Is there a decent film scanner for 6x4.5 medium format film $500 or less?

Is there a decent film scanner for 6x4.5 medium format film $500 or less?
New or used?


Thinking about buying a Fuji GA645ZI camera


thanks

http://www.rickbakerimages.com

"Rick Baker" wrote:
Is there a decent film scanner for 6x4.5 medium format film $500 or less?
Thinking about buying a Fuji GA645ZI camera

The Epson high-end 4800 dpi flatbed scanners (most are under US$500) can
produce quality 5x or 6x enlargements from 645. At 7x, you are beginning to
get to the point where you'd be happier with a Nikon 9000 (US$2000: ouch!),
at 9x you'd notice the difference. The Epsons also have a bit of trouble
pulling the last of the detail out of the shadows.

The question, of course, is does the Epson produce better 11x14s from 645
that the Konica-Minolta 5400 or Nikon V does from 35mm. I'd think it would,
but it might be iffy.

(Personally, I prefer the GS645S (60/4.0 non-zoom) to the Zi. But that's
personal preference (I prefer fewer bells and whistles in my MF cameras).)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Rick

A friend has a Microtek 1800 that he says is better than my LS45000AF

Bob AZ

Rick

A friend has a Microtek 1800 that he says is better than my LS45000AF

Bob AZ

On 16 Mar 2006 19:58:02 -0800, "Ace" wrote:

Rick

A friend has a Microtek 1800 that he says is better than my LS45000AF


What is the nominal dpi rating of your LS-4500?

Does it vary by film format? If so, what
resolution for MF, and what res for LF,
if I may ask?

The high-end Microteks are fairly rated for
resolution, from what I have seen -- so I
could believe the Microtek is a reasonably
"honest" 1800 dpi.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

Rick

1 to 2K. 4X5 files are usually over 200 meg. 6X7 is 150 to 180 meg. I
do them for a friend. He is always pleased. 35mm is usually 25+ meg.
Res of 35mm is 3K or more.

FWIW I find that a better guideline for scanners and printing is what
percentage of the exposure do you finally use or print? This does put
the load on the photogrrapher to make the most efficient use of what he
has to work with. If you make a scan and print it, and you have used
just 10% of the image recording medium, then what is the format of the
camera you have used? IOW if you use 50% of the 4X5 exposure you have
taken a picture with a 2½ X 5. Thus used just 50% of what you have. The
same anology holds for 35mm or 645.

The specs for the Nikon LS4500AF are on their site. They are not a
current Nikon product but all of them sell on Ebay. Make sure you get
one with the film holders.

Bob AZ

David J. Littleboy wrote:

The question, of course, is does the Epson produce better 11x14s from 645
that the Konica-Minolta 5400 or Nikon V does from 35mm. I'd think it would,
but it might be iffy.

I think it would be very hard for a scan of 35mm to match the quality
of an Epson scan of 645. But even if the quality from 645 scan was
just a bit better at least there is the option of rescanning later with
a better scanner. If one captured a particularly nice photo and wanted
a good large print then having it commercially scanned might be a very
reasonable thing to do.

The Epson might not give the full gain in detail that the larger film
size should have but from what I have seen the noise should be much
better with 645 on the Epson compared to 35mm on a Nikon V, and that is
worth something.

Scott