Imacon Flextight 343 v. Nikon 8000

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by nobody nowhere, Aug 9, 2004.

  1. Has anybody had any actual experience of *both scanners*? How do they
    compare? Forget about the price, the Imacon seems to cost at least
    double the price of Nikon 8000, but is the quality of the image double
    (or more) than that of the Nikon? Only people with actual experience
    should comment, please! No academics or great thinkers! Thanks in
    advance.
    --

    nobody
     
    nobody nowhere, Aug 9, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. nobody nowhere

    Bowser Guest

    If you look at the Luminous Landscape site (www.luminous-landscape.com), I
    believe he's got a comparison between one of the Imacon scanners and the
    Nikon.

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/scanners/imacon_comparison.shtml

    It's not the 343, but it is worth a read. If you decide you want a Nikon,
    let me know, I've got one in excellent shape for sale. Cheap.

    "nobody nowhere" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Has anybody had any actual experience of *both scanners*? How do they
    > compare? Forget about the price, the Imacon seems to cost at least
    > double the price of Nikon 8000, but is the quality of the image double
    > (or more) than that of the Nikon? Only people with actual experience
    > should comment, please! No academics or great thinkers! Thanks in
    > advance.
    > --
    >
    > nobody
     
    Bowser, Aug 9, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "nobody nowhere" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Has anybody had any actual experience of *both scanners*? How do they
    > compare? Forget about the price, the Imacon seems to cost at least
    > double the price of Nikon 8000, but is the quality of the image double
    > (or more) than that of the Nikon? Only people with actual experience
    > should comment, please! No academics or great thinkers! Thanks in
    > advance.


    Why don't you take your sharpest slide and pay someone with an Imacon some
    large (but one-time) amount of money to scan it? Repeat for Nikon 8000.

    There are two imacon and many 8000 examples here:
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

    Also, http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml shows the
    Imacon getting a lot less detail from 6x7 than I'd expect. (I find that
    sharp slides from _645_ and the 8000 produce slightly more detail than the
    1Ds, so he's clearly doing something wrong, and that something may be the
    Imacon.

    Anyway, the experience here is that the 8000 does quite well at scraping
    detail off film, although persuading the film to be flat is sometimes a
    fiddly time-consuming pain.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 9, 2004
    #3
  4. nobody nowhere

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: nobody nowhere

    >Has anybody had any actual experience of *both scanners*?


    I have a lot of experience with the 8000 but haven't used an Imacon.

    >How do they
    >compare? Forget about the price, the Imacon seems to cost at least
    >double the price of Nikon 8000, but is the quality of the image double
    >(or more) than that of the Nikon?


    No.

    I've had several 645 and 6x7 cm Velvia transparencies scanned with my 8000 and
    also with what most experts think is the best drum scanner out there, a $70,000
    Tango Hell drum. I also saw some test pattern scans by Bill Atkinson with both
    his Tango and with an 8000. I'd say for resolution the 8000 is maybe 95% as
    good as the drum scanner, but it's not as good at plucking details out of the
    darker shadows, though Photoshop CS's Shadow/Highlight feature mitigates this
    pain a bit.

    The Imacon is no doubt closer to the Tango than the 8000, but I've never heard
    anyone say it was any better. Actually they advertise "near-drum scanner
    quality" ...

    It's also not going to offer digital ICE so you might be spending a fair bit of
    time cloning out dust specs, though the mounting fluid often eases this
    problem.

    >Only people with actual experience
    >should comment, please!


    Sorry, I don't have "actual experience" with an Imacon so ignore my comments if
    you wish :) But based on what I've seen vis-a-vis the 8000 and Tango drum
    scans you're probably looking at a relatively small but noticeable increase in
    scan quality. Most people who buy the 343 seem to do so for the ability to
    scan 4x5" sheet film, not solely for medium format.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Aug 9, 2004
    #4
  5. nobody nowhere

    Bowser Guest

    "Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >From: nobody nowhere

    >
    > >Has anybody had any actual experience of *both scanners*?

    >
    > I have a lot of experience with the 8000 but haven't used an Imacon.
    >
    > >How do they
    > >compare? Forget about the price, the Imacon seems to cost at least
    > >double the price of Nikon 8000, but is the quality of the image double
    > >(or more) than that of the Nikon?

    >
    > No.
    >
    > I've had several 645 and 6x7 cm Velvia transparencies scanned with my 8000

    and
    > also with what most experts think is the best drum scanner out there, a

    $70,000
    > Tango Hell drum. I also saw some test pattern scans by Bill Atkinson with

    both
    > his Tango and with an 8000. I'd say for resolution the 8000 is maybe 95%

    as
    > good as the drum scanner, but it's not as good at plucking details out of

    the
    > darker shadows, though Photoshop CS's Shadow/Highlight feature mitigates

    this
    > pain a bit.


    FWIW, I recently got a Nikon 9000, and it does a much better job, using DEE,
    than the 8000 for slides of wide contrast. The ability to tone down
    highlights and boost shadows during the scan is very helpful.

