Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Need a new scanner... Recommendations?

Jeff Kilgroe

Jeff Kilgroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
17,055
Reaction score
42
Points
48
Location
Colorado
OK, any of you pro photo guys out there want to recommend a good flatbed scanner? Does anyone even make such a beast anymore? Here's the deal...

Last week, my old AGFA died. RIP, old buddy. I bought it back in 2002 for about $1K and it did everything. So, after a bunch of looking, I bought the Epson V700. What a piece of crap. It's going back.

I'm familiar with the Canon 9000F as well, bought one a while back for my dad and have helped him get set up using it. All I can say is that neither of these two models, which seem to be the best offerings from Canon and Epson right now, can even touch what my old AGFA could do. AGFA doesn't make scanners anymore. Kodak makes some nicer ones, but I'm not spending the $10K price to get something equivalent or better than what my old scanner was.

So, who makes a good scanner these days? The Epson and Canon can swear all they want about 4800, 6400 and 9600 dpi, but none of them come close to that. My AGFA was true optical 4800 dpi when I bought it back in 2003. The Canon and Epson may have the stepper motor resolution to get to their claims, but the images don't look it. In fact, at 9600 dpi on the Epson, I'm getting odd lines and obvious interpolation artifacts when scanning 35mm and medium format slides. The Canon has similar results, from my use there.

So, save me from scanner hell.... What do I do? I looked at HP's offerings, what a friggin' joke. Besides I have an older HP ScanJet 5500c, which was never great, but I used it to scan all my stuff I didn't want to put on the AGFA -- like slicing up grapefruit to scan for some FX plates. I'm in a bind so I tried hooking it up, but like my AGFA, the software hasn't been updated since 2006 for that HP model, so it's not compatible with OSX 10.5 or 10.6 -- tried both. It didn't like Windows7 much either. Not real keen on buying the Epson or Canon either since all their top models have been on the market for about 3 years at this point as well. It's like no one makes scanners anymore...

Help?
 
I know nothing about scanners (great way to start a scanner help post) but if the new ones don't hold up to the standard of your old one why not just ebay another AGFA?
 
Do you need a flatbed? The Nikon 9000 has its quirks but with multiscan mode and wet mounting, I really doubt anything could substantially beat it, certainly not for the price. The Nikon 9000 works with 35mm slides and most 120 formats. It has superlative resolution and very good dmax, good color and ICE implementation, very little "fuzzy" feeling you get with lesser scanners. Unfortunately, it is noisy (you need multipass mode for best results) and the slide mount doesn't achieve perfect focus across the slide, while the glass mount introduces newton's rings. But I bet with wet mounting this thing is killer. It's still really good with just the glass mount.

From what I understand the Epsons have the best performance of any non-exorbitant flatbed, although they have a tendency to miss focus and will always require a lot of USM. From what I've read the Epson can't really resolve more than about 2000ppi no matter how you calibrate it, while the Nikon approaches its rated 4000ppi and with better color. All you need for 99% of emulsions.

If you want to see some full-res samples from the Nikon 9000 send me a PM and I can upload a few later today. I'm very impressed with this scanner.
 
Last edited:
The Kodak scanners are the old Creo IQSmart scanners, so maybe look for a used Creo IQSmart or Eversmart series scanner. They might still be very expensive, however.
 
The name escapes me for the moment, but I think there is a company that makes their own scanner software that supposedly works better and supports hundreds of older scanners and continually updates for new OS.

I came across it in a review on ken Rockwell for the minolta dimage pro scanner.

Edit: Vuescan:

http://www.hamrick.com/
 
I can recommend the Epson 750 pro. I even use it for old glass negatives. Good software included.
 
Jeff - if you're scanning 35 and 120 then the Nikon scanner is a good bet. I have a V700 (which btw has the same mechanics as the 750, but better software) and it works very well but I only use it for 8x10 transparencies using Silverfast software coming into Photoshop in 16 bit. For the 35 I use the Nikon Coolscan. You know, size of sensor versus subject versus stepping motor accuracy. The only way to do better is with a Hell or other professional level scanner which cost 20x as much, or if your volume is low outsource your scanning for critical work to a good printing house that has a Hell or other professional level scanner.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #10
Thanks for the input guys. I am actually looking at the Nikon 9000 for scanning 120 and 35mm. I've looked at it off and on for a while now and have read a few reviews that say the same thing about focus across a slide that Matt mentions. But I suppose that just happens from time to time, depending on how well they're mounted and if they're flat, etc.. I have also read complaints about driver compatibility, especially with Win7 64bit, so I would love to see what the current verdict is.

