Greetings all -
Been off the list for a little while, thought I'd touch base to squelch any rumors that I'm still lost in the woods... and ask for some input on medium format scanners.
While the *ist-D has dominated my shooting in terms of volume (I'm rounding the corner on 17,000 exposure in a little over a year) I really enjoy shooting with the 6x7 - mostly B&W, but some color print film.
At this point, I have the money set aside to purchase a high end MF film scanner (probably an LS 9000). However, I'm frugal, have never been swayed by brand identity, and like to test things out for myself (three reasons why I'm loyal Pentaxer).
So.... Currently I'm scanning my 6x7 negs on an Epson 3200 flatbed scanner. I thought I'd do some head to head comparisons of the Epson3200 scanning 35mm film, and my Canoscan 4000 dpi scanner, also scanning 35mm film. I figured that the Canoscan FS 4000 is close in quality to the LS 9000 (except for not being able to handle medium format), and I could see what I'd be getting in terms of additional quality from the Nikon MF scanner.
Here's a comparison page, showing full frame and actual pixel shots of the Canon vs the Epson, scanning 35mm B&W film:
http://www.markcassino.com/temp/test/
I'd appreciate some feedback or observations on the 'actual pixel' comparisons. At this time, I'm considering just upgrading the 4800 dpi Epson that replaced the 3200, and saving a bundle of money. I strongly suspect that the LS-9000 would do much better with slide film, but I don't shoot slide film (I hardly shoot any color film.) But at least one person looked at this comparison page and told me I needed to get my eyes checked - that the images scanned on the Epson were clearly inferior..
In regards to this comparison, I should note that the second image, shot on APX-100, is probably closest to what I would be working with in Medium format. I shoot mostly APX-100 these days (since I can;t find Classic Pan anymore.) The third image - the Oak Leaves - was taken on Kodak Plus-X and stand processed in Dektol - the negative is really really dense (as in overdeveloped) so to some extent it is testing the D-Range of the scanners.
I've made some 12 x 18 prints from the full frame comparison scans, and I do think that the Epson lacks a little (a tiny little) in detail, but is also somewhat less grainy. That all could just be the result of comparing a 3200 dpi scan to a 4000 dpi scan. Anyhow, if I mixed the prints up and put them away for a few weeks, I doubt that I could pick out one from the other..
I will be picking up four 20 x 24 Chromira prints from scans done on the Epson 3200 later this week - so I'll be able to evaluate larger output produced on this scanner.
Obviously, I'm poking around in the dark on this - the rational thing would be to compare outputs form the two scanners I'm actually considering buying, instead of engaging in this proxy comparison. (But I know from experience that rationality is not a pre-requisite for posting here..)
On one hand, with the LS 9000 I would know that I'm getting about the best desktop MF scanner out there, but then I would have to deal with it's narrow DOF and also spend a lot of money. The 4800 dpi Epson flatbed would probably be a notch better than the Epson 3200 (which seems pretty good to me already) and would cost less. But, I'd loose the prestige factor and maybe I really wouldn't get as good of a scan....
Any comments / thoughts / suggestions would be appreciated.
Cheers -
MCC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino Photography
Kalamazoo, MI
www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
