4x5 on Flatbed vs 6x7 on film scanner

[D. Bryant]

Frank,

Isn't that about what a Nikon D3 costs I know, I know-not large format.

Scott

Save your money and buy a Canon 5D!

Don Bryant

[Frank Petronio]

The funny thing is that if you run the numbers, shooting (a reasonable, used) 8x10 and scanning with an Epson is probably the best quality per dollar... you could probably get a decent outfit set up for $2000 (camera, lens, tripod, holders, scanner, misc) and blow away anything other than Sironar-S/drum-scanned 8x10.

Certainly Mamiya/Coolscan or ~22mp DSLRs, either of which are going to be at least twice as expensive.

[Tom T]

Frank, your right, the 8x10 is the best deal....the extra cost of film/processing is made up in savings not needing drum scans. Tempted to get one, but went for the Fotoman 617 that thinks it's a 35mm rangefinder. No dark cloth needed, cheap film, easy bracketing, viewfinder, depth of field scale....so nice! Hard to decide if I want a second Fotoman or a heavy 8x10 that is not so great in wind.

[cobalt]

I got beat up for saying 4x5/Epson beat 120 on a Coolscan, so it must be true. Not having a Coolscan I can't know for sure but I trust the consensus on this.

Which starts one to thinking... shouldn't most of us be using Mamiya 7s and Coolscans?

Oh, $4-5,000 investment to get up to speed, damn!

Don't believe the hype...unless you are using a Blad or Fuji rangefinder...then it's a contest. I own both scanners. Both are fantastic products.

[Scott Kathe]

Don't believe the hype...unless you are using a Blad or Fuji rangefinder...then it's a contest.

Percy,

Are you saying that the Blad and Fuji are as good as a Mamiya 7? A Fuji GSW would be the least expensive way to shoot wide with any of these cameras but I'd be stuck with one focal length-not necessarily a bad thing

Scott

[Jeffrey Sipress]

With the thousands of dollars spent on TWO high end camera systems, lenses, meters, etc, you're worried about the cost of 4x5 film?

[Frank Petronio]

I used to use the 90mm 6x9 Fuji rangefinder back in my darkroom days and the TMax 100 prints look like 4x5. That lens is great. I also used the 65mm version and it was good but the 90mm is amazingly sharp.

[cjbroadbent]

I use an Imacon Flextight 6x13 (old scuzzy) and an Epson Perfection V750 flatbed. Roll-film 6x12 Ektachrome and Scala are better, as might be expected, on the Imacon than on the EPSON because there's no glass and there is tension.
However, a digital 24x36 (Kodak DCS) is as good, and an digital multishot is better.
A digital multishot with the Kodak is even better than a 4x5 negative on the Epson flatbed.
So the Imacon and the very expensive 6x9 and 6x12 roll-film backs gather dust and I only scan 4x5 on the flatbed for presentations and web.
An 8x10 negative on the Epson flatbed (when it doesn't have Newton rings) at 1200dpi beats the lot - but than I shoot 8x10 for contact printing so WTF. My advice: get a full-frame digital and a shift lens. You will get better resolution for less money and more time to shoot. I thought I had beat the system with the Imacon and 6x9, but it does not quite make it in tone response and definition.

[sanking]

I use an Imacon Flextight 6x13 (old scuzzy) and an Epson Perfection V750 flatbed. Roll-film 6x12 Ektachrome and Scala are better, as might be expected, on the Imacon than on the EPSON because there's no glass and there is tension.

Are you not limited to 3200 spi with the Imacon Flextight for MF negatives? The LS-4000 scans MF at 4000 spi.

Sandy King

[cjbroadbent]

Sandy, Yes 3,200DPI & DMax of 4.1 Got it originally to scan Linhof 6x17 panoramas then switched to 6x12 backs. As I said, it was disappointing compared to multi-shot digital. For a time I did split-scans of 4x5s and 5x7s (they do fit!) and stitched them with RealViz.
Off subject; Over the last two years, I've picked up a whale of information about developers from your posts in various places. Heartfelt thanks.