You may both want to consider the Canon 9950F. Although not quite up to
the level of a 4000+ dpi dedicated film scanner for 35mm, it is very
close and will scan 12 35mm slides at a crack or 30 frames in strips of
six. (I've got six of those sitting here right now, but not the
scanner.) It will also do all sorts of MF and 4x5 at the same high
resolution - if you can handle the file sizes.
The photo-i review has lost of good examples to show what it can do
<http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Menus/reviews_frame.htm>, look under Scanners.
Vincent also did a follow-up review of SilverFast when it became
available for the 9950F
<http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/software/Silverfast/page-1.htm>. I
suspect VueScan would also give the better results he got with
SilverFast for less money. The Canon software with my scanners isn't
really top notch at getting the best out of the film.
At around $350, it's WAY cheaper than MF film scanners and seems to do
the job.
If you want to know why I don't have one yet, I already have a 4000 dpi
35mm film scanner, even if it is a bit more labor intensive to use, and
only a few old MF and 4x5 pieces of film to scan someday. Maybe after I
recover from the new notebook computer and a non Oly lens.........
Moose
Barry B. Bean wrote:
>Despite my E-1 purchase, I'm finding that digital hasn't fully replaced my
>photographic needs, but I do find that my Epson R-1800 has very nearly
>replaced my darkroom printing needs. To that end, I'm
>in the market for a new scanner to replaces my old workhorse. Ideally, I'd
>like to find a scanner that could handle both 35mm and MF (my TLR shoots
>beautiful 6X6 negs), but I can live withoutthe MF
>for now if it'll save a few hundred dollars. I have a p[otential show in
>October, so I'm looking for something to buy right away.
>
>
bs.pearce@xxxxxxx wrote:
>Barry,
>
>Glad to see you're in the tall cotton.
>
>I've mentioned that I expect to be in the market for a 120 scanner early
>next year. Here's my take on the three or two options:
>
>The Minolta Scan Multi is apparently capable of fine scans, but seems to be
>out of production. Amazon has it listed as coming soon, at a price over $3k
>(!). I also apparently suffers from Minolta's lifelong problems with service
>and reliability. Out of box failures seem to be high.
>
>The Nikon 9000 is about $2k. It makes fine scans, based on the results a
>friend gets with his Xpan and 6x6 stuff. It is reputed to be durable, and
>Nikon service is good. It usees led's, and depth of field is razor thin. The
>Xpan stuff absolutely requires a glass carrier. Some have problems scanning
>B&W.
>
>Winsor is the first reliable comment about the Mikrotek I've seen. I
>understand that it has a softer light source, and handles B&W better. I
>don't know if it requires a glass carrier for Xpan, but that's a question
>I'd like answered, Winsor. I also don't know about Microtek service,
>although Polaroids was apparently quite good.
>
>Living where I do I don't get any hand's on opportunities. I suspect you are
>in the same problem,
>
>Suggestions?
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|