@Matt -- I'll shoot you a PM as I would like to see a full res sample or two.

Regarding other options... For some reason I didn't know about Vuescan. Don't know if it supports my AGFA model or not, but doesn't matter now, the scanner is dead -- lamp flickers and the motor is junk. I think the motor bound up and cooked the rest of the unit, kinda smells that way. So I'm done, moving on...

What is the difference between the Epson 700 and 750 Pro? Can someone give me a direct answer? Is it just a difference of bundled software? Hard to tell based on the online descriptions, but I can't seem to see where the extra $250 comes from. I'll have to go look again. I've had several people tell me the 700 is newer and better than the 750...??? Is that correct or are they just talking out of their a...?

The v700 Pro. I'm getting better results now as I try different ways of interfacing with it. I'm still seeing what appears to be interpolation artifacts, even some rainbow moire when I have the resolution set to 4800dpi and higher. So I don't know what to make of that. I'd be interested in knowing what other people are doing. If it were not for this, or if I can solve this issue, it would fit the bill just fine. I'm hoping someone from Epson gets back to me about it. I've talked to two different tech support people and the second guy actually seemed to know what I was talking about and said they would have a technician call me back.... That was 4 hours ago...

Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if I have a defective unit.

...Hell scanners. :) Does Linotype still make them with the Hell label? A friend of mine used to own a design studio and printing business and he had a Hell drum scanner.

Anyway, the more I work with this V700 here, the more I'm convinced it's a bad unit. But if I'm going to exchange it, I guess I'm wondering if the 750 is worth the extra. They both physically look the same and seem to have all the same specs... What am I missing?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #11
OK, talked with an Epson tech and emailed him an image showing my problem. He thinks my scanner has a lens alignment issue -- rainbow moire shouldn't even exist.

The 700 and 750 pro units are identical. What you pay more for in the 750 is it also includes the wet-mount film scanning option and has Silverfast Ai6 full version software whereas the 700 has no wet-mount and Silverfast SE6 software.

Packing up the scanner now... Trying to decide if I want to upgrade to the 750.. Or just get another 700. The wet mount would be nice to play with, Silverfast SE6 seems alright as it is.

Have to say the scanner and software perform better under Windows so far...
 
Hi Jeff, I have a V700 and I too found it would just not work well with Mac either. And I do suspect you have a defective unit. I've scanned tens of thousands of 120, 6x9, 6x7, 4x5 negatives and haven't experienced any of what you're describing. I find it fine for larger negatives at a price quality point that I don't think can be beat, although if you don't have to go beyond 120, the Coolscan is probably the way to go. Although the Epson (if you have massive amounts as I do) will be faster. I too use the Nikon Coolscan v5000 for 35mm stuff. But sometimes do proof scans of 35mm negative strips on the V700, then do the final scan of the worthy images on the Nikon. (I'm dealing with a 30 year archive, so it's a lot of stuff.)

Vuescan is definitely better software than the Epson, I think. Although the Epson can give adequate results under Windows.

I think if you have the time and patience and need for wet-scanning results, it might be worth it. But it is a bit of a pain.
 
I would exchange it. Coincidentally I had to exchange my v700 Pro as the first one was not performing up to specs, so perhaps quality control at epson is an issue. But my second one is great. I really recommend Silverfast, even the bundled SE version. Scan in 48 bit (16 bit) and make adjustments in Photoshop using histograms and curves. BTW, as I said the info I have from the newegg site is that the mechanics are the same on the 750 and the only differences are software. And you can buy the full Silverfast separately if you need it.

Hope this helps. I have done over 2000 scans with mine and it works fine on OSX 10.5.
 
Agfa; Creo; Fuji - all gone. They all had, what? about 2400 dpi resolution, 36 bit at most - and they still make today's scanners look like crap.

I don't get it.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #16
Randall Nott said:
Agfa; Creo; Fuji - all gone. They all had, what? about 2400 dpi resolution, 36 bit at most - and they still make today's scanners look like crap.

I don't get it.
Click to expand...

I don't get it, either. Don't recall the model number off the top of my head at the moment, my old scanner just had AGFA in red letters on the front. I had the manual out for it yesterday. It was 2400x2400 dpi for general scans, 4800x4800 true optical resolution for film and transparencies. And all 48bit (16bits/channel). This was huge back in the day. I bought the HP ScanJet 5500c at about the same time, or even a bit before, for use at home and for things I didn't want to subject the AGFA to. It was 1/5th the price and had a 1200x1200 dpi optical ability at 48bit and that was huge for a "consumer" scanner too. Never liked the HP. Very clunky and it has an an auto feeder for scanning 3x5 and 4x6 photos, which never worked worth a crap. Not a bad scanner in terms of image quality though.