    >
    > The Imacon is no doubt closer to the Tango than the 8000, but I've never

    heard
    > anyone say it was any better. Actually they advertise "near-drum scanner
    > quality" ...
    >
    > It's also not going to offer digital ICE so you might be spending a fair

    bit of
    > time cloning out dust specs, though the mounting fluid often eases this
    > problem.
    >
    > >Only people with actual experience
    > >should comment, please!

    >
    > Sorry, I don't have "actual experience" with an Imacon so ignore my

    comments if
    > you wish :) But based on what I've seen vis-a-vis the 8000 and Tango drum
    > scans you're probably looking at a relatively small but noticeable

    increase in
    > scan quality. Most people who buy the 343 seem to do so for the ability

    to
    > scan 4x5" sheet film, not solely for medium format.
    >
    > Bill
     
    Bowser, Aug 9, 2004
    #5
  6. Thank you very much, and thank you also Bill and David ( my main
    sources of knowledge). I have the Photoshop CS, and am seriously
    wondering whether its (new) shadows/higlights in image adjustments is
    not the equivalent of boosting the shadows by the Nikon 9000. After
    all, we are talking numbers here (zeros and ones) aren't we? However,
    Bill's point about Imacon's facility for 4 x 5 might be relevant to me,
    since I have a large format wooden camera. However, as you would
    imagine, I am not using the large format camera too often... In
    addition, rightly or wrongly, recently I defected to negatives (mainly
    Reala) (sorry David, but I have not found noise to be a real problem).

    In article <LaJRc.636$>, Bowser
    <> writes
    >
    >
    >FWIW, I recently got a Nikon 9000, and it does a much better job, using DEE,
    >than the 8000 for slides of wide contrast. The ability to tone down
    >highlights and boost shadows during the scan is very helpful.
    >
    >


    --
    nobody
     
    nobody nowhere, Aug 9, 2004
    #6
  7. In article <cf6h1p$5mj$>, David J. Littleboy
    <> writes

    Thank you David, this is on the cards, and I shall "publish" the results
    in due course. There is actually a Calumet shop here in London, where I
    could do just that.
    >
    >Why don't you take your sharpest slide and pay someone with an Imacon some
    >large (but one-time) amount of money to scan it? Repeat for Nikon 8000.


    Does not the glass holder solve this problem? I bought it after reading
    your articles, and confess that it was a good idea. The non-glass one,
    which comes with the 8000 seems unable to keep the film reasonably flat,
    on the contrary, it seem designed to curb the film...
    >
    >Anyway, the experience here is that the 8000 does quite well at scraping
    >detail off film, although persuading the film to be flat is sometimes a
    >fiddly time-consuming pain.
    >
    >David J. Littleboy
    >Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >


    --

    nobody
     
    nobody nowhere, Aug 9, 2004
    #7
  8. In article <>, Bill Hilton
    <> writes


    >It's also not going to offer digital ICE so you might be spending a fair bit of
    >time cloning out dust specs, though the mounting fluid often eases this
    >problem.
    >

    This is a pain!

    >>Only people with actual experience
    >>should comment, please!

    >
    >
    > Most people who buy the 343 seem to do so for the ability to
    >scan 4x5" sheet film, not solely for medium format.


    Thank you Bill.
    >


    --

    nobody
     
    nobody nowhere, Aug 9, 2004
    #8
  9. "nobody nowhere" <> wrote:
    > David J. Littleboy <> writes


    > >Why don't you take your sharpest slide and pay someone with an Imacon

    some
    > >large (but one-time) amount of money to scan it? Repeat for Nikon 8000.


    > Thank you David, this is on the cards, and I shall "publish" the results
    > in due course. There is actually a Calumet shop here in London, where I
    > could do just that.


    I'm looking forward to seeing what you get.

    > >Anyway, the experience here is that the 8000 does quite well at scraping
    > >detail off film, although persuading the film to be flat is sometimes a
    > >fiddly time-consuming pain.


    > Does not the glass holder solve this problem? I bought it after reading
    > your articles, and confess that it was a good idea. The non-glass one,
    > which comes with the 8000 seems unable to keep the film reasonably flat,
    > on the contrary, it seem designed to curb the film...


    Some people manage with the non-glass holder. The glass holder with a mask
    that holds the film off the lower glass at the four edges of the frame works
    most of the time. Every once in a while a frame with a kink or perversity in
    it appears, and life becomes seriously painful.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 10, 2004
    #9
  10. nobody nowhere

    jimmayor007

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1
    I found my very nice imacon drum scanner like these here on ebay.
     
    jimmayor007, Nov 17, 2007
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Tomas

    Imacon Scanner& Imac

    Tomas, Apr 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    480
    Chuck Reti
    Apr 6, 2004
  2. Carlos

    Coolpix 5400 + SCA-343 flash?

    Carlos, May 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    492
    Carlos
    May 18, 2004
  3. Carlos

    Coolpix 5400 + SCA-343 flash?

    Carlos, May 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    474
    Carlos
    May 18, 2004
  4. BandHPhoto

    Imacon + Hasselblad

    BandHPhoto, Aug 13, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    757
    Crownfield
    Aug 14, 2004
  5. Nobody Nowhere

    nikon 8000 v. imacon; windows v. mac

    Nobody Nowhere, Dec 23, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    414
    David J. Littleboy
    Dec 24, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page