scanned the V500 upside down.

here is some 645 b/w scan tests with ilford.
The top is the BEST i could get out of the v500 and the bottom is the 9000ED right out of the box

[IanB]

I have never really gotten good/constant quality out of my 9000ED yet... not for 645 that is.  For mounted 35mm slides and 35mm negatives, it's great... but 645, I either get curved film or newton rings.

The standard film holder for the 9000 ED has always bugged me - I use the glass carrier for almost all MF films now. It only seems to give newton rings if you touch it with your fingers or otherwise get grease on it. Clean it like a lens and it's OK - and keep the films clean, too!

Agreed that the 9000 is absolutely outstanding for B&W at full res. Colour films often respond better at reduced resolutions, but the results can be very good once you get used to how the thing behaves.

[ondebanks]

I also may as well ask out of curiosity what would a digital back run me for a mamiya 645 afd to lease or buy at the bottom end.

and

...it seems I'll need to get a dedicated film scanner at some point and I wonder if the price difference is close enough that it doesn't make more sense to get a digital back.

Hi John,

This is exactly the dilemma/decision I faced a year ago. I did a tonne of research on digital backs, and scanners better than my Epson 4990. I went the digital back route.

"At the bottom end" as you sweetly put it, there are some used "bargains" to be had for 645 AFD digibacks. I got a just-serviced, low-mileage Kodak DCS Proback 645M for €2600 including customs tax etc., and I haven't looked back (in 2 days time I will celebrate the anniversary of its "first light" on my AFD!).

More recently, in January, we got a new (€2000) EOS 5DII body. This happened during the "downtime" of my AFD having a shutter problem. Now you'd think I'd be gaga over this much fancier camera, but to be honest, other than astrophotography when I appreciated its incredible low-light/long exposure performance, battery life and live-view, I found myself pining for my Kodak 645M for daytime shooting! So I won a replacement AFD for a song last week, and baby's back in action again!   

You might also look at the Mamiya ZD back. The Kodak bests it in some regards, but the ZD is a larger sensor.

Ray

[john cox]

Thanks for affirming my thinking, I was looking at the zd back at keh for $3800 vs the coolscans for around the same price, it's very tempting.

[revaaron]

The standard film holder for the 9000 ED has always bugged me - I use the glass carrier for almost all MF films now. It only seems to give newton rings if you touch it with your fingers or otherwise get grease on it. Clean it like a lens and it's OK - and keep the films clean, too!

Agreed that the 9000 is absolutely outstanding for B&W at full res. Colour films often respond better at reduced resolutions, but the results can be very good once you get used to how the thing behaves.

I clean the crap out of the glass holder and get newton rings on every single solitary piece of film I put though that machine. The only way to get rid of them is suppose to be by masking them out or whatever.  I would like to see a youtube of that so that I can copy it.

Unfortunately, it seems that the masks mean that you can't scan more than one 645 at a time. lame.

[TMARK]

I clean the crap out of the glass holder and get newton rings on every single solitary piece of film I put though that machine. The only way to get rid of them is suppose to be by masking them out or whatever.  I would like to see a youtube of that so that I can copy it.

Unfortunately, it seems that the masks mean that you can't scan more than one 645 at a time. lame.

I rarely get Newtons Rings.

Use the masks that come with the holder.  Clean is good, but it doesn't contribute to NRings.  Its where the film touches the non-ANR bottom glass of the holder.  If your film has some serious curl and you can't keep it off the bottom glass, use the standard holder, or make an ANR holder with framers glass and a sheet of ANR glass.  Make your own masks that are tall enough to keep the film off the glass.  Last resort, the regular holder.

I only get rings with the glass holder and supplied masks (two 6x7 frames at a time) when the film is really unnaturaly curled or bent.  Then I make my own holder with glass and my own masks (thick plastic card from Utrecht), and if that doesn't work, the regular holder. 

Good luck.  Scanning is a pain, but I like film better than digital for most things.