I just want to say thanks for all the help you guys gave me. On my first run with the view graphic and the speed graphic. I nailed 7 out of 10 on the slides I just had Developed. 5 in each camera 5 out of 5 on the view 2 out of 5 on the speed (was using the range finder). Now as soon as I can get to the mountains to nail the places that I have done before in smaller formats and get the scanner to upload these. I will post some for you all to see.

Any suggestions on a scanner would be a great help. There is a microtek that has a 4x5 plate and an Epson I'm looking at. Any input would be appericated. The scanner is not to make prints from but could be used for that if it is high enough resolutuion. But is more for getting the pics into data format for web use and cataloging. I do not want a cheap scanner I want a good one.....

_________________
But honey I only own 9 cameras, One more won't hurt. Plus it does things all my others don't.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sounguru on 2005-08-04 16:25 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sounguru on 2005-08-04 16:26 ]</font>

Microtek Scanmaker i900, Scanamker 8700 pro, and their ArtixScan 1800f gets good marks from the experts at another large format site. The 8700 is the previous version of the i900 and available used. Glassless scaning up to 4x5 and I made my own 8x10 glassless holder for my 8700 pro.
http://www.microtekusa.com/pp.html

_________________
While a picture may be worth a thousand words, a quality photograph is worth a million.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: 45PSS on 2005-08-04 20:46 ]</font>

Ken Rockwell likes the Epson 4990. http://www.kenrockwell.com
It's what I'm going to buy.

Has anyone tried/heard about the Cannon Canoscan 9950F?
Top

You might want to search back issues of Shutterbug magazine, which regularly carries reviews of scanners. For medium and large format (120 up to 8x10), I am very pleased with my flatbed Epson Expression 1600. This is not the current model, and I'm not sure of the successor designation. Just a sidenote: in case you want to scan 35mm slides or negs, the flatbed will not do. Better to get a dedicated slide scanner. Recently the Konica Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV has received high marks, and is quite affordable (c. $260). I have obtained excellent results with this scanner.

I can second the vote for the Minolta scanners, I have had two of them now and they are great and alot less expensive then the Nikon scanners..

Dave

I've been using an "Epson Perfection 4870 Photo" scanner (where do they get these names?), which has given superb results. It will do 4x5 and 120 negatives, as well as 35 mm slides. Maximum optical resolution is 4800 x 4800 dpi. The negative carriers that come with it are very well designed. It also does a good job as a general-purpose scanner of up to letter-sized paper. Not very expensive, either.

G'day all,

I guess everyone has their favourites
I'm pretty happy with my Canoscan 9900F, although I haven't scanned 4X5 yet (only just got my two graphics recently

It does well with 6X9 medium format, both negs and slides. The 9950 is a newer model with (I believe) even higher resolution, but 3200dpi does well for anything smaller than large poster size, and it has good scratch, dust and even grain removal (although using this can triple scan times).

It isn't super fast though, even with a powerful computer to do the dust/scratch/fading removal calculations.

Comparison times are irrelevant, because two different computers will give diferent results with the same scanner.

My suggestion:
Here in OZ, bigger camera shops stock scanners too, and they tend to be more amenable to letting you try them out in store than the sales staff in electronics stores usually are. Probably 'cause they know how to use them
Why not try a few high end scanners out first, and see whether they suit your working style ?
Friends in photography might help, too. And Ken Rockwell's recommendations (somewhere above) are based on his experience working in photography, too.

But remember: big negatives/transparencies scanned at high resolution mean enormous demands on both RAM and hard disk space. Add any scratch and dust removal algorithms (you need these, because scanners attract dust), and you need a computer (MAC or PC) with plenty of grunt, and plenty of storage. If you don't have the computer to cope with it, don't buy a high end scanner ! Yes, I found out the hard way !

Hope this helps.
Rick