Need MF/35mm scanner - recommendations?

[Bjorke]

My Minolta 35mm scanner is giving up the ghost & I've been scanning MF on an Epson flatbed. Slowly.

I'm torn between secondhand Imacon, Minolta, and Nikon models or a new Nikon 9000. I am notoriously cheap.

Any recommendations?
thanks

[MikeSeb]

I have the 8000, the 9000's older sibling. Excellent scanner; I've heard the 9000 is every bit its equal, and faster.

[bdial]

I'm cheap too, if I were buying a scanner for 35 and MF, I'd likely first look for a used Nikon. Or else a digi SLR and a slide copy rig of some sort. perhaps.

[doc4x5]

If you do not need to scan large format, the Nikon 8000-9000 are hard to beat. I have the 9000 and get grain sharp scans from medium format tmax 100 film. I do use the glass carrier, it is a pain to keep clean, but if you put in the time, you will get great results. I use the Nikonscan software and usually do minimal modifications prior to more extensive work in Photoshop. While I think good MF results can be obtained from a flatbed, I have tested my Microtek 1800f (usually used for 4x5), I think you'll get less than stellar results with 35mm.

Good luck.

Eric

[jd callow]

I'm in a similar situation and I have fond the following: A used imacon flextight sells as low as 2-4k depending upon model and condition and will return a beautiful scan at a res of ~5.8 - 6k for 35mm and ~3.2-3.4k spi for MF.
The Nikon 9000, which I have never used, but is very well regarded will cost ~2k new and has a res of 4k per inch.

Used 9000 sell far too close to retail to justify and I haven't looked at the 8000.

I love imacon's they are stellar scanners, but my experience with their support has been on the fair to bad side and the one I used was fairly finicky. If money wasn't an object I'd get the latest greatest imacon with the auto film feeder and an extended warranty.

Money is always an issue.

Nikon's I've used were really good, hardy beasts and so I'm leaning toward it.

If I were looking two or three years ago I’d consider the Minolta Multi format scanner, but too much time has passed and they are nolonger in the market.

[dwross]

I can add my endorsement of the Nikon 9000. I've never spent that kind of money on anything smaller than a house or car before, but I couldn't be happier with it. I have yet to feel the need for any additional software. The stuff that comes with it works great.

[jens g.r. benthien]

I had a Canon 9959F and sold it after I have seen a Coolscan 9000 scan made with the glass holder. Wow, what a difference - there are world between the scan results. That company also features an Imacon, so we scanned the same image with that marvel. But to be honest, comparing the prices and the output I'd expect a lot more from the Imacon. The difference is marginal, not worth the EUR 8.000 difference.

Just my two cents.

[Kensey]

Another vote for the Nikon 9000; but with the glass MF holder. Superb results!
Kind regards
Ken

[Platonumb]

Another vote for the Nikon 9000; but with the glass MF holder. Superb results!
Kind regards
Ken

Hello forum members, I have both the Hasselblad nee {Imacon} 343 and the Nikon 9000 and there is a huge difference between the two,, Imacon's design of curving the film provides tack sharp focus edge to edge and the software provides exceptional control, especially for BW negatives where Nikon's software falls well short. The dynamic range of the Imacon for me is clearly ahead, especially with negatives we wish we could reshoot and redevelop.
The Nikon is much faster though, 2 minutes for a 16bit 4000 dpi scan
vs 7 mins for 16 bit 3200 dpi.
caveat emptor
Truly
Platonumb