Medium format scanners

The $600 for the Coolscan 9000ED is well worth it in terms of quality and speed. Plus a lot of other features. IMHO.

For making workprints or an A3 spread the above are ok. However, I got to use the Imacon 949 recently, and the ease of use combined with the speed and the amazing quality of the scans are really overwhelming. My files from 35mm were 350 mb! You can make beautiful huge Lightjet prints from them. Having used the Imacon I really won’t ever use anything less for important work.

But the price difference is quite a bit between the 9000 and even the cheapest Imacon. More than double. I have been looking at the older nikon 8000, cause that one can be gotten used for around a grand.

Stephanie, for the low cost I think is a choice Epson 700 or 750. I have a Canoscan 9950 but for get more sharp images i have to tape the negatives in the glass directly with the emulsion face down to the glass then invert in photoshop. My negatives tend to get curved in the carrier. And yes, Bruno Stevens always tell us like David that Imacon are the best but these machines are expensives.Good luck and happy new year to all.
Pta: David, nice pictures in blueeyes magazine, congratulations.

Stephanie it really depends on your intentions for the file you are outputting.
I think the Nikon scanners are definitely worth it, but if you are using it for web display or prints upto probably about 12 inches square then there are flatbeds out there that will do a really good job. I used the Nikon to scan things when I was printing lik 30×30 or something like that. The imacons are great too and faster but that sorta money is prohibitive.

If this is for commercial work where you really need a high quality file I wouldn’t go flatbed, but otherwise…I’m totally happy with my epson 4490 (one of their cheapest) for scanning slides and negs from hasselblad, mamiya and holga.

I would have a look at the Epson 750 ( try to see if you can do a test scan ) for the price and results it’s excellent value.

Nikon Coolscan 9000Ed or the Minolta Dimage ,they have a 120 format scanner…if you have the money the IMACON scanners. They are very good and their prices are coming down.

thanks guys… not sure what i am going to chose yet, but i appreciate the responses!
happy new year!

Stephanie

The Minolta Dimage scanners have buggy software and are out of production, you can’t get them repaired (The same goes for the Microtek: very poor service if it breaks down, and no ICE dust removal on the 120tf). So it’s down to the Coolscan and the Imacon.

Hi stephanie,
Can vouch for the Minolta comment of Jan-Edward. It’s not available anymore. And if you were to get one second hand, and do get into trouble with it, it’ll be a hassle to get it repaired.
Good luck with deciding and best wishes for 2007.

I have a Minolta Dimage Elite II 5400 35mm scanner and you can get it repaired! Sony has taken up all Minolta repairs. I just got it repaired for free under warranty. The Minolta scanners are better than the Nikon Coolscan scanners and you can still find them on e-bay. Again, these cheaper scanners are fine for an A3 spread or work prints, but for anything more it pays to find someone with an Imacon and rent it out for cheap like I did recently. Also, the Imacon is really on the low end of things in a way since a Heidleberg Drum Scanner can run $200,000! I mean for a book or important exhibition, drum scans are the way to go.

I just bought a canon 9950F. And it works fine with the medium format (not as good with 135 unfortunately). I had lot of problem at the beginning due to Newton’s rings when scanning many pictures at once. Their film holder for multiple scanning is not performant enough. But if you scan one picture by one it is very satisfying. And for this price, it is just perfect.

Does anyone know about anti-newton film holder system for this scanner?

Happy new year!!

Hi pierre, you have to tape your film with non so sticky tape to get the film flat with the opaque surface down. Then flip in photoshop. I do this and have a very important improviment with sharpeness. I do that with B and W negatives, don’t know if that work with color or slides. try it and tell me. Feliz ano nuevo, saludos

Hey Steph,
Personnaly I use Epson perfection 4990. A lot of people are sure that flat bed scanner are not so great. But I use it for all my work. PLus you can scann 135 mm and 6X7 with the film holders, Documents etc…
I can have files of a 80 Mg if I want. Which is really hugh.
I had Xray on one of my films and I had the film scanned by a 6X6 scanner. I really could not make any difference.
PLus I can travel with it. Well it is a bit big but I have heard that a lot of 6X6 scanner were very fragile. I took my flat bed in Congo Kinshasa. On a few week story it is really worth. I was processing, scanning sending everyday.
Happy New Year to you.
Bene

I agree with Davin Ellicson about the Imacon. I’ve used the 646 and the 848 and resulting image quality is far far superior to any Nikon, Epson, Microtek, etc. No newton rings, much less dust, super sharp images. If you are making gallery quality prints from your film Imacon is the way to go. If you are making work prints or you’re not too concerned about fine image quality and you don’t mind spending lots of time dusting your scans then the others will do (and you’ll save a lot of money). I have the Epson 4990 and I scan 120 and it works just fine for newsprint and magazines. The dust it picks up is annoying and the sharpness and sensitivity leave much to be desired. As mentioned in the last post – the scanner seesm to travel well, I’ve gone from the U.S. to India twice having checked it in with the airline (and packed it well) and I haven’t had any issues.

Good luck!