Which scanner to buy?

Way · 02-08-2005

Looking to scan my 35mm B&W negs to be processed in Photoshop, then printed on my Epson 2200. Which scanner do you all reccommend? I keep hearing about the Minolta 5400 or the Nikon ED but would be interested in hearing real user experiences (pros and cons).

Thanks!
Way

GeneW · 02-08-2005

Way, Nikon and Konica Minolta both make good scanners. It depends what kind of scanning you do. I have the KM 5400 and can speak to it. It is a very sharp scanner and, from what I've read, may be a better choice for traditional B&W silver-emulsion film than the Nikon scanner. The KM has ICE and it works fine, but when using ICE it's a very slow scanner. My understanding is that the Nikon with ICE scans much faster. So if you're scanning primarily C-41 and E-6 films, the Nikon likely gets the edge. For B&W, probably the KM. I suspect you'd be happy with either one.

Gene

peter_n · 02-08-2005

Way if you're looking to scan conventional B&W negs (as distinct from chromogenic negs) then you don't need ICE and you shouldn't pay for it. A number of members here use the Minolta Dual Scan IV which tops out at 3200dpi, doesn't come with ICE, but only costs ~$250.

rover · 02-09-2005

I have flat bed scanner, which is fine, if not big, for my purposes. It is an Epson Perfection 3200 which has since been replaced by the 4870(?). Well, the new Epson flat bed seems to be very much improved and suited for film scanning than the 3200, but I would not recommend a flat bed if your intention is to make prints. Mine is fine for internet posting and computer viewing, but I wouldn't make prints from it.

thmk · 02-09-2005

In the current german issue of LFI (Leica Fotografie International) they tested the scanning of 15 b&w films and they used the KM 5400. There is something written about problems of scanners with less than 3000 dpi resolution (grain related issue, have to check again for details). Too bad I have the Nikon CoolScan IV ED. Somewhere else I read that the Nikon uses an LED as light source which is not the optimum for traditional b&w film. Because I do mainly b&w now (contrary to the time when purchasing the Nikon) I am thinking of getting the KM5400 for my b&w scans... The only thing what keeps me back is the most common: money

Is there anyone who has access to both of these scanners to provide some 1:1 comparison?

Mike Richards · 02-09-2005

I started with the Microtek 4000tf scanner (4000 dpi), but recently upgraded to the Nikon LS9000. The former is 35mm only; the Nikon also covers 120. No experience with KM, but I'm perfectly happy with the Nikon. For one thing, it has analog gain controls for the LEDs that have let me recover some very poor exposures. The Nikon software works great and scans are fast. The ICE even works with Kodachrome, which contains some silver. I'd like to see some more comments/comparison about scanning silver B&W with KM, and why it's superior to the Nikon LEDs. My observation is that the Nikon performs at least as well as the Microtek in this area. The Microtek is still a good scanner, and you may want to consider it along with the KM and Nikon.

Magnus · 02-09-2005

I have the 4870 Photoscanner from Epson, this for my 6x6 and 5x4's. For slides I make use of the Nikon Coolscan V. For slides the Nikon is better, easily being able to do 60x45 prints or maybe even larger (havent tried yet) but for 30x20 prints there is no difference between the Epson and Nikon. I was really quit amazed by this, it does traditional B/W really well, deadsharp, I like this scanner, it's multi-functional, fast, has a good quality and is cheap.

bmattock · 02-09-2005

You didn't mention budget. If you have the money, go for the best - the TOTL Nikons and KM's are quite nice, as everyone has mentioned. If you are on a budget, the current champ for bang-for-the-buck in dedicated film scanners is the KM Scan Dual IV. For flat-beds, most prefer the Epson Perfection series - I have a 2400 with transparency adapter and love it for MF work. I use a KM IV for 35mm film. I'd love a KM 5400, but can't swing the dosh for that just yet.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Way · 02-09-2005

Thanks for all the great info.

I will be mostly scanning conventional B&W negs, but on occassion will probably do some color negs too. Budget wise I can go as high as $700 or so, which I think puts me in the MK 5400 range. The KM IV sounds like a good deal. Would its scans be good enough to print at the Epson 2200's max size (13x19)? I'm sure it would be OK for 8x10s, which is what I normally print.

Way

peter_n · 02-09-2005

If you are thinking about the Minolta 5400 (and I think you should be) take a look at the thread below on photo.net. It's kind of confusing, but it looks like Konica Minolta may be replacing the 5400 model soon. If this is true, it would mean that the price of the 5400 should drop in the stores and/or a new model may have nifty new features at the current 5400 price.

5400minolta film scanneur to sell

Nikon Bob · 02-09-2005

Way

You got my curiousity up and I tried a few scans of conventional B&W film ( 400 TX ) on the MK 5400. At max rez the final scan took under one minute and would be good for at least 16X24 inch print at 300 ppi. The ICE is a real hog as it turns colour neg scans into a 20 minute act.

Bob

GeneW · 02-09-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Richards

I started with the Microtek 4000tf scanner (4000 dpi), but recently upgraded to the Nikon LS9000. The former is 35mm only; the Nikon also covers 120.

Mike, how do you find the Nikon 9000 for MF scanning? Are the negs sandwiched between glass? Some day I'd like to get a really good MF scanner.

Gene

sblair · 02-09-2005

I use a Canon 8400F and it does B/W prints, 35mm color and B/W. Check it out. For the price (about $150 US) it is hard to beat.

Mike Richards · 02-09-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeneW

Mike, how do you find the Nikon 9000 for MF scanning? Are the negs sandwiched between glass? Some day I'd like to get a really good MF scanner.

Gene,
The negs are just held by the edges. As long as the negs are reasonably flat, it works fine. I had some nasty curling once with Konica infrared 750. When I scanned, the edges were out of focus. Did not have the same problem with some Pan X negs that were reasonably flat. I do wish Nikon would offer a glass holder for occasional help with the problem negs, and I would get one if they did.

Mike Richards · 02-09-2005

One of the things I like about the Nikon is the analog gain adjustment for the LEDs/sensor. Here's an example where I recovered an image from 1982. I saw some kids writing on the beach sand in Iskenderun, Turkey. Had Kodachrome in the camera, but visualized a B&W scene and needed the dynamic range of B&W film. Regretting there wasn't Tri-X in the camera, released the shutter anyway. The resulting slide was so bad I just stored it. Last week, I got some amazing results with the Nikon scanner and PS. First, a normal scan. Then an identical scan with the analog gain pumped up to the maximum. Then I combined the two images in PS, using Fred Miranda's DRI plug in. (the plug in combines a normal and underexposure into a single image) And finally, the resulting B&W image after a little shadow recovery and grain management in PS:

peter_n · 02-10-2005

Take a look at this interesting thread from photo.net posted this morning:

Minolta 5400 Tests

Way · 02-10-2005

Thanks again for the wealth of info! Peter - nice find on the photo.net site.

I went to Samy's Camera in Los Angeles yesterday and the salesman said that he prefered the Nikon V (probably because he didn't have the 5400 in stock). He also said that he hasn't had the 5400 for a while. Maybe Minolta is letting available stock dry up?

I'll be using a 1.33GHz powerbook to do the scans. Will this sorely affect the performance of the scan times? Assuming no ICE (I hear that it doesn't work on B&W?).

Way

Mike Richards · 02-10-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Way

I'll be using a 1.33GHz powerbook to do the scans. Will this sorely affect the performance of the scan times? Assuming no ICE (I hear that it doesn't work on B&W?).

The scan runs ok on my flat panel iMac G4. Your powerbook should be ok for the scanning, itself, but any processing such as ICE or other enhancements will run slower than the Dual G5 that you really want. It's a good idea to have your RAM maxed out, also, as I think this is a more important factor than the processor speed.
The ICE doesn't work on silver B&W, although C-41 processed B&W works ok. I understand that the reason is the silver grains are opaque and cannot be differentiated from dust. For some reason, it works on Kodachrome, which contains some silver.

dmr · 02-10-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by peter_n

A number of members here use the Minolta Dual Scan IV which tops out at 3200dpi, doesn't come with ICE, but only costs ~$250.

Say, I've been thinking about getting a film scanner lately, and I have been considering the Konica Minolta IV, having read a review of it in one of the photo mags a while back. You say that several people here use it.

Are people here who use it happy with it?

Is it really worth it to pay twice as much for the 5400? Does anybody have experience with both of these models?

Do I really want a scanner that does a good job resolving film grain?

