Opinions on IQsmart2 vs. 3

[theHUN]

Hi folks,

I am a hobbyist shooter on 120, mostly b/w negatives which I enjoy developing myself, and I am considering upgrading from my V850 scanner. I will perhaps keep the V850 as it offers digital ICE for the occasional roll of C41 I shoot. After much reading I have narrowed it down to the IQsmart2 or 3 as I don't like the price/performance of the Imacons, and I don't want to deal with anything bigger/heavier than the IQsmart2/3 (I live in a small studio).

While I am aware of the differences in their resolution, scan speed, and lack/availability of digital transparency, I am less clear on what that means in the final scan. Unfortunately, the scan comparison page does not have a scan for the IQsmart2, so I am only left with a handful of user opinions and since quality is subjective it is no wonder that there is some disagreement.

1. Does anyone have an apples to apples comparison between the IQsmart2 and IQsmart3?
2. What is the main impact of not being able to scan into a DT file? If I scan at 16 bit, don't clip shadows/highlights, save as a lossless TIFF, does DT make any difference? What is "baked" into the TIFF that is not baked into the DT?
3. How would I go about finding someone who would scan one of my negatives on an IQsmart2, so I could compare their file to one of my own scans? I will happily pay for this service.
4. Have any IQsmart2 users regretted not getting the IQsmart3?

Many thanks in advance.

[SergeyT]

2. What is the main impact of not being able to scan into a DT file? If I scan at 16 bit, don't clip shadows/highlights, save as a lossless TIFF, does DT make any difference? What is "baked" into the TIFF that is not baked into the DT?

Assuming that you will be able to create or obtain and accurate color (ICC) profile for your scanner and film combo, properly setup dark and white points, you are unlikely to see any difference between the two in scans of positive film (Velvia, Provia, Ektachrome, etc)
If I had to scan any significant number of color negative film I would definitely chose an Eversmart or iQSmart scanner with DT capability over non-DT one.
The main advantage of DT format is that records a RAW data as it comes from the electronics. Once you have that data in DT format you will be able to apply any ICC input and \ or output profiles to the data and be able to edit the image just like you would edit a RAW file from a digital camera.
In other words, DT format allows for so-called SOOM workflow, where you Scan Once and Output Many, or separate in time the scanning from making decision on image looks. The actual scanning then comes to - mount your film on the base glass, prescan, select the frame, choose the desired optical resolution, choose DT format, press "Scan", enjoy your life while the scanner is working for you. The rest of editing decisions will be made on DT files.
You may look at that as - having the DT capability is like having an ultimate piece of mind that you have got the best for the money you've spent on scanning equipment.

[theHUN]

Thank you Sergey. It's always nice to bump into you online.

So since most of my work is black and white, the DT format does not sound critical at the moment, though it might be more future proof if I get into slide film (I've never heard of a process flow to color calibrate a scanner for C41). It definitely does not seem worth ~2x the cost between the two scanners. But the Eversmart is not an option because of its weight.

[SergeyT]

Likewise, G

For B&W only the Max optical resolution would be the most important difference between the two, if that matters.

[interneg]

After much reading I have narrowed it down to the IQsmart2 or 3 as I don't like the price/performance of the Imacons

I've put the key problem here into bold. What are your aims in terms of print output size? Do you need significant batch scan and/ or fluid mount capacity - or would you be able to accept manual shift & stitch scanning if it gave 6300ppi/ 8000ppi output? Real world, there's not as much difference between the various high-end CCD machines (especially those with Kodak sensors) as people on the internet would like you to believe - and you'll be better off getting something more appropriate to your level of throughput, rather than spec-sheet derived assumptions.

[theHUN]

I've put the key problem here into bold. What are your aims in terms of print output size? Do you need significant batch scan and/ or fluid mount capacity - or would you be able to accept manual shift & stitch scanning if it gave 6300ppi/ 8000ppi output? Real world, there's not as much difference between the various high-end CCD machines (especially those with Kodak sensors) as people on the internet would like you to believe - and you'll be better off getting something more appropriate to your level of throughput, rather than spec-sheet derived assumptions.

