Current best scanner under $750

I'm interested in getting a scanner for negative film, both 35 mm and
medium format. The Epson V700 Photo appears to come highly recommended.
Any comments?

On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:26:16 GMT, Rebecca Ore
wrote:

I'm interested in getting a scanner for negative film, both 35 mm and
medium format. The Epson V700 Photo appears to come highly recommended.
Any comments?

Adequate for 35mm - a dedicated film unit is better - good for
120/200. Nice bundled software and good film holders.
--
Central Maryland Photographer's Guild - http://www.cmpg.org
Strange, Geometrical Hinges - http://sgh.rnovak.net

Originally Posted by Rebecca Ore

I'm interested in getting a scanner for negative film, both 35 mm and
medium format. The Epson V700 Photo appears to come highly recommended.
Any comments?

I've got the 700, and it's okay but boy oh boy the DUST! And the clips to hold film are pretty cheezy, and allow a fair amount of flex in the film. I'd say it's good enough for medium sized prints, but if you really want quality prints larger than 20x24 from MF, spend the extra for a dedicated unit, or pay the fee to have someone else do it (you'll be surprised how few you "need" scanned).

BTW, Epson put out a 750 version which has higher resolution.

-Mark

Rebecca Ore wrote:
I'm interested in getting a scanner for negative film, both 35 mm and
medium format. The Epson V700 Photo appears to come highly recommended.
Any comments?



I've been considering the same scanner. My first thought was to go
with a Nikon dedicated scanner. However the Nikons that can also scan
MF film (COOLSCAN 9000 ED) is normally more than 4 times the cost of
the Epson V700. Nikon makes a dedicated scanner (COOLSCAN V ED) that is
a couple of hundred dollars more than the V700, but at least it's
within the same ballpark. The problem is that it only does 35mm. I've
heard that the Epson does a good job on MF film but is so-so with 35mm.


Although I must admit I haven't used either of these scanners, the
difference, apparently, is that the Nikon dedicated scanners use an RGB
LED light source as opposed to a fluorescent lamp. This seems to mean
more accurate color as well as lower contrast in the final output
image. However, from what I can gather, the Epson flatbeds that can
also scan film (such as the V700) are the best in their class.

the difference, apparently, is that the Nikon dedicated scanners use an
RGB LED light source as opposed to a fluorescent lamp.

That does make a difference although the lens system and optical sensor on
the Nikon help make a difference too.

Doug
--
www.BetterScanning.com - Custom Film Holders and Accessories for Agfa,
Microtek and Epson Scanners

In article .com,
wrote:

I've been considering the same scanner. My first thought was to go
with a Nikon dedicated scanner. However the Nikons that can also scan
MF film (COOLSCAN 9000 ED) is normally more than 4 times the cost of
the Epson V700. Nikon makes a dedicated scanner (COOLSCAN V ED) that is
a couple of hundred dollars more than the V700, but at least it's
within the same ballpark. The problem is that it only does 35mm. I've
heard that the Epson does a good job on MF film but is so-so with 35mm.

I ended up cheaping out and got the 4490. My next door neighbor would
have been happier if I'd gotten the 4990 or the V700 because she bought
my old CC-400 and I could have scanned film for her. I began wondering
(a) how much film shooting I was going to do, and if I was going to be
doing more of it than I expected, then I'd probably want to get the
Nikon 35 and 120 Coolscan that's well beyond what I want to put into a
scanner at this point.

This is what I could get it to do on the first day:

http://pics.livejournal.com/mouseworks/pic/0008dp7e/g10

and with a Minolta negative:

http://pics.livejournal.com/mouseworks/pic/000881b0/g10

Not all the Leica tagged photographs on my LJ galleries are scanned on
this machine; all the Minolta ones are.

Rebecca Ore wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:


I ended up cheaping out and got the 4490.

This is what I could get it to do on the first day:

http://pics.livejournal.com/mouseworks/pic/0008dp7e/g10

and with a Minolta negative:

http://pics.livejournal.com/mouseworks/pic/000881b0/g10

Not all the Leica tagged photographs on my LJ galleries are scanned on
this machine; all the Minolta ones are.


Great demonstration of how many different variables affect the final
output. Really enjoyed the imagery.

BTW what model is the Leica? There's a real noticeable difference
happening here.

In article .com,
wrote:

Rebecca Ore wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:


I ended up cheaping out and got the 4490.

This is what I could get it to do on the first day:

http://pics.livejournal.com/mouseworks/pic/0008dp7e/g10

and with a Minolta negative:

http://pics.livejournal.com/mouseworks/pic/000881b0/g10

Not all the Leica tagged photographs on my LJ galleries are scanned on
this machine; all the Minolta ones are.


