Scanner opinion

[more photography]

Let put cost aside, I am only interested in scanning 5x4 and smaller.

If you have the option to buy either an IQSmart2 or (Imacon) Flextight X5, what you go for and why?

Thanks

[Bruce Watson]

Let put cost aside, I am only interested in scanning 5x4 and smaller.

If you have the option to buy either an IQSmart2 or (Imacon) Flextight X5, what you go for and why?

Thanks

A used drum scanner is a far better value -- more image quality for less money.

But since that's not the choice you are offering, I'd go with the IQSmart scanner. It should do a better job on 5x4 at least, and you can fluid mount with it. But really, the only way to find out if which scanner is right for you personally is to get some scans made -- same film, different scanners. Compare, apply your own personal requirements, and choose.

[percepts]

Let put cost aside, I am only interested in scanning 5x4 and smaller.

If you have the option to buy either an IQSmart2 or (Imacon) Flextight X5, what you go for and why?

Thanks

I think the answer maybe dependant on what you scan the most. If 35mm transparencies, the the slide feeder on the Imacon may make life easier. But is it as quick as the IQSmart2. The imacon spec says 50 35mm in one hour. But that is producing 50MB files which is much lower resolution than the imacon is capable of. If you want the full 8000 spi at 16bit then file size will be around 500MB which 10X as big. Don't know if that equates to 10 times slower but it will be a lot slower.
Finding figures for IQSmart2 speed at high res scan is fruitless.

Then if you want 4x5 batch scan, you also need batch feeder for imacon nad that is more expense and it looks from images that it needs looking after carefully.
The imacon max res for 4x5 is only 2040 which may or may not be enough for your needs. That limits you to around 24 inch image width if you are wanting to print at 360ppi. All depends on your requirements for output really.

The IQSmart has full res available regardless of film format so you can get 6000spi for 4x5 if you need it and scan several 4x5s at once.

If it were me I would opt for IQSmart for ease of use and robustness. These things are built to be hammered in prepress offices. But I would want to do some research on timings for say 36 35mm transparencies at full resolution on both machines first.
Also IQSmart will scan A3 over the full area at full resolution so if you want or need to go bigger you can.

As for image quality, I think both will give excellent quality. One may be slightly better than the other but for that money I want fast throughput otherwise I'd get a nikon 9000 and use an epson flatbed for 4x5.

All opinion on what little I know about these machines but I have been drooling over an IQSmart for a long time...

[John Brady]

I have the IQ2 and I am very pleased. For me it came down to ease of use.

www.timeandlight.com

[more photography]

I think the answer maybe dependant on what you scan the most.

5x4 90% of the time and spme 6x12 - and will not be scanning 10x8. That precludes the Nikon. Auto feeds is not required, but quality is? Also I am not sure that I want more 2000 dpi reslution, I have no need for 4000 or even 6000 SPI

[percepts]

5x4 90% of the time and spme 6x12 - and will not be scanning 10x8. That precludes the Nikon. Auto feeds is not required, but quality is? Also I am not sure that I want more 2000 dpi reslution, I have no need for 4000 or even 6000 SPI

Well if its one off scans and you don't need the high res for large format then you can narrow your selection criteria down to output quality, ease of use, reliability(servicing), and bang for buck which is not relevant to your question.
Also software. Which is easiest but since you seem to be doing one off's, then that is a moot point as its not going to mess with your work flow much if at all. But there does seem to be question over whether the imacon software allows you to be working on an image while another neg is being scanned. Check that carefully. Don't know about the IQSmart software.

[percepts]

Dare I say it, but if you are looking at an imacon which only scans 4x5 at 2040spi then you will only get around 9600 pixel width out of the image.

Just to put that into context, a new X5 in the UK retails for around £15000 including VAT.

For that amount of money you could buy a Canon EOS 5D MKII which gives you 5616x3744 pixels. A panoramic tripod mount, a slew of their best lenses and just stitch images together. The quality in most cases would be better than 4x5 film because you have increased capture resolution and removed loss of resolution through scanning.

i.e. if the name of the game is not about traditional printing but only the means of capture, then largeformat photography seems pointless if ultimate quality is what counts.

So unless you want more than 2040 res scans I see no point in LF as better can be achieved simply by other means. There are a lot of people doing this.

[Paul Kierstead]

So unless you want more than 2040 res scans I see no point in LF as better can be achieved simply by other means. There are a lot of people doing this.

This is only true if "better" is defined as number (even at the same quality) of pixels. This seems like a rather narrow definition of better.

[Lenny Eiger]

A used drum scanner is a far better value -- more image quality for less money.

I'm with Bruce. If you are going to spend that kind of money, get a drum. The only reason would be if you had to scan something that couldn't bend, like a glass neg.

I mean, for crying out loud, why not.... it's a lot of dough, and you could have something that was really sharp. No dissing of ccd type scanners needed here, but why not work with a PMT? They are extremely sensitive and very sharp. You would know you have the top of the line.

Lenny

[percepts]

This is only true if "better" is defined as number (even at the same quality) of pixels. This seems like a rather narrow definition of better.

Scanning a 4x5 neg at 2040 spi is throwing away a lot of information in the neg. It seems pointless to spend £15000 on a scanner to do that when you can maximise the potential of a complete other system and get superior results for a lot less money.