Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: 4x5 or Medium Format for Scanning?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Forest Grove, Ore.
    Posts
    4,675

    4x5 or Medium Format for Scanning?

    Which gives the better quality digital scans, 4x5 film on a flatbed (e.g. 4870) or medium format on a good dedicated film scanner like the Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED?

    I hope I'm not splitting hairs in asking. My point is that medium format is less expensive and easier to use, cameras are smaller, etc. (We all know the differences.) Flat beds are about the only reasonably priced option for 4x5 home scanning. A dedicated scanner like the 9000 has higher quality (at a higher price), when compared to a flatbed like the 4870. If scans are the purpose, does this additional quality improve the quality of the scan, given the loss of image area in going from a 4x5 to a 6x7 or a 6x9?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Posts
    444

    4x5 or Medium Format for Scanning?

    Dan, you beat me to it. The thing that makes LF less expensive is that you can put the best lens on any camera. I will match up a APO Sironar or Symmar with the best of MF lenses but I can put it on a $600 Shen Hao or even a $100 CC400. Mamiya's killer 80mm f/4 only goes on the M7.

    M7-II with a 80mm f/4 lists at $2499 from Calumet

    Toyo CF with a 150 APO Sironar N + 2 film holders lists at $1309 from Calumet

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,487

    4x5 or Medium Format for Scanning?

    It probably depends more on your final usage. If you are happy with 16x20 prints, it's probably a wash, as I suspect the Nikon 9000 will scan at a higher working resolution than the Epson 4870, and the Nikon's ability to capture a wider tonal range will be mitigated by the 4x5's better local contrast between tones (and the smaller degree of enlargement.) But if your goal is to print larger, then the Epson flatbed will capture more detail than the Nikon film scanner, based on the larger film area. And the detail will give the larger print the "edge" as you often want a punchier, less subtle print the larger you go anyway.

    I'd use the camera and format that suits you best, and you probably won't know until you try them both. There cetainly are many beautiful, large prints from smaller formats.

    YMMV. Are you thinking of a Mamiya 7 or a newly cheap Hasselblad?

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,487

    4x5 or Medium Format for Scanning?

    Heck, a $200 Crown Graphic with a $400 Sironar and a $400 Epson = $1000 and you're able to make world class, state of the art images without ANY excuses.

    Of course I've been seeing temptingly beautiful Blad systems on the bay for a fraction of the 1990s prices.

  5. #5

    4x5 or Medium Format for Scanning?

    Since I shoot mostly 6x9, I would phrase it differently... if you choose to shoot MF, you really need to use the best scanning possible to come as close as possible to LF. I drum scan all of my MF film and find that up to about 18x24, the results are a virtual tie with 4x5... 4x5 pulls steadily ahead as size increases from there.

    I don't think the Nikon is worth the money unless you plan on scanning scads of images. I have a local lab scan and print on a Frontier for prints up to 12x15 and only drum scan images that are going bigger. I can pay for alot of drum scans for the price of the Nikon, and that doesn't take into account maintenance and my time and grief.

  6. #6
    Ted Harris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,465

    4x5 or Medium Format for Scanning?

    Wehre you are splitting hairs, IMO, i swith the scanners. Good is a relative term and while I use a Microtek i900 (in the same class as the 4870) I would not categorize eitehr of them or the Nikon film sacnner as 'good; scanners. Rather, they are acceptable scanners tha give you reasonable output for smaller prints. When I need to make a larger print or have something that has to be perfect for a client I send it out for a drum scan and lightjet or chromira print......no comparison with the home scanners.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    12

    4x5 or Medium Format for Scanning?

    If Neil had asked for opinions on comparing flat bed 4x5 with the Imacon/Hasselblad 343 scanner with medium format would that have changed anything?

    British Journal of Photography recently reviewed this scanner but the review was so cursory it told me nothing beyond implying the scanner was fairly good and quite expensive (I didn't need to buy BJP to find out that).

    I want to scan 6x12 and reviews of the new Canon and Epson flat beds show very soft scans before applying loads of USM.

  8. #8

    4x5 or Medium Format for Scanning?

    While this is not the comparison you are looking for , I compared 35mm scans made with the Coolscan 5000 (provia 100F , sharp 2.8 Zoom, f/8, sturdy tripod ) and printed with Epson 1280 -- to that from a Canoscan 9950 scan/print with Shen Hao and 135mm Sironar.

    There IS no comparison.

    The input is so EXTREMELY high to begin with for the 4x5 that it more than offsets the (relatively) poor quality scanning of a cheap flatbed ( Canon or Epson, they are both the same). Unfortunately the 1280 allows only 13x19 s, but even then 4x5 is several worlds beyond what 35mm (and I suspect medium format too) can do. Steve Hoffman (sphoto.com) did a comparison in which a 4x5 scanned with the lowly Epson 3200 came out ahead of the EOS 1Ds Mk II. Imagine that .

    I took up LF only recently and I regret all the wasted time and expense I went through visiting the National Parks with 35mm toy cameras. :-(

  9. #9

    4x5 or Medium Format for Scanning?

    Interesting that most quoted the initial cost of gear. Within the useful lifespan of cameras and lenses, the cost of film will far far outweigh the cost of equipment, with MF being a fraction of the price (up to an order of magnitude). If cost is your main concern, even a high end MF system will likely be less expensive in the long run than 4x5 (obviously depending on frequency of use).
    Quality is of course subjective. The answer to your question depends on several factors:
    1) How large do you want to print? MF will hold its own up to a point where it just doesn't have enough detail to keep up.
    2) The type of work you do. If it stands to benefit from movements, a view camera (which can be used with MF roll film) will give you far more flexibility to produce images that may not even be possible with a standard rigid MF design.
    3) For any given image - dynamic range may be too high for a flatbed to adequately reproduce. Here a better scanner may give you an advantage, even with a smaller format.
    4) Your propensity to haul and operate a view camera. No camera in the world will do you any good if when the moment is right you don't feel like carrying it with you or setting it up.

    And ultimately - personal preference. Nothing beats seeing it with your own eyes. Try both scenarios (rent a camera if you need to, ask someone to scan a test frame) and compare for yourself.

    Forget peer pressure. Pick the one (or both) you feel will make you more successful in your individual endevours - facilitating the images you like to make in a way that doesn't hinder your creativity. At the end of the day a larger piece of film will generally work better than a smaller one, but even the tiniest format will still beat not getting the image at all.

    Guy
    Scenic Wild Photography

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Fremantle, Western Australia
    Posts
    249

    4x5 or Medium Format for Scanning?

    Neil,

    I think you need to ask yourself whether quality is more important than convienience in your work, and only you can answer that.

    Economically, there is little between the two systems you're asking about after the cost of film is factored into the equation.

    But you can always take a 5x4 sheet in for a drum scan later once you've captured on the format. If your killer shot was on 6x7 and you wanted the very best print, you'd kick yourself that you didn't capture with the bigger format.

    In the end, a drum scan of 5x4 beats a drum scan of medium format.

    Cheers,

Similar Threads

  1. Medium Format vs. Large Format
    By Bruce Schultz in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 27-Feb-2002, 15:38
  2. medium format vs large format lenses
    By mike hardaway in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 11-Aug-2001, 04:59
  3. medium or large format?
    By Sharris Brown in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 29-Sep-1999, 21:13
  4. Large Format or Medium Format
    By Jeff Stange in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 21-Jun-1999, 23:59
  5. Large Format or Medium Format for use on foot and sailboat
    By McCormack, Ken in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 31-Jan-1999, 00:52

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •