Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Except for my Epson 2450, I have been scannerless since my Konica-Minolta died. I don't think I want another flatbed. I'm aware of Plustek, but I'm not sure if they are my best choice. I'm wondering about getting a used Nikon Coolscan. I want good sharpness and dynamic range for reading transparencies, mainly Velvia. It looks like even a decent Coolscan 5000 is over $1000--often way over. But what about some of the others, like, I don't know--a Coolscan V, or Coolscan 4000, or . . . ? Or is the Plustek my best option? Or something else? I do sort of have confidence in Nikon stuff . . .
Opinions?
Opinions?
huyvuvn
Architekt
canon 8800F , so cheap 
Steve M.
Mentor
I have an Epson 2450 too, and while it's very good at 6x6 and larger, 35mm won't cut it. For 35mm, I've used a Nikon V-ED scanner, and a Minolta Scan Dual II and III. Saw little difference in B&W scans other than file sizes (the Nikon makes a larger file). But again, that was with B&W films. If you shoot C-41 films or slides I'd definitely go w/ a Nikon for the Digital Ice feature alone.
filmfan
Well-known
Plustek 7600i
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
1. What differences are there between Coolscan IV and Coolscan V?
1a. Any problems getting Coolscans repaired to date?
2. And between Plustek 76i Ai vs. 7600i SE? The Ai is more expensive, so presumably better?
1a. Any problems getting Coolscans repaired to date?
2. And between Plustek 76i Ai vs. 7600i SE? The Ai is more expensive, so presumably better?
filmfan
Well-known
I believe it is only a difference in provided software.
zauhar
Mentor
I am very happy with Canon 9000 for B&W, but I am still figuring out color.
It's a flatbed, but comes with holders for 35mm film and slides.
Randy
It's a flatbed, but comes with holders for 35mm film and slides.
Randy
RObert Budding
D'oh!
It depends
It depends
To do what? Any old flatbed will do if you just want scans fr the web. For serious printing, on the other hand, I'd look for a used Nikon or Minolta scanner.
It depends
To do what? Any old flatbed will do if you just want scans fr the web. For serious printing, on the other hand, I'd look for a used Nikon or Minolta scanner.
lynxkcg
Member
I cant praise the Epson V700 enough, it does everything I ask and more.
Why not another Minolta? I find the Dual Scan IV a bit flakey but with VueScan it runs well, I just usually have to reset it after 3-4 hours. I bought one for $44 and another for $160 so I have a spare. Best bang for the buck!
I've always wanted to try the higher end 5400 and 5400II Minoltas. I guess the original 5400 is really nice for B&W film.
I haven't had the latest Nikons but I had the IV series and the Minolta is at least as good. I actually like the grain/noise from the Dual Scan IV scans.
I've always wanted to try the higher end 5400 and 5400II Minoltas. I guess the original 5400 is really nice for B&W film.
I haven't had the latest Nikons but I had the IV series and the Minolta is at least as good. I actually like the grain/noise from the Dual Scan IV scans.
Last edited:
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
For fairly serious work. I have a book in mind.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
The Scan Dual IV is at least as good as the Coolscan IV? Or did you mean the Minolta 5400 is as good as the Coolscan IV?
I want good performance with both color and B & W, but right now color is more important.
I think the Dual Scan IV is comparable image quality-wise to the Coolscan IV, as I have archived scans from both.
Only in theory do I know about the 5400 versus the Coolscan V or 5000 but I suspect it is on par with the 5000.
In all cases, the texture-noise-grain of the Nikons and Minoltas are different and not clearly better than one another, more that it's a matter of taste.
The flatbed users simply haven't compared film scanners to their flatbeds, it's really no contest.
Only in theory do I know about the 5400 versus the Coolscan V or 5000 but I suspect it is on par with the 5000.
In all cases, the texture-noise-grain of the Nikons and Minoltas are different and not clearly better than one another, more that it's a matter of taste.
The flatbed users simply haven't compared film scanners to their flatbeds, it's really no contest.
Last edited:
Frontman
Well-known
I havd been using an Epson 750 for a couple of years now, and it has given me excellent scans. I chose the Epson because I shoot multiple formats. The quality is good enough that I can make good A3+ size prints from 35mm negatives. For medium and large formats, it is simply fantastic.
Bad things about the Epson are the cheezy film holders, and that the glass gets hazy on the bottom side and must be removed and cleaned regularly. Fortunately, this is not difficult.
Bad things about the Epson are the cheezy film holders, and that the glass gets hazy on the bottom side and must be removed and cleaned regularly. Fortunately, this is not difficult.
maddoc
... likes film again.
+1. Cleaning of the glass is essential when using this scanner, a huge difference in scan quality.
Field
Well-known
I use an epson 750 at school for quick scans. I am not sure if it can top the Nikon 4000's we got but... I just want quick ones for looking at pictures for free.
The problem is the software available is kind of idiotic. The preview size would be fine and only take 1-2 minutes for an entire tray. But... no matter how you play with settings you seem to get 30 minute scan times. On top of that silverfast AI "finds" the framing for the 35mm instead of starting with a standard 35mm film frame set that you just adjust right or left a little. You have to individually zoom in on every one, which it rescans, and adjust from there. If you do it from the stance of seeing all at once it will not be correct. The auto does not understand black boarders on the negatives. There is a reason for the automated but... jesus, people are going to cut their negatives into 5 or 6 strips and spacing is standard these days.
Scans might be good but software blows with pretty much everything I have used.
The problem is the software available is kind of idiotic. The preview size would be fine and only take 1-2 minutes for an entire tray. But... no matter how you play with settings you seem to get 30 minute scan times. On top of that silverfast AI "finds" the framing for the 35mm instead of starting with a standard 35mm film frame set that you just adjust right or left a little. You have to individually zoom in on every one, which it rescans, and adjust from there. If you do it from the stance of seeing all at once it will not be correct. The auto does not understand black boarders on the negatives. There is a reason for the automated but... jesus, people are going to cut their negatives into 5 or 6 strips and spacing is standard these days.
Scans might be good but software blows with pretty much everything I have used.
Chris101
summicronia
I have recently seen some very good - very printable - scans from a plustek.
filmfan
Well-known
I will say it again. It's the Plustek 7600i.
daveywaugh
Blah
I'll fifth the Plustek 7600ai. No question IMO. For 35mm only (obviously) it's WAY ahead of the V700. I own both and frankly it's no contest.
daveywaugh
Blah
I should also mention that I've owned a 5000 and 9000 at times too. If you could find a used 5000 for around 1K then that would be a great option... better DR and slightly better sharpness than the 7600. I just haven't seen them for anything less than $1500. You can buy three Plusteks for that ;-) The 7600 is 96% of the Nikons IMO. Bear in mind that if you run a new OS, you'll be forced to pay an extra $500 for Silverfast if you want the Nikon. Vuescan would be a cheaper option, but as much as I hate to say it, SF is still superior overall IMO.