Welcome back Mark. In all of your examples save the oak leaves. the Epson 3200 appears sharper to my eye. The oak leves are close to a push, although I might give the nod to the LS-9000 by a hair. Paul
> 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 > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >
