Scanners?

Hello! I've been shooting film for maybe a year and would like to start scanning stuff myself as it will save me a lot of money over having the lab doing it. Any good scanner recs? I'm not looking for anything crazy good, somewhere in the $100-300 range would be best. I want something that can handle at least 120, 35, and 110, both slide and negative, as well as the occasional uncut roll. Auto scanning would be great but not needed. Thanks!

I can recommend the Canon 9000 mark11 scanner. It comes with 35 mm (neg and slide) and 120 film holders. I had to buy the 110 holder for a small extra cost

Epson V600 fits in that price range, but you'll have to make your own holder/guide for 110. The same goes for 616 and 116. I have never tried to do uncut rolls, but I think they could be done, too.

Having tried both Epson and Canon film scanners, I'd take the Canon every time.

 

If not only for Epson's use of the phrase 'true optical resolution of X000 dpi' in their advertising.

A) It's a complete lie, and B) it shows they don't know the difference between a dot and a pixel!

My Epson V600 yields great results with both 35 & 120 negatives. Non OEM software is available for the scanner should you wish to work with it, although I find the Epson Scan software ez to use. Do pop for the Better Scanning 120 negative carrier & Anti Newton Ring glass inserts for the 35mm. Aloha, Bill

For a flat bed film scanner and for web-posting images, I also recommend the Canon 9000 if you can find one with all the film carriers and all (an important point in buying any used scanner).

For large quantities a dedicated film scanner is best, but I have not been able to find a recent model that does what I need (I ended up getting a NIkon Coolscan 9000, but you may need to deal with connection issues unless you have an older computer that you can put into service for the scanner.)

 

e.g., CanoScan 9000F vs. CanoScan FS 4000US

Thoughts on Theory and Practice of Scanning (Archival/Forensic), etc.

You can get away with the flatbeds for 120 work, but I've yet to use *any* flatbed (other than horrendously expensive Scitex units) that can pull adequate sharpness from a 35mm frame to do anything other than post low rez images. The Epson 600 and Canon 9000 are all < 2000 ppi, and that just produces 35mm scans with mushy grain, if visible at all. Big reason you're seeing so many dSLR's with macros being used instead. The good news is you can get away with 1500ppi and 120 because there's enough film area to make decently sized scans.

 

Rodeo_Joe : Epson knows the difference, but their marketing dept assumes consumers don't. I have 6k x 9k scans from RG-25 off my old Howtek drum, and you can see every molecule. If they're going to lie, at least be entertaining about it I say.

Having tried both Epson and Canon film scanners, I'd take the Canon every time.

 

If not only for Epson's use of the phrase 'true optical resolution of X000 dpi' in their advertising.

A) It's a complete lie, and B) it shows they don't know the difference between a dot and a pixel!

 

It should be SPI (samples per inch), and I think Canon makes similar silly resolution claims.

IMHO It is just a matter of how much you want to spend and what you are going to do with the final product. For the real serious person the resolution of the above scanners will not do. But if you do not have a printer that will follow through or a top notch screen then all t(at super great resolution is for nothing

I also have / like the Canoscan 9000 Mark II. For (my) best results with 35mm, I use a DSLR, Macro & ES adapter. The difference is not great in any case, as the scans are usually quite satisfactory.

I use an Epson V600 for 35mm and 120. See my Flickr page for samples of both. I don't print with it just use for the web and for "slide shows" shown on my HDTV. It runs around $200.

Two advantages with the Epson are a software package that most people find more user-friendly than the CanonScan software and a slightly higher film suspension height for Epson which lessens the chance of Newton Rings.

 

Doug

Two advantages with the Epson are a software package that most people find more user-friendly than the CanonScan software and a slightly higher film suspension height for Epson which lessens the chance of Newton Rings.

 

Doug

WhT is film suspension and newton rings?

If you want to do both 120 and 35mm in that price range you're pretty much stuck with a flatbed. I have an Epson V500 which is the predecessor to the V600. I was happy with the results but I knew if wanted to make some larger prints that I'd need something better. I got lucky and found a non-functioning Nikon Coolscan 8000 for $100. It was suffering from one of the common problems that turned out to be an easy fix.

 

Honestly, it took me awhile to get scans out of the Coolscan that I considered to be significantly better than what I was getting from the Epson, - and the Coolscan is a highly rated dedicated film scanner. I mention that because you may find that a decent flat-bed is all you need and I'll 2nd the fact that the software is pretty good. I know a lot of people like Vuescan and I appreciate that it's an option but I'm not that fond of it myself.

 

If all you were scanning was 35mm, there are some new (and good) dedicated scanners from pacific image and others that you can sometimes find in that price range but they usually will only scan one image at a time unless you want to pay for a higher end model.

Edited April 30, 2018 by tomspielman