Scanners VS Medium format negatives

[mygrain]

Hey guys! I'm looking to get a new scanner that can handle medium format negatives but I'm real limited on funds. I've narrowed my options to these two scanners...
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=120&modelid=10242 and
http://www.microtekusa.com/sm5900.html

If anyone has input on these two i would be very grateful.

 

[Sash[DSL]]

I would HIGHLY NOT RECOMMEND EITHER of these scanners for one simple reason: these are flatbed scanners and not dedicated film scanners. The best flatbed out there will give worse results than the worst dedicated scanner. If you cant afford a nice scanner, just dont buy one, youll be wasting your money buying flatbeds.

 

[Solarize]

I disagree.
While the results of scanning negs from a flatbed will never compare to scans from a deticated neg scanner, the results are more than likely to be adequate for someone who isnt a professional, and someone who doesn't have the money to buy a dedicated film scanner (which will cost a grand up).

It's more than likely that the more you spend the more your gonna get. If you can spend more do so, if you can't, buy what you can and when you need hi-res scans for big prints send your negs off to be done professionally. Dedicated MF scanners are well overpriced for most people, flatbeds arent. I'm sure many people on the forum have used flatbeds to get decent results.

 

[Axel]

If the information given by Solarize is correct (whoch I don't know since I am far from a pro when it comes to photography), I would give EPSON scanners a good look... They are very good!

 

[ksmattfish]

I have a Microtek i900 flatbed scanner that I bought specifically for scanning film. I don't have any plans in the near future to do any digital printing, but I needed good files for clients, and I love proofing my negs on the computer. I would've bought a dedicated film scanner, but to get one that will do medium format and 4x5 film runs in the thousand$, and a flatbed costs in the hundred$. I think that dedicated film scanners probably are better, but the flatbeds these days are very, very good. The flatbeds will also scan 35mm, although it really does suffer in comparison with a dedicated (and affordable) 35mm film scanner, but good enough for web posting.

I have a friend that has an previous model Microtek flatbed, and he's been scanning and printing from medium format and 4x5 for a few years now with stunning results. He's one of the very few photogs I've seen where I can't tell the difference between his cibachromes and his digital prints.

 

[mygrain]

I've been using flatbeds for years, they work great for what I need. I' ve had 2 epson flatbeds. My current one is an epson and it's dying just like the first. They scan okay but they wear out way too fast. There is no way on a frosty morning in Hades that I can afford a dedicated scanner... so flatbeds are my only choice. I was just wondering if anyone has used the Canon brand. The price is MONDO and it does have a 4x5 transparency scanner.

Matt- I've been looking at the i900 for some time too. I've used Microtek before and they work pretty well in the way of sharpness. But I found the epson hit the color ranges better..atleast the one I was using kept throwing my colors off and mudding them up a bit...but then again it wasn't mine and I wasn't about to tweek the settings...so I just gave up on it. Maybe I should go ahead and get one of those because a pro printer friend of mine loves his... course he's the dude who pushed me to purchase a digital slr too.

 

[usayit]

If my career/job and livelyhood depended on photographer, I would have probably gone for the film scanner worth $$$$. For the rest of us, a flat bed photo scanner is pretty good option. I've been using them for quite sometime starting with an HP photosmart s20 and now an Epson 3170. I'm happy with my 3170 and it will do medium format negatives although I have yet to scan any medium format.