Need Scanner ONLY for 35mm B&W Negs

I never shoot slides, nor color negative film. The only film I shoot is 35mm B&W.

So do I need to spend $2,000+ on the Nikon 9000?

What other solutions would give me comparable quality, and for what I shoot?

In the end, I can get the Nikon 9000, but if I don't have to, I'd prefer to save some money.

What say you?

Thanks,
SilverGlow

I'd get the Nikon 4000 or 5000 for 35mm only.

jd callow said:

I'd get the Nikon 4000 or 5000 for 35mm only.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestion.

Will that model produce very sharp images? I would hate for the scanner to make my expensive prime lens qualities moot. I'm ignorant of scanners so would you please tell me if scanners employ an anti-alias filter, or anti-moire that could cancel out a camera's sharp lens? Perhaps scanning is like a raw image captured by a DSLR, in that those images must be sharpened during post processing...any light you can shed on this would be greatly appreciated. How much digital artifacts can the scanning process introduce to an image?

Another option is the Coolscan V ED, which is considerably cheaper than the 4000 or 5000.

It has recently been discontinued by Nikon, but you can still find a few examples out there.

It will last a long time and can still be fixed easily if it breaks, so don't let the "discontinued" stop you from getting one for a good price!

Minolta has some nice models as well, and it's also discontinued.

Both the V or the 5000/4000 will produce incredibly sharp images. Having said that, if you plan to print them at sizes exceeding the usual 10X4, you might have to consider using additional software sharpening.

Remember, this is 35mm film.

The same considerations that stopped 35mm from producing very large and sharp images with enlargers are still there with scanners and won't go away: they have to do with the limitations of the film media itself, not the scanner.

If anything, scanning allows you to apply post-processing software sharpening, something that is not easy to do with enlargers without some fancy masking.

Very true, I see it the same way. I mostly sharpen after scans (USM, Radius 0.9px, treshold 0, amnt. depends but usually ca. 50 - 90). Epson 2540 flatbed scans definitely require this, I may or may not sharpen when scanning with Minolta Dimage ScanDual III... BTW, high resolution doesn't always mean sharpness.

Another note: I get better detail - when compared to ISO 400 film scanned with Dimage ScanDual III - from my 12Mp Sony A700 camera, in-sensor NR turned off (thanks to the latest firmware) at ISO 1600 -> so, unless you shoot MF (or you use very fine grained film and have it drum-scanned) , *an all-digital workflow is a better option to me*. (More productive, higher resolution). My digital camera lens (Tamron 17-50) also give much better detail / resolution than my not-so-cheap film lenses (Minolta 24-105 D or 100-300 APO D), when compared on A700.

Currently I only shoot film if I'm going to enlarge/print in traditional wet darkroom. I won't be using 35mm film anymore for processing / printing digitally.

Regards,
Loris.

SilverGlow said:

...Perhaps scanning is like a raw image captured by a DSLR, in that those images must be sharpened during post processing...

Click to expand...