Best resonably priced scanner for old negatives & slides..

<p >I have old film slides & negative film from my old & recent film Nikon cameras. Which reasonably priced scanner would you recommend. I'm on a budget here so now $ 1,000 scanner please....<br>

Max $ 500.00 but preferably less... <br /> <br /> Lil :-)</p>

<p>Assuming that it's available in the US, the "Plustec 7500ai" - http://www.plustek.com/product/7500i_ai.asp<br /> <br /> I don't know how much it might be in the US but in the UK it retails at £293 and it comes with a full version of "Silverfast ai". It's excellent, and I only stopped using mine when I decided to get a "Nikon Coolscan".</p>

<p>Might also help to know if you mean old 35mm film, or medium format film (120mm).</p>

<p>Have "Nikon" ever manufactured a medium format camera ?</p>

<p>The Nikon Coolscan V sold for a little over $500 before Nikon discontinued it, and it's a wonderful scanner, if you can find a good clean one. Many photographers bought them with the idea of getting through their film and slide collections and then selling them. Some accomplished that in a few months, others may be accomplishing that now, so their scanners should be available used, hopefully for less than $500. (Others, like me, will probably never get through everything, so don't wait for us.)</p>

<p>Hi Derek,<br>

sorry - 35mm only. :-)<br>

Hi Norman,<br>

not to my knowledge... I only know of 35mm cameras. Thanks for input.<br>

Hi Hector,<br>

I've heard about the Coolscan V before... I'll look into it.<br>

Lil :-)</p>

<p>Hurry if you want to buy a filmscanner, the good ones are dying out. Minolta and Canon have stopped making them a long time ago. Some Nikon models are still available new. I bought a Coolscan V just a few weeks ago but it was difficult to find one (in the Netherlands). 2nd hand may be an option.</p>

<p>Thanks Jos,<br>

I'm actively searching for one on eBay right now.<br>

Lil :-)</p>

<p>I have had great success from the Plustek 7200i, at around $300. It's the same as the 7500ai except a tad slower (nothing serious) and it comes with a dumbed down version of silverfast. I didn't like silverfast very much, even after I upgraded it to Ai (the one that comes with the 7500ai). My $50 Vuescan worked it better and faster.</p>

<p>Thanks Peter</p>

<p>Lil :-)</p>

<p>Lil, I agree the Nikon V did a great job for the price.</p>

<p>If you bought a Nikon 5000, at about $1000.00, you could resell it when you're done. I might even buy it from you. I have 3 already.</p>

<p>Avoid a used Nikon 4000 if you'll be scanning Kodachrome. That model cannot "Ice" the Kodachromes without causing loss of detail.</p>

<p>I'd avoid a flatbed for scanning film. Dediated film scanners are the way to go for speed and image quality.</p>

<p>I made a page of <a href="http://www.slidescanning123.com">slide scanning tips</a> .</p>

<p>Thanks for feedback J. Harrington<br>

I don't know if I'm ready to spend $ 1,000 for a scanner. But I'll look into it.<br>

Lil</p>

<p>Hey Lil,<br>

Tell Ross Brian Morena says hi. If your looking in the used market Minolta made a scan duel 4 which I have and like, they also made a 5400 which was their high end model. Both well regarded and much cheaper than Nikon but probably not as well respected. Just a heads up, scanning film can be tricky buisness with a steep learning curve to get it right. The film I shoot these days get processed with a mid res scan which gives me 24MB tiffs of everything I shoot and costs less than prints. Not sure where you get your film processed but that could be worth looking into. Doesn't help with the old negs but saves tons of time with the film your shooting now. Good Luck and happy shooting,<br>

Brian </p>

<p>I went for the Epson V700 flatbed over the Nikon V for the following reasons:</p>

<ul>

<li>Time. I have hunderds of slides and negatives I want to scan and with the Nikon/Plustek/Minolta you will scan them all individually (load, preview, scan, unload, load, preview, scan...). Would I have enough time between scans to go and do something else? My computer is not powerful enough to adjust one image while another is scanning and upgrading the co0mputer would be even more money. I am not so dedicated to this task and the idea of having to nurse single scans hour after hour was simply daunting. </li>

