What's new
DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.

DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Zeiss 21mm madness at Ffordes

Hi Sergei, in your opinion what level is the Epson V750 flatbed ? Is it as good as Minolta Multi Pro ? Joseph
 
Thank you Didzis, I had read that post. I put my standing order in for the M digital over a year ago. Whatever it's final spec's I want it ... for I am weary of lugging around giant DSLRs while photographing candid wedding work : -)

Joseph, there is no flatbed currently available that can match the abilities of a dedicated MF film scanner such as the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro. That specific Minolta scanner has attained a cult status among it's users. Flat beds are good for gang proof sheets and for smaller prints from negs or for scanning existing prints. An indication of even the latest, greatest flatbed's limited performance becomes painfully obvious when scanning 35 mm sized films ... which no one recommends.

I do have a question for you Joseph. You seem to be a very discerning buyer, and select the very "best of the best" in most of what you purchase regardless of price. You also seem somewhat dedicated to the use of film.

So my question is, why get the very best lenses and then less than the best scanner?

Neither the best flat bed nor the best pro-sumer dedicated scanners like the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro can compare to the Imacon 646 Flextight virtual drum scanner.

While not Imacon's best, it is considerably better than any flatbed will ever be and much better than the Minolta. It assures a flat film surface via it's unique drum configuration, uses a Rodenstock lens, features a 4.6 D-Max, and scans at 6000 ppi true resolution ... The Minolta MF scanner tops out at 4800, uses a Minolta lens, and doesn't hold the film as flat.

To give you an indication: a 16 bit Imacon scan of from a MF neg like that from a SWC would be over a Gigabyte in size @ 6000 ppi ... this translates into a print size of 45" X 45" @ 300 ppi ... without any interpolation !!!! Shadow detail is superior, detail and color produced by those fabulous lenses of yours would be faithfully reproduced and the tonal range much smoother the way it should be with MF film.

Not inexpensive, but either are the lenses you are using.
 
Hi Joseph. No, Minolta is better, but not very much. I mean, it's 2.5 times more expensive (as per recent $1.5K eBay price, plus $300 for SilverFast), but it's not 2.5 times "better" (at least in terms of resolution). I finally found a sweet focusing point for this guy and I'm pretty happy. 6400 dpi is now an overkill, 3200 is perfectly fine. It comes with color calibrator (for some reason, SilverFast version they provided is not calibratable, but Monaco does the job pretty good). The calibrator is a must, i.e. don't go for cheaper V700 if they ship it without one. If you have more questions, you can drop me an e-mail. I can send you some s&le scans. BTW, this link might be helpful too: http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

-Sergei
 
Marc, I want the Minolta Multi Pro, but I have been waiting for quite a while with no signs of it being seen in the ebay. In this situation, I have to look for alternatives like Flatbeds. For 35mm scanning, I am happy with my 5400, I just need polishing of the scanning techniques and Photoshop. For medium format scanning, I wish to know if Flatbeds is sufficient for the work. I should think medium format scanning is less demanding than 35mm scanning. It is just like the objective lenses, medium format lenses resolves less well than 35mm lenses in general.
 
I agree that the Minolta isn't 2.5X better, but that's faulty logic.

The concept is based on the theory that just like with lenses, you pay a lot more to move the quality up a little more. A $2000. Zeiss lens isn't 4X better than a $500. lens either.

I still don't grasp the idea that you would pay thousands to get lenses of the highest calibre and then scan the negs on a flatbed. Granted, you CAN get a passable MF scan from a flatbed, but it turns the $2,000. Zeiss lens into a $500. lens. Might as well buy a cheaper camera system if saving money is the objective.
 
I agree with Marc. In all things (not just photography) a balanced system is the most important thing. IMHO.
 
343 is being discontinued. It is $5,000. in the US

The 646 is a much higher spec scanner and is $10,000. in the US.

10% loyalty discount if you have ever bought an Imacon product before.

Since Imacon is now part of Hasselblad you can view the different scanners on the Hasselblad web site. www.hasselblad.com

Google Imacon scanners and try to find the CGI presentation of the Imacon virtual drum concept.

These scanners are so good they rival $50,000. commercial drum scanners, and in fact their top model literally stole away the commercial market from other commercial scanner companies.

I am going to get one next week because I cannot pull out enough shadow detail with these Minoltas .. neither the 5400 nor the Multi-Pro are good enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top