Scanner for medium format?

[yinyangbt]

Hello !
I recently got my first two medium format cameras .A Pentacon six + Biometar 80 and a lovely Agfa Isolette II with Apothar .
I want to buy a scanner for the 6x6 format (for 35mm I use a Minolta Dimage III) , but I don't want to invest too much for the beginning .It should provide good images on a 21" screen .
What do you suggest? It seems that the 4490 ,4870 and 4990 from Epson are rather hard to find cheaply .
3170 would be a good choice at 50-80 E ?

[stompyq]

I ended up getting a Epson V700 and have been very happy with it. Considering the used prices of the 4990 is about $100 below a used V700 it was a no brainer. If you want examples all the MF images on my site have been scanned using the V700. I've also printed many 8x10's and everyone (including me) have been very happy with the quality.

[ruby.monkey]

I've found the V700 to be an excellent scanner, but the film holders that come with it are a little fragile and offer no way of holding film flat. Whatever scanner you choose, consider spending a bit extra on one of betterscanning's film holders.

[stompyq]

I personally think the stock holders are fine as long as you ensure that your film is reasonably flat. In any case you have to do a few tests to make sure you've got the film at the optimum depth for maximum sharpness. I think the better-scanning holders are not worth it considering they add a additional $100 to the scanner price for only better build quality. Stick with the stock holders and only consider the after market solutions if your not happy with the results.

[raid]

I just got a V700, and I will first try getting some glass to keep the film flat with the Epson film holders.

[Arvay]

Try Canon 8800. It's the cheapiest option. Two samples not to sound proofless)

[bobby_novatron]

Another vote for the Epson v700. Great scanner for the price.

[yinyangbt]

I know V700 ,but used priced rise around 3-400 E (new is 500) ,so, no way !

[V-12]

The Epson V700 for me as well. The film holders are awful and I have some ANR glass for the 35mm Epson holder that makes a big difference. For MF the betterscanning holders are the ideal choice but if you use film with a thicker less curly base, so Ilford instead of Fuji (for B&W) for instance, a lot of the problems dissipate.

[stompyq]

Originally Posted by V-12

The Epson V700 for me as well. The film holders are awful and I have some ANR glass for the 35mm Epson holder that makes a big difference. For MF the betterscanning holders are the ideal choice but if you use film with a thicker less curly base, so Ilford instead of Fuji (for B&W) for instance, a lot of the problems dissipate.

Really? Fuji Acros dries really flat for me. Can't say the difference b/w it and HP5

[Wahoo]

Originally Posted by yinyangbt

What do you suggest? It seems that the 4490 ,4870 and 4990 from Epson are rather hard to find cheaply .
3170 would be a good choice at 50-80 E ?

Teo,

Whilst the 3170 is a fine scanner I don't think it would be very long before you would be upgrading.

I have a number of Epson flatbeds including two 3170's and the only way I could obtain half decent scans was to modify one of them - I dismantled every thing (except the motor) and rebuilt with better quality capacitors (inc. the scanner head) improved connecting wire and good quality solder.

Below is a scan with the rebuilt 3170, improved, yes, but still not as good as my 4870/4990 or a recently departed v500.

[firemist]

Originally Posted by V-12

The Epson V700 for me as well. The film holders are awful and I have some ANR glass for the 35mm Epson holder that makes a big difference. For MF the betterscanning holders are the ideal choice but if you use film with a thicker less curly base, so Ilford instead of Fuji (for B&W) for instance, a lot of the problems dissipate.

I found the Betterscanning ANR glass they sell for their MF holders fit just fine into the Epson V700 holder. That's my solution.

[yinyangbt]

Originally Posted by Wahoo

Teo,

Whilst the 3170 is a fine scanner I don't think it would be very long before you would be upgrading.

I have a number of Epson flatbeds including two 3170's and the only way I could obtain half decent scans was to modify one of them - I dismantled every thing (except the motor) and rebuilt with better quality capacitors (inc. the scanner head) improved connecting wire and good quality solder.

