dedicated film scanner vs. flatbed scanner

what's the current verdict on average-priced flatbed scanners (say around USD

$200) as worthy film scanners? do they do a good enough job with 35mm negative

film at, say, 4000 dpi, to be able to use the resulting scanned image files for

up to 8x10 prints? or is a dedicated film scanner really worth the extra

cost? why are they so much more expensive anyway?

I got 18000 hits on a photo.net search for "film scanner". Prominent among those is the topic "film scanner vs flatbed".

 

Give it a try. If there's anything not covered, update your question.<div></div>

...or more specifically, read through the <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a?topic_id=1701&category=Scanning%3eScanners">Scanners</a> forum, it has been discussed ad nauseum.

"...do they do a good enough job with 35mm negative film"

 

Not by far.

<I>for up to 8x10 prints</i><P>

 

With that qualification, I'd have to say absolutely. Newer flatbed scanners are *much* better than ones available just a few years ago.<P>

 

I have an old Canon FS-4000 which is a dedicated 35mm film scanner that's no longer manufactured. It scans at 4000 dpi and does a pretty good job.<P>

 

I also have an Epson 4990 flatbed scanner. I know some will say I'm full of it, but in many ways its results beat the Canon's - and it'll scan MF and 4X5, something the Canon scanner cannot do. I only know what I see with my own two eyes! Good luck!

I bought one of each, the dedicated film scanner I have had for several years, and the flatbed I bought just a couple of years ago.

I would only scan with the dedicated negative scanner, just no way the flatbed competes.