I'm familiar with the Canon 9000F, 9950F and 7220F models over the past few years and none of them can hold a candle to the AGFA in terms of scan quality and color reproduction. I guess that's why I didn't even really look at them and went to the Epson.

As for this Epson, Yeah, this V700 is going back. I bought it from Amazon and I had them ship a new one today instead of waiting for this one to run through the return cycle. I opted to stick with the V700... I don't need to spend the extra at this point for the 750 I'm thinking. The Epson tech told me both scanners are identical in every way, it's just the included software and the water mount kit that differs.

I think the biggest issue with Mac performance vs. PC is that the Silverfast software is still a PPC binary and not Intel/Universal. Rather pathetic, IMO. The only thing that's a universal binary is Silverfast's Universal Loader thing. Not sure I understand the Silverfast pricing model, all the different versions, etc.. Kinda sucks that that we have to spend more money to get a different version that offers multi-pass support and other things. And as far as I can tell, the Ai6 version included with the Epson 750 is also lacking multi-pass support. Seems so basic, but I guess I was spoiled with what I had in the past. Multi-pass, histograms, color matching, etc.. were all standard features on any "pro" level scanner 10 years ago. Scanners are just not what they used to be, the market isn't there for them anymore and other than all-in-one units and document scanners, I think photo scanners will be a thing of the past within the next 5 years. Just look at what Kodak and Fuji are doing -- no more "pro" anything except on the very high end. They're pitching huge, expensive, products to retail locations and promoting their scanning services on their web site. Or you can buy their consumer kits that have garbage software and scanner bundled for about $80 and it's a worse than what HP, Canon and Epson are selling for $65 at Wal-Mart. At least that's my take on it based on the available products out there. Consumer features have taken over... We've traded in precision color controls, multipass scanning, and other "pro" tools for automatic photo retouching that seems to only do a mediocre job and only half the time at best.

I guess I'll see how the new V700 performs when I get it. Should be here monday or tuesday. Ultimately, I'll probably leave it on a Windows system since the Mac software is so clunky running through Rosetta.

Most of my film scanning will be better served with the flatbed over the Nikon 9000 or similar. I've looked at the Nikon models off and on over the past few years, but haven't been able to justify the expense. I do shoot quite a bit of medium format with my Mamiya 645 and the ability to scan 120 on a more dedicated unit would be nice. Yet it's something I don't need as the local shop that develops my film already gives me 16bit scans at around 4000+ dpi as part of the deal and they're very reasonable. Specification-wise, the Epson should be superior for 120 in terms of resolution. It's the implementation that matters and I would still expect the Nikon to win out. And while I do believe my V700 was a dud and have hopes the next one will be better, I really doubt it will surpass what it's replacing... Probably just in resolution, maybe.
 
To be honest I can't speak for Nikon's software. I've hardly used the scanner and only have occasional access to one. I also take back my complaint about Newton's rings. While it's clear I've got them and maybe they are an issue, in this case I think it's because I mounted my film upside down, and this is apparently the only side effect of that (other than a flipped image, of course, but that's an easy fix). Currently working on uploading a 6x7 scan, but might have to compress it if it won't upload.

Fwiw, 4000ppi equates almost exactly with 80lp/mm, which is generally considered to be the point at which velvia's mtf goes to mush (at normal contrast ratios). And I've found the Nikon more-or-less recovers everything velvia is capable of seeing. Unfortunately my 6X7 scans are still a bit softer, as Mamiya's lenses can't quite reach 80lp/mm.
 
Last edited:
I had an old Agfa which made the house shake and was SCSI. The only reason I got rid of it was because of the SCSI issue, too much hassle. But my oh my it still put everything to shame.

Maybe we need to start a Agfa Nostalgia thread haha.

You shouldn't be getting any moire or anything, I haven't seen any of that in any of my scans. The VUESCAN does give better results but it didn't handle the transparency trays as well if I remember correctly. I ended up sticking to the stock software.

I don't like ICE though. I find it's too aggressive in the dust and scratch removal and it septuples scan time.
 
Nikon 9000 if your budget is limited or Flextight if you want better quality.

If you get a good Epson that hasn't been pushed out of alignment in transport, then they are reasonable for reflective and almost OK with big film that isn't too dense. With smaller film formats they are woeful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top