Below is a scan with the rebuilt 3170, improved, yes, but still not as good as my 4870/4990 or a recently departed v500.

What about a Epson V600 ? is it at least as good as the V500 ? I found one at good price (?around 130 E) How do they perform against 4870/4990 ?

[yinyangbt]

Eventually ,I got an 4870 . Some experiences with it?

[Wahoo]

Originally Posted by yinyangbt

Eventually ,I got an 4870 .

Excellent choice, mines very near 8 years old and it still works very well.

OMO (just my opinion, mind) the 4870 is a similiar peformance to the V500 I owned but is better built, the 4990 is slightly better again performance/build but I 'think' that mines a very good sample.

Some time ago on another forum I stated that with old Tri-X negatives I could see grain when scanned with the 4990 then someone kindly explained that this wasn't possible and what I was seeing was clumps of grains - I think he was maybe right .

[sevo]

Originally Posted by Wahoo

Some time ago on another forum I stated that with old Tri-X negatives I could see grain when scanned with the 4990 then someone kindly explained that this wasn't possible and what I was seeing was clumps of grains - I think he was maybe wrong .

He is not. Unless you had an accident in processing or have been pushing the heck out of that film, the granularity should be below even the 4000dpi of a Nikon CS9000 - at any rate going by the Kodak figures in the spec sheet. What you can see, even at much lower resolutions, might be grain aliasing.

[yinyangbt]

My 4870 arrived today

[yinyangbt]

WOW !
But it's HUGE !!!! it takes 1/3 of my table !!!!
Veeeeeeeery very low WFA !!!!
Apart from this , there is a problem , maybe you can help. I got it SH , not very carefully used , it seems
I saw , when cleaned it that there are a fair amount of dust beyond the top glass . How do I clean that ? I belive it gives me some spots .

[yinyangbt]

Here's a Minolta dimage III scan of the same frame - spotless

[cabbiinc]

I wound up taking the top glass completely out on my HP Scanjet G4050. The only reason it's there is to keep stuff from hitting (interfering with) the light source for transparency scans. Pulling the glass out wasn't too difficult. I had to be patient when separating the double-sided tape from the lid. I had to also eventually cut the brace for the calibration area as it warped without the glass to support it and got in the way of the light source head.

[Terry Christian]

I have a V600, and found it to be a nice "sweet spot" if you're only going to be scanning 35mm and medium format, and not 4x5 or above. At about $200, it's a lot cheaper than a V700!

(You can do 4x5, if you lay them directly on the glass, scan in two passes, and use the Automerge function in Photoshop.)

[Rogier]

Originally Posted by cabbiinc

I wound up taking the top glass completely out on my HP Scanjet G4050. The only reason it's there is to keep stuff from hitting (interfering with) the light source for transparency scans. Pulling the glass out wasn't too difficult. I had to be patient when separating the double-sided tape from the lid. I had to also eventually cut the brace for the calibration area as it warped without the glass to support it and got in the way of the light source head.

I want to do this with my Canoscan 8800F but wanted to practice first on a dead scanner.
How are the results without the glass?
Removing the glass will also make room to create something to lower the negative holder down to where the surface was. Brining it into focus

[cabbiinc]

Originally Posted by Rogier

I want to do this with my Canoscan 8800F but wanted to practice first on a dead scanner.
How are the results without the glass?
Removing the glass will also make room to create something to lower the negative holder down to where the surface was. Brining it into focus

I only pulled the glass from the lid. For getting into focus I just placed the negs on the scanning bed glass itself, no holders. It's far more in focus that way than in the holders. I've thought about cutting the glass from the lid down to be able to flatten the negs on the glass, but then I bought a nikon scanner and haven't looked back. Taking a scanner apart isn't that hard though (until you get to the scan head and all that but to clean glass it's not that bad). Just mind your parts and put it all back together the way it came apart.

Edit:
Also keep in mind I'm talking about an HP scanner and you're talking about a Canon. I've also cleaned the insides of a Microtek Scanmaker 5 and it was relatively the same situation, even bigger (makes an Epson scanner look small).