Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/01/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]This is slightly off topic. But does anyone have any experience/thought/opinions regarding whether or not a dedicated MF film scanner (i.e. Nikon 8000/9000) would be noticeably better than a good flatbed scanner for scanning BW 120 negs. I ask because I've been using an Epson 1600 -- which is a very good scanner IMHO -- for some time. It does a good job on MF and LF, and it's adequate for 35mm, at least for BW and web. I've been using the 1600 for a long time with multiple software interfaces and I know its strengths and limitations pretty well. I also have a Minolta 5400 that I sometimes use for 35mm. I use the Minolta if for challenging negs or if I'm going to print big. OTOH, much of the time even 35mm scans from the flatbed are more than adequate for printing. Plus I can scan a whole roll of 35mm on the flatbed with very little effort. The file sizes are smaller which makes them easier to work with. So needless to say I use the flatbed far more often than the Minolta for 35mm. But the Minolta does come in handy occasionally. I know that a dedicated film scanner will extract more information than a flatbed. The question is how much more and it worth the 1) extra expense, 2) added desk space required, 3)added software, 4)added workflow and subsequent learning curve for a MF scanner, especially for BW. TIA DaveR