<li>With the Epson V700/750 is that I can load 12 slides (or 6 negatives), preview and make adjustments then go and do something else while the scanning is taking place. And it doesn't have to involve being tied to the computer </li>

<li>Quality. I accept all the comments about quality and I agree that dedicated scanner would be superior. But how superior? Are my pictures really that critical in detail or nature to justify the expense? Or is technique, composition and the quality of glass used sufficient to do it justice? </li>

<li>Do I need to scan all of the pictures? If yes, time plays a part (see above). If I only want to scan the few dozen exceptional ones, I would save my money and send them out to a professional lab to be done on a decent machine. This would mean less aggravation, less deskspace, no learning curve (more time to take more new pictures) and probably cheaper overall. Conicidentally Les Sarile has posted a thread in this forum comparing the cost and performance of a commercial scanning service (at Costco?) with his own. I would read that first.</li>

<li>If I already have a print from the negative, and the the quality of a print is good then I would scan the print instead of the negative to give me a non-fading record of a picture I know I like. But if I want to do heavy manipulation to change it then scanning the negative is better (though the magnification factor when printing it may actually defeat the object!). </li>

</ul>

<p>In the end I decided to stick to my control-freak principles and get the V700. I do not print above A4 (yet!?) and I can scan any picture I like when I like. If a picture begs for more detail or for a bigger print I send it to a professional lab. The quality of scans so far is better than I expected so I am well happy (not having tried a NiKon Coolscan, of source.).<br>

So what are your priorities? Speed - I would say flatbed. Cost - I would say flatbed. Quality - if you are printing bigger than10"x8" (or cropping) or for critical/professional work then I would get a dedicated scanner.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I agree that dedicated scanner would be superior. But how superior?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have a Nikon 5000 (just a faster Nikon V) and the Epson 4490 (V500 as well.) <a href="00J1d2">This thread shows comparison scans</a> between the Nikon and Epson.</p>

<p>I use the flatbeds for 6x7 medium format negatives. I've been thinking about picking up a V700, but haven't done so thus far. The feel I get from other users on the web is that it's only just a bit better than the V500, and that's not good enough. If anyone has both scanners, I'd love to see a side by side comparison scan of the two though.</p>

<p>Hi Brian,<br>

Ross tells me you're a great assistant. :-) He says Hi back. :-) He thought it was rather amusing that you found me here. :-) OK something more to look at. I've so far only used the very close just average place. If you could give me a place to check out & try - please do. I have only used regular places with very bad result. I realize that Samy's or Calmunet or such might be better. But I have to admit, I did not expect to use film all that much again. But who knew....<br>

Anyhow - if you have a lad you'd like to recommend for me I'd be thrilled.<br>

Hi Mike,<br>

lots of great comments & I will look for that thread. Thanks for all your time & effort on this. I do so appreciate your comments. :-)<br>

Hi Robert,<br>

thanks for your help & the link. :-)</p>

<p>Lil :-)</p>

<p>"I don't know if I'm ready to spend $ 1,000 for a scanner. But I'll look into it."</p>

<p>Your biggest investment will be your time, so why not extract as much info from your film as possible? You can always sell the scanner later.</p>

<p>Lil - much as the Photo-i review is interesting, remember that that guy is highly experienced and some people have tried unsuccessfully to replicate the quality of his work. But at least it shows what is possible. Mind you, I am sure I would equally struggle to maximise the quality of Nikon scans so I dont have too many pretensions about what I could achieve with the Coolscan. I am starting to think that scaning has a steeper learning curve than digital processing!.</p>

<p>Hi Robert. That is a good test you did but I have to remind myself that I am looking at a side-by-side comparison of two crops equivalent to having the original on a screen about 5 feet wide - and I don't intend to print that big. But if printed up to 18" and viewed from what would be a normal viewing distance (3 feet, maybe) then the Espon print would probably suffice for my purposes - I hope the composition would override any loss of minute detail and in the absence of a direct comparison to see what is <em>really</em> possible. When I first got the Epson, the scan images projected on my 19" screen (viewed in Photoshop Elements) are the same size as an A4 print so I had an immediate impression as to whether the Epson was good enough. Fingers crossed hard copies will match up.</p>

<p>I am not criticising your very interesting work, just putting into context what it would mean for me and how I envisage myself working. Given a choice I would go for the Nikon 9000 but as the old saying goes 'you pays your money and takes your choice' :-).</p>

<p>I bought the Nikon 5000 originally to archive a few decades worth of negatives and slides. As a project in digital archiving, I wanted a machine that can extract every last bit of resolution and tonality that was left on the film. It also had to be fast enough to make the project reasonable. The 5000 certainly has worked well for that. It has also turned out though that the scanner has become the enabler for me to continue to shoot 135 format film. </p>

<p>One feature sometimes overlooked on the 5000 is the ability to scan an entire uncut roll of up to 40 exposures without intervention (this requires a DIY feeder modification or the purpose built SA-31 adapter.) Practically, this means being able to stick the film leader into the machine and coming back in an hour to 36+ completely digitized images. This is about as close to DSLR convenience as possible with film. Highly recommended.</p>

<p>Thanks for the in put Robert Budding,<br>

but to put it as a man did in a store I went to yesterday - it still needs to be paid for now. :-) At that cost I think I'm almost better off just taking my slides to one of the more expensive places & have someone trained scan them.That way I don't have to go through the learning curve.<br>

Thanks Mike,<br>

the more I think about this - the more going to an expensive trained lab feels better. :-)<br>

Thanks Robert Lee,<br>

good to know. Thanks - part of me is starting to wonder if I really want to mess with this...<br>

Thanks all<br>

Lil :-)</p>

 

<p>Lil - I have used an old Minolta Scan Dual II, and has now upgraded to a Nikon Coolscan V. The Minolta was OK - but the Nikon is much, much better. I would not hesitate to get one if you can get hold on one. As previously said, they are now discontinued.<br>

Scanning takes MUCH time, so all help in scanning is of great value. Your scanner should definately have ICE - which saves you a lot of time and grief in detecting and eliminating dust spots. Nikon's ICE3 also does miracles with the colors of old, color deteriorated slides. <br>

On a side note, I would also recommend that you scan in the highest quality that your scanner can give you - the Nikon gives you 50MB TIF-files in 8bit. It can seem to be much, but disks are cheap these days, and you do not want to scan those old slides again another time</p>

<p>Best regards,<br>

Per-Christian "PC" Nilssen</p>

<p>Tack / Thank you Per-Christian,<br>

I am actively looking for a Coolscan V - but part of me worries about this learning curve... Though the scans I've gotten from our neighborhood 30 minute lab & BestBuy are so horrendous I doubt I could do worse. :-D<br>

Thanks<br>

Lil :-)</p>

<p>Hey Lil,<br>

Yeah Ross showed me some of your very impressive work a few years back and told me how you were reverse mounting lenses which inspired me to try. I was getting a roll developed and scanned to 24MB tiffs from A&I for 15$ in August but just learned that the new price is 25$ for the same service, so needless to say I don't have a good lab recommendation for well scanned negs but am on the look out and will let you know if I find anything interesting. Super fun to find you here.<br>

Brian</p>

<p>Hi Brian,<br>

I was so embarrassed when Ross wanted me to print some shots for him to show people on the crew. But I guess I should take that as a compliment - he's proud of me.<br>

I'm trying to decide what's best. Pay to get great scans done or just buy a scanner & use it & then sell on.<br>

I'm choosing in between a Coolscan V, Coolscan 5000 or the Plustek Opticfilm 7500I Ai 7200 Dpi Silverfast Ai Studio Isrd which I saw a demonstration of on the Net & it seemed very logical in it's use...<br>

Decisions Decisions - please let me know & it's always fun to run into people on the web.<br>

Lil :-)<br /> </p>

<p>Hej, Lil,<br>

Yes, I also find the learning curve steep and tedious, but I am in no doubt that you will succeed if you focus (he, he) on the learning process and don't give up. You get better all the time with practice, and after a while, you probably want to rescan your first scans.</p>

<p>If you have many slides and negs to scan I will strongly suggest that you set up a priority plan, as scanning takes a loooong time, and you might have better/other things to do in your spare time. However, as previously posted, ICE will save you quite a bit of clean-up time.</p>

<p>There also is quite a bit of information on the net on the "noble art of scanning", and the Coolscan V is not harder to operate than other scanners - just be beware that you cannot scan more than one slide at a time if they are mounted.</p>

<p>best of luck,<br>

Per-Christian</p>