My reading was not limited to spec sheets, but focused primarily on posts from users who had used various scanners. I also spent plenty of time looking at the scanner comparison page for some apples-to-apples comparisons. I admit that slide film examples are not the best thing to use when I intend to primarily use it on B&W film, but I have not found anything better ... hence also my preference to send a negative out to someone who could make a scan with one of these scanners.

At any rate, my issue with the Imacon is not the performance (spec sheet or real scans) but the price point. A 646 (no cooling, no diffuser) runs at ~6k from a private seller. An 848 (cooling, but still no diffuser) from Catlabs runs at $10k. I have not seen a 949 for sale in a while. In contrast, a refurbished IQsmart3 is ~$7.5k from a seller that has an excellent reputation for post-purchase support. It's difficult to justify an Imacon at that point, though I have not completely dismissed it, so I am eager to hear your point of view. I am perfectly happy to admit that I am a newbie who doesn't know what he doesn't know, and perhaps I spent too much time reading in an echo chamber. I am here to get educated. But I also realize that some users may hesitate with input as a lot of past discussions have turned into bitter flame wars ... with lots of dead horses getting beaten.

I would like to avoid wet mounting in the short term (though I am perhaps open to it in the long term). Manual shifting/stitching is a hard pass. Batch scanning is nice to have but not a must. Throughput: Throwing multiple frames on a flatbed and letting it scan (while I am doing chores or sleeping) is perfectly fine, though I worry about managing dust in this approach (getting all negatives and the flat bed dust-free must be harder than getting a single strip of 2-3 negatives dust-free at a time, though this is an assumption). Print size: I am thinking ~20"x20" at a viewing distance of ~6 ft

[interneg]

Print size: I am thinking ~20"x20" at a viewing distance of ~6 ft

Well within the capacity of any of the high-end CCD scanners mentioned in this thread - all are capable of first class output (once you get past their software quirks) at this size - and I would not shy away from scanning colour neg on them (just do the inversion in Photoshop) - it's really just a question of understanding how to do the mask correction. Seems that the Imacon to IQSmart price relationship is the opposite in North America to in Europe - various reasons why, but quite likely owes a lot to Imacon/ Hasselblads being pretty popular in the institutional/ educational world - and being perceived as quite straightforward to use. Immediate availability (if the money's burning a hole in your pocket) and price are going to be better guides to what you should buy, rather than anything else.

[theHUN]

Yeah, if the prices were flipped I would be leaning toward an Imacon 949. And to add to your comment that "Immediate availability (if the money's burning a hole in your pocket) and price are going to be better guides to what you should buy, rather than anything else", I would add that serviceability is another factor, though one could argue that it is included in "price" if one considers "price" to be total cost of ownership. I read somewhere that Hasselblad is moving or has moved their service center from the east coast to Los Angeles, which is only a 2-hour drive from me, so if needed, I would expect servicing to be greatly simplified.

But until I see an Imacon 949 for ~$5k, I just can't see myself pulling the trigger on one.

[SergeyT]

The ability to easily wet mount and have batch scan capability is what makes Kodak flatbed scanners (Eversmart or iQSmart) the next best thing after drum scanners.
I wanted to say it my original reply but it escaped me at the time - if you chose to get a Kodak flatbed make sure you get the "frosted" base glass with it or for it and learn how to wet mount. Wet mounting is not hard at all but extremely beneficial (film flatness, precision with film location and orientation, dust control, improved optical qualities, etc).
Batch scan - would not you want to have an easy contact sheet produced out of each and every roll, regardless of how many frames on that roll you decide to fine-scan?

[theHUN]

Yeah, I am a hypocrite for complaining about dust control while also avoiding wet mounting. I'll get off my ass and try it on my epson to get more hands-on experience before I judge it any further.