jace_santos Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 The only ones ive seen are ~$2000! :-O Is there any one around $500 by any chance? It doesnt have to be supergood, mostly for archival purposes and presentation. Either that, or how do people scan all of these holga and MF formatshots I see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cenelsonfoto Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=45471984 Look no further - you can get one of these Epson 3170s for $124 - no tax, free shipping (in the states, at least). Item is refurbished which is better than buying new, guaranteed that it was inspected/tested as working perfectly. Item originally retailed for $199. I purchased a 2400, also refurbished, from Epson's store a coupla months ago, but once I began shooting 120 I needed a different unit. I sold the 2400 to a pal who just needed something to scan slides with, and ordered the 3170 - it has been good to have so far. Vuescan software will work with this unit. See my "Ciro-flex Your Head" for examples of scans. Attaching one to this thread to aid your decision-making. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cenelsonfoto Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 ok, so you can post images in this forum... cool. go here if you like: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=428351 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luisarguelles Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Jace, my entire "Medio Formato" folder is composed by pictures scanned with an Epson 3200. I'm very happy with the results: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=293193 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roman_kuznetsov Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Also consider older model of Minolta Dimage Scan Multi(non-pro). Very cheap today, it is slow, but really decent scanner for prints up to 8x10". More than enough for "Lo-Fi" Holga shots. I believe that it will still blow any modern Epson flatbed out of water, especially with 35mm film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
custom film holders for fl Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 You can find brand new 3170 for almost the same price as the refurb'd ones since the 3170 has been replaced by the 4180. The 4180 appears to me to just be a 3170 with updated optical hardware. The 4870 is also in your budget and offers a bit more performance. The Microtek i900 is just above your budget but still might be worth a look. As a previous poster mentioned, a good used film scanner could be a great choice if you can find one in good shape and within your budget. <p> Doug<p> <a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mainintro.html">Dougs MF Film Holder for batch scanning of 120/220 medium format film with flatbeds</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich815 Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 3170 "for archival purposes and presentation" of 35mm? Nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavelp Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Epson 3170 is reasonable proposal for MF scanner, but it's too soft for 35mm (in my opinion, void where prohibited, married couples in WI subject to marrital law). I use 3170 for MF but for 35mm I've bought Minolta Dual IV. If you pay $300 for Minolta and less than $200 for the Epson, you are still within your budget and better off than trying to scan 35mm on a flatbed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luisarguelles Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Doug, I'm very interested in your 120 film-holder. Is it posible to use pay-**l?. Please, contact me privately if you wish so at luis.arguelles -at- wanadoo.es Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavelp Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Oh, if you will get 3170 (or similar), consider the get Doug's film holder and ANR insert. It makes lots of difference in workflow and the quality of scans is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 The Epson units are a good value; they pull alot of the info from a negative; but alot is left too. Folks like them better for MF and 4x5; since the enlargement factors sometimes are lower. Here I have 8 scanners; many of them are flatbeds. A dedicated 35mm film scanner of 2700 dpi will pull out more detail than a 4800 dpi Epson flatbed; by a good margin. In the Epson flatbeds; I have a 600; two 1200; one 2400; one 3200 dpi units. In film; I have a 2700 and 4000 dpi unit. Also I have two 36" wide scanners.<BR><BR>In most of mt scanning; I use the stock Epson scanners. I presented a thread with a custom scan holder for the Epson 2450; when the scanner came out; for oddball film sizes. It got deleted as not being worthy; this was several years ago. Here I have made many custom holders; for oddball sizes; over the last 3 to 5 years; for alot of flatbed sizes. <BR><BR>Our first decent flatbed cost a thousand dollars; one decade ago; it is an 8.5x11 at only 600dpi. At that time many flatbeds were only 200 or 300 dpi. <BR><BR>Each newer flatbed coming out has a better dynamic range; and more dpi. But the usefull info pulled out ratio to actual dpi has dropped over the last decade. More and more the marketing BS has talked about the dpi numbers; and less on real results. <BR><BR>Alot of folks dont understand their scanners; and get poor results. <BR><BR>Epson 2450 scans at "2400dpi/ppi" of tri-X 35mm: with the stock Epson holders; and stock Epson software:<BR><BR><IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-244.jpg><BR><IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-243.jpg><BR><BR><BR>MF 6x6cm negative; tri-x; Epson 2450 "2400dpi" scan; stock holder; stock software.<BR><BR><IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-489.jpg><BR><BR>Enlargement of left lower corner<BR><BR><IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-490.jpg> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobmichaels Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 A mid range 35mm scanner (like a ScanDual IV) or a used SD III or SD II PLUS a two model old Epson flatbed (like a 2400 or 2450) will give you superior 35mm and MF scans and still be less than $500. Way less if you buy used. If you look at the quality of your prints, you probably will judge them somewhere between very good and super good. If you just looking to show images as JPG's, you're already overkilling the required scan needs. Summary: no $500 scanner that will do MF will do 35mm justice for printing. But you can do well with a flatbed for MF AND a 35mm film scanner for that price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jace_santos Posted September 11, 2004 Author Share Posted September 11, 2004 wow, thank you for the great responses. I think I will be getting both the Epson 3170, and a dual scan IV. it is still under my budget, and I can get good scans from both. thank you very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jace_santos Posted September 11, 2004 Author Share Posted September 11, 2004 how "bad" is the 3170 for 35mm? I am going to get both eventually, but is it useable for now? i want to start an online portfolio pretty much. i dont really plan on doing enhancements and printing from these scans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supapong_chan Posted September 11, 2004 Share Posted September 11, 2004 Hi Jace, I am also a 3170 user and been quite unsatisfied with this scanner. The quality from MF scanning is so-so, but 35mm scan using the software supplied by thr manufacturer has never come to my "satisfaction level". The pic come out quite soft, not sharp enough for making print. Though the colors were acceptable, overall the picture detai were always like it was taken by cheap camera. The scan process was also very slow. I reported this to the "Epson service" and was told that I cannot expect much from flatbed scanner at this price!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josphy Posted September 11, 2004 Share Posted September 11, 2004 Jace, as long as you just want to use the scans for the web for now, the flatbed scanner should be fine. I had a much older model of Epson flatbed, and it was fine for the web in both 35mm and 120. Why not just get that for now, and then later you can move up to a dedicated film scanner for your 35mm. But at least for now you'll be able to scan both your formats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cenelsonfoto Posted September 11, 2004 Share Posted September 11, 2004 Oh good grief, you guys are such headaches. Jace - I've done a lot of scanning, and I can tell you that ANY scanner is going to have its flaws. For WHAT YOU WISH TO ACCOMPLISH you will be fine going with the Epson 3170, and you WILL be able to get decent prints off your scans. I'm not cheap, but I ain't rich either. I don't spend money for the sake of watching it go away. I think you'll be fine with the Epson 3170.... could you do better with a top of the line drum scanner? Of course, you and I both, but until one of the moneybags forum members pitches me the bankroll to finance such a purchase, I will continue to get by with my "low rent" devices. Have fun. Remember that the "you need to be tack sharp" preachers are just exhibiting another form of penis envy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cenelsonfoto Posted September 11, 2004 Share Posted September 11, 2004 BTW, I suspect the issue with most of the naysayers isn't bad scanners, but poor photography. Also throw in perfectionism - I suffer from that as well - and you could end up being the kind of person who throw money down the drain chasing the next best thing. I want to clarify and state that I'm not trying to be a dick in this thread. There are moments when tack sharp is much appreciated, but not everything needs to be tack sharp - the world isn't full of people running around with 8x loops embedded in their eye sockets. It really gets to be overkill, all the talk about pin-sharp this, and tack-sharp that, blah blah blah. Price of everything, value of nothing. Rivet-counters... whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted September 11, 2004 Share Posted September 11, 2004 So would this Irving Klaw Super-XX 4x5 film pack negative make a better print of Jackie Miller if done on a drum scan; versus the lowly obsolete "2400dpi" Epson 2450 scanner?<BR><BR><IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-480.jpg><BR><BR>Here the image is such that the Jackie photo would be 6ft long/1.8m. Jackie is 5'11" (180cm) 40 26 38<IMG SRC=http://www.ezshots.com/members/tripods/images/tripods-479.jpg> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene crumpler Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 I'm using the epson 3170 for 6x6 and 6x7 negatives. The scanner will do very well for MF negatives printed to 13x19. The Epson replaced a Minolta Dual Scan for 35mm only. I compared the scans from both scanners with 35mm and could not see any real difference. So if all you want from 35mm is 8.5 x11, the 3170 is adequate. I have taken the Minolta down since I decided to shoot only MF. So 35mm quality from the 3170 is of little interest. I recently shot some Velvia in 6x7 and scanned with the Epson 3170. The 13x19 print I got looks like cibachromes of the same size. Really sharp. I'm a sharpness nut anyway, testing lenses and until recently shooting Tech Pan in 35mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cenelsonfoto Posted September 15, 2004 Share Posted September 15, 2004 I'm in the middle of archiving some 35mm stuff right now with my 3170. I have to say, this scanner gives me plenty of bang for the buck, even with 35mm stuff. I may have to post some crops once Im finished to prove the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cenelsonfoto Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 Took me a while to get this roll of film shot and dev'd, but here are links to two large scans of 120 film for reference. Again, the 3170 aint built of gold, but it does fine work. Shots are done with a 60+ yr old Ciro-flex, so ignore the obviously non-superior lens sharpness and do not confuse it for scanner weakness. It is what it is. http://www.photo.net/photo/2707907&size=lg take an ice look into the grill on this one... see the detail? http://www.photo.net/photo/2709352&size=lg enjoy your 3170 if you get one. I will post some 35mm scans later tomorrow. this work week has been a bitch thus far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now