Another Scanner Advice Plea

[Texsport]

I've been a landscape fan for a long time. Over the years I've collected a few cameras and shot lots of film.
Up to now I've paid for scanning and printing of my light table picks.
Since I've recently retired I'm shooting more film and need to get a scanner or scanners.
My dilemma is all the formats I enjoy shooting.
35mm
XPan
Widelux
6x9
6x12
6x17

I'd likely invest in a scanner costing as much as a Nikon 9000, but am unsure if formats like 6x17 can be scanned with anything less than an Imacon. Also don't know if something like a flatbed isn't a better bet for 35mm slides.

If someone could help out an old coot with some advice, I'd be forever grateful.

Thanks,

Texsport

 

[Tim Gray]

For the first four, I'd say a Nikon 9000. For the latter two, you might also look into an Epson 750 - I think it can do those formats. If you can get a used Imacon for a good price, that might be the way to go.

 

[Ranger Rick]

You can scan the 6x17 as two pieces, and assemble in PS or whatever as if it were a panorama. I used to do that nicely with a Minolta Scan Multi Pro. The Epson 4990/700/750 is another way to go. These days, the Nikon 9000s probably are starting to approach the price of an Imacon...

 

[tetsrfun]

I've been a landscape fan for a long time. Over the years I've collected a few cameras and shot lots of film.
Up to now I've paid for scanning and printing of my light table picks.
Since I've recently retired I'm shooting more film and need to get a scanner or scanners.
My dilemma is all the formats I enjoy shooting.
35mm
XPan
Widelux
6x9
6x12
6x17

I'd likely invest in a scanner costing as much as a Nikon 9000, but am unsure if formats like 6x17 can be scanned with anything less than an Imacon. Also don't know if something like a flatbed isn't a better bet for 35mm slides.

If someone could help out an old coot with some advice, I'd be forever grateful.

Thanks,

Texsport

I have both the Epson 750 and the Nikon 9000 ED. I prefer using the Nikon but the scanning output, using Silverfast isn't dramatically better with the Nikon. These days, the options are rather limited and unless you are willing to spend $10-20k for an Imacon, the Epson is the way to go, at least starting out. If, after scanning your collection, you identify some that you would like to have better quality then send them out for pro-scanning.

If you do get the Epson, the "Better Scanning" film holders are worth the additional cost, IMO.

http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/models/vseries.html

Steve

 

[Texsport]

Thanks to everyone for the kind and helpful advice.

Texsport

 

[Jeremy]

Texsport, where in Texas are you? I have an Imacon scanner that can handle all of those formats and could rent it out.

 

[Texsport]

Texsport, where in Texas are you? I have an Imacon scanner that can handle all of those formats and could rent it out.

The Houston area.

Texsport

 

[krb]

With my Epson 750 I can fit a strip of 4 6x4.5 shots so it should be able to handle a 6x17 pano.

For 35mm slides, I've always heard that the dedicated film scanners perform better than a flatbed but my only experience is with the 750.

 

[Texsport]

With my Epson 750 I can fit a strip of 4 6x4.5 shots so it should be able to handle a 6x17 pano.

For 35mm slides, I've always heard that the dedicated film scanners perform better than a flatbed but my only experience is with the 750.

Thanks for the info.

So you use the Epson 750 for 35 mm also I take it?

Texsport

 

[krb]

I have scanned some 35mm but I rarely shoot on it anymore. My results with 35mm were just okay, but I have admit that I'm still not as good with my scanning workflow as I'd like to be.

I have to say that my 120 scans have gotten much better since I switched to an after market film holder that uses a glass plate to keep the film flat. I never had issues with 35mm film but 120 has given me fits with the curling.

I have the fluid and supplies to try wet mounting but I haven't had a chance to try it out.

 

[photoSmart42]

The 750 shines at MF and LF. It can certainly be competitive for 35mm, but clearly not as good as a dedicated 35mm scanner - with good work flow the differences are even less. IMO the 750 is certainly well worth the $3000 less in cost over a used dedicated Nikon or Imacon scanner.

 

[Texsport]

Thanks so much.

Texsport