Film Scanners: Canon 9000F vs Epson V600

[nightwolf75]

After getting the 9000F I discovered that...

If you are planning to scan in four lifetime's worth of negatives buy a dedicated film scanner. A flatbed's nice and dandy if you have a small collection of negatives and many prints.

:bsmilie::bsmilie:... sorrie for laughing... but i had the same problem years ago when i bought the film scanner... in the end, i just sold the scanner and got the shops to scan my honeymoon and wedding film rolls into CDs for me.

seriously tho, those with lots of film negs, IMO you are better off getting one of those dedicated 35mm film scanners. i used to have a minolta scanner (bought used when i was learning BnW photography). i found it to scan faster than my old flatbed.

 

[sjackal]

:bsmilie::bsmilie:... sorrie for laughing... but i had the same problem years ago when i bought the film scanner... in the end, i just sold the scanner and got the shops to scan my honeymoon and wedding film rolls into CDs for me.

seriously tho, those with lots of film negs, IMO you are better off getting one of those dedicated 35mm film scanners. i used to have a minolta scanner (bought used when i was learning BnW photography). i found it to scan faster than my old flatbed.

Thanx for the tip, but also read that dedicated 35mm scanner scan slowly too? Or depend on the model?

 

[dolina]

Thanx for the tip, but also read that dedicated 35mm scanner scan slowly too? Or depend on the model?

If I could turn back the clock by 12 months I would've went for the Nikon CoolScan 9000 even if it sold for $1800.

 

[sjackal]

If I could turn back the clock by 12 months I would've went for the Nikon CoolScan 9000 even if it sold for $1800.

$1800?

I thought its more like $6000 now.

I remember looking at its prices a year ago is already out of stock everywhere with people selling old ones around $3-4000.

 

[dolina]

US MSRP.

That's what I get for not being on top of things.

The only thing slightly comparable to the CoolScan 9000 is the Pacific Image PrimeFilm 120 Multi-Format CCD Film Scanner

$1800?

I thought its more like $6000 now.

I remember looking at its prices a year ago is already out of stock everywhere with people selling old ones around $3-4000.

 

[sjackal]

Ok, how much is this baby? Scan 135 format too?

US MSRP.

That's what I get for not being on top of things.

The only thing slightly comparable to the CoolScan 9000 is the Pacific Image PrimeFilm 120 Multi-Format CCD Film Scanner

 

[nightwolf75]

Ok, how much is this baby? Scan 135 format too?

multi-format scanner, so can scan 135.

and... i think bhphotovideo is selling this for ard USD1900+...

 

[NazgulKing]

The only problem is that at that price, is it better to buy a full frame DSLR, or just settle for a Ricoh GXR?

 

[dolina]

The only problem is that at that price, is it better to buy a full frame DSLR, or just settle for a Ricoh GXR?

Photographing prints, slides and negatives is no fun.

 

[NazgulKing]

Photographing prints, slides and negatives is no fun.

Eh no. I meant whether there's any point to shooting film at all.

 

[dolina]

Eh no. I meant whether there's any point to shooting film at all.

I am thankful that I have a digital camera. I may just drop my search for a EOS 1v.

 

[allenleonhart]

Eh no. I meant whether there's any point to shooting film at all.

well, if u want cheap high resolution images, film is still the way to go.

there are somethings that i find hard to emulate with digital, such as grain from BNW film. to some extent, even the colors of the 35mm negs are hard to emulate.
i like the blue tinge to my film that i cant seem to get with digital.

 

[kgston]

well, if u want cheap high resolution images, film is still the way to go.

there are somethings that i find hard to emulate with digital, such as grain from BNW film. to some extent, even the colors of the 35mm negs are hard to emulate.
i like the blue tinge to my film that i cant seem to get with digital.

Yup, hi res images from film is still cheaper for low volume shooters like hobbyists. And I also agree with the BW film feel.. The feel from Tri X is hard to replicate on digital.

Eh no. I meant whether there's any point to shooting film at all.

I am thankful that I have a digital camera. I may just drop my search for a EOS 1v.

Sometimes shooting film is not about convenience or immediate gratification. At least for me, its all about the process of shooting. From start to end, you control the process and enjoy every single step, from composing the perfect 36, to the excitement of development and printing it to paper.. sadly I don't have space to do wet printing, so scanning will have to suffice for me

If you ask me, digital was designed and built for commercial work. Of cos it lowered the barriers for beginners; which is a gd thing, but it also spoilt much of the fun along the way.

 

[dolina]

Not to mention sourcing rolls of film gets more difficult over time.

Film has its merits but with my workflow it is just a curiosity. Will just settle with rehabilitating my EOS 50 (not 50D) if I can find rolls conveniently.

Incidentally it takes three minutes to scan in a 35mm color negative frame at 2400 dpi. Wish it worked faster.

 

[allenleonhart]

Not to mention sourcing rolls of film gets more difficult over time.

Film has its merits but with my workflow it is just a curiosity. Will just settle with rehabilitating my EOS 50 (not 50D) if I can find rolls conveniently.

Incidentally it takes three minutes to scan in a 35mm color negative frame at 2400 dpi. Wish it worked faster.

as mentioned, dedicated film scanners lo.

normally, when i scan film, i dun scan everything. just the ones that catch my eye.

 

[NazgulKing]

Immense gratification is debatable. Sure I do some of that, but it tempered by the fact that I would never enjoy my lenses to the fullest, because the bog standard scanners one can afford for under a thousand cannot produce images that take full advantage of the lens quality itself.

If the scanner has to be so expensive just to produce the output of a 12MP camera, how on earth is the cost/benefit ratio justifiable at that point?

It makes me laugh when people parrot the greatness of Leica, when they are using film and their scanners are at best subpar.

 

[kgston]

Immense gratification is debatable. Sure I do some of that, but it tempered by the fact that I would never enjoy my lenses to the fullest, because the bog standard scanners one can afford for under a thousand cannot produce images that take full advantage of the lens quality itself.

If the scanner has to be so expensive just to produce the output of a 12MP camera, how on earth is the cost/benefit ratio justifiable at that point?

It makes me laugh when people parrot the greatness of Leica, when they are using film and their scanners are at best subpar.

I agree fully with what you say. To maximise the potential and benefit of shooting film, good equipment is necessary; and good scanners are expensive, not to mention are also starting to go extinct. The alternatives is to outsource the scanning or do wet printing. Labs don't do a great job out of scanning, but they are cheap. But to extract top quality from film (which is equivalent to an image from a D3x), then of cos one must also pay D3x price. The difference is that former is pay upfront, the latter is pay as you go.

But sometimes, for the others who use Lecia and what not.. and I think I mentioned it earlier too, its not so much about maximizing image quality, resolution or colour/tonality; its more about the experience and the enjoyment. And as such, the benefit in their cost/benefit ratio for them is so much more than for someone who is comparing image quality from digital vs film. When it comes to shooting film, dollars and cents is not the end all in the equation

 

[allenleonhart]

Immense gratification is debatable. Sure I do some of that, but it tempered by the fact that I would never enjoy my lenses to the fullest, because the bog standard scanners one can afford for under a thousand cannot produce images that take full advantage of the lens quality itself.

If the scanner has to be so expensive just to produce the output of a 12MP camera, how on earth is the cost/benefit ratio justifiable at that point?

It makes me laugh when people parrot the greatness of Leica, when they are using film and their scanners are at best subpar.

dun forget output size... if i'm gonna just be printing 4r, even a crappy scanner does wonders...

not everyone does large sized exhibition prints.