I would use this mostly for newer color negatives, but also for making some good scans of older B&W negatives and color negatives/slides before they fade anymore into oblivion.

TIA

Nikon Bob · 02-10-2005

Way

I saw the photo.net thread on the Minolta 5400 and some of my results differ. I scanned the same colour neg in these tests at max 5400. The scan with no ICE, no pixel polish and no Grain Dissolver took 1 min./10secs and tne scan with everything on ran 10 mins. Multipass was off for both and it was 8 bit colour. I have a feeling that how your PC is set up has a bearing and also how dense your negs are to mention a few variables. I am running a gig of RAM so maybe 1.5 or 2 gigs would be better.

Bob

GeneW · 02-10-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmr436

I would use this mostly for newer color negatives, but also for making some good scans of older B&W negatives and color negatives/slides before they fade anymore into oblivion.

In this case, yes, the 5400 is worth getting. My 5400 is my third film scanner and I've owned the equivalent of the Dual Scan IV and ICE really does make a difference in scanning col negs. You can clean them all you can beforehand, but I've yet to meet a lab that doesn't add scratches and gunk that is embedded in the negs. ICE takes away the pain of cleaning up the defects.

Gene

felipe · 02-10-2005

Some (canadian) guy over at photo.net said he was told there'd be a new version of the 5400 coming out in march. Interesting because a) prices for the 5400 should drop, and b) the new model might solve some of the 5400' issues (I suppose there are some are there?)

cheers,
phil

edit:// jezz my grammar..

peter_n · 02-10-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by felipe

Some (canadian) guy over at photo.net said he was told there'd be a new version of the 5400 coming out in march. Interesting because a) prices for the 5400 should drop, and b) the new model might be solve some of the 5400' issues (I suppose there are some are there?)

Hmmm, great minds Phil...

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmr436

Say, I've been thinking about getting a film scanner lately, and I have been considering the Konica Minolta IV, having read a review of it in one of the photo mags a while back. You say that several people here use it.

Are people here who use it happy with it?

I would use this mostly for newer color negatives, but also for making some good scans of older B&W negatives and color negatives/slides before they fade anymore into oblivion.

I think its fair to say that people here are happy with the SD IV - I'm certainly happy with mine!

But if your use is mainly color negatives then you need ICE. My use is almost 100% B&W conventional negs, hence the SD IV.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeneW

In this case, yes, the 5400 is worth getting.

Completely agree, Gene. Color scanning requires the ICE software.

stymie · 02-10-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeneW

....ICE really does make a difference in scanning col negs. You can clean them all you can beforehand, but I've yet to meet a lab that doesn't add scratches and gunk that is embedded in the negs. ICE takes away the pain of cleaning up the defects.

Thanks for noting that Gene - and for others who have contributed to this thread. I'm still very wet behind the ears when it comes to photography, and naively assumed my colour negatives would be treated with respect by the photolab

Some questions, if I may be so bold:

When using colour negative, how do your go about scanning? Given that ICE is time and processor intensive, do you scan everything 'quickly' (without ICE) and then assess which shots deserve special treatment?

I'm trying to get a feel for what I am in for if I decide to invest in a scanner.

TIA

GeneW · 02-10-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by stymie

Some questions, if I may be so bold:

When using colour negative, how do your go about scanning? Given that ICE is time and processor intensive, do you scan everything 'quickly' (without ICE) and then assess which shots deserve special treatment?

I often work this way -- I get my col negs developed, no prints, film uncut. I can then cut it into strips of six to minimize my handling time with the scanner -- and I use PrintFile '6 strips of 6' holders to archive everything (24 exp rolls don't fill them up natch, but I prefer to keep a single storage size). I then scan the whole roll in 1300dpi mode without ICE. It goes pretty quickly.

After scanning, I use the Photoshop Contact Sheet II action to create a digital contact sheet that I can refer to later. I make mine 200dpi 10"x8" and find that gives very good onscreen viewing and makes a good enough printout as well.

For web and 4x6" print size, this is as far as I take them. I do the heavy duty scan at 5400dpi and ICE when I want larger prints of certain images.

Having said all that, Bill Mattocks introduced a neat solution. He gets the negs processed and instead of prints, has them scanned to CD. I've done this a couple of times and had pretty decent results -- not as good as home scanning, but less time consuming ...

Gene