Great demonstration of how many different variables affect the final
output. Really enjoyed the imagery.

Thanks.

Two different mini labs did the ones that were scanned from prints. I
just got the scanner yesterday and was trying both the Epson software
and VueScan (may buy that as it allows multiple scans over the negative
if I'm reading the software correctly.


BTW what model is the Leica? There's a real noticeable difference
happening here.

That's a IIIf Black Dial from 1951, second production run, judging from
the serial numbers, with a 1946 Summitar lens that's seen better days.
I've also found the hood for the Summitar (50mm, f/2 for the non-Leica
people) and a yellow filter. I'll probably try to pick up a later model
Summitar some day (Tamarkin had some in the 700000 serial numbers).
Paid $375 for the camera and lens, not a deal, but about as much Leica
as I can afford for now and a camera with a 45 day warranty from a store
in town. The camera appears to be fine -- slow speed tests gave me
negatives equally dense. It was known to have been worked on in 1981
(repair sticker on the inside bottom plate), looks used but not abused,
and has that Leica glow:

http://pics.livejournal.com/mouseworks/pic/00082kh7/g46


The Leica negatives look sharper than anything I've scanned or the
mini-labs printed, so I might take some of them down to Philadelphia
Photographic and get optical enlargements made.

Just got Diafine from Calumet so the plan is to actually use the film
cameras, develop the film here, and scan to see what things look like.

The Autocord (first model from 1955) is off at Paul Ebel's being
repaired and CLA'ed, so I won't have more to show from it until I get it
back. I paid $40 for it at a flea market. I'd like to get a Rolleiflex
someday, but the good ones tend to be more expensive than an equivalent
Autocord.

Rebecca Ore wrote:
In article .com,


That's a IIIf Black Dial from 1951, [...]
Paid $375 for the camera and lens, not a deal, but about as much Leica
as I can afford for now and a camera with a 45 day warranty from a store
in town. The camera appears to be fine -- looks used but not abused,
and has that Leica glow:

http://pics.livejournal.com/mouseworks/pic/00082kh7/g46


Very funky! seems like a nice find judging by the images. Leicas do
have a unique look about them. How much does it weigh with/without the
lens shade?

The Leica negatives look sharper than anything I've scanned or the
mini-labs printed, so I might take some of them down to Philadelphia
Photographic and get optical enlargements made.

Sounds like a good idea. Would be interesting to compare them with scan
results.

I'd like to get a Rolleiflex someday, but the good ones tend to be more expensive than an equivalent Autocord.

What makes me hesitant about investing in more expensive MF equipment
is that MF film seems to have a limited future. Some speculation has it
that 35mm and Large format film will be around much longer. It would be
a drag to get attached to a camera only to have it turn obsolete
if/when the film gets pulled from the market.

Personally, I'm not sure what to believe, but I sometimes think
investing in better lenses for my 35mm might make more sense,
especially since many of the lenses can be carried over to digital
equipment if necessary in the long run.

In article .com,
wrote:

Rebecca Ore wrote:
In article .com,


That's a IIIf Black Dial from 1951, [...]
Paid $375 for the camera and lens, not a deal, but about as much Leica
as I can afford for now and a camera with a 45 day warranty from a store
in town. The camera appears to be fine -- looks used but not abused,
and has that Leica glow:

http://pics.livejournal.com/mouseworks/pic/00082kh7/g46


Very funky! seems like a nice find judging by the images. Leicas do
have a unique look about them. How much does it weigh with/without the
lens shade?

I think it weighs a bit over a pound (the IIIc weighs 640 grams with the
summitar lens). The shade is a few ounces more. It feels like it
weighs as much as the Minolta Autocord, but is smaller. The Leica is
small, but not lightweight.


The Leica negatives look sharper than anything I've scanned or the
mini-labs printed, so I might take some of them down to Philadelphia
Photographic and get optical enlargements made.

Sounds like a good idea. Would be interesting to compare them with scan
results.

Time and money factors. I've spent too much on toys as it is.


I'd like to get a Rolleiflex someday, but the good ones tend to be more
expensive than an equivalent Autocord.

What makes me hesitant about investing in more expensive MF equipment
is that MF film seems to have a limited future. Some speculation has it
that 35mm and Large format film will be around much longer. It would be
a drag to get attached to a camera only to have it turn obsolete
if/when the film gets pulled from the market.

Digital backs g


Personally, I'm not sure what to believe, but I sometimes think
investing in better lenses for my 35mm might make more sense,
especially since many of the lenses can be carried over to digital
equipment if necessary in the long run.

I'm getting as good lenses for my D50 as I can afford. Only one of them
is digital less than full frame. I thought about buying a film body
rather than the Leica, but sometimes sheer mechanical beauty wins.