Good scanner for relatively cheap? (35mm and MF too maybe)

[steve_larese1]

<p>The Espon's are in your price range, but I have to stand up for the Nikon Coolscans. I use the 8000 and 9000 for book publishing, I think they're phenomenal. There's a reason prices are going up.</p>

[matroskin]

<p>another vote for v500. i keep dpi at 2400. check these out - <a href="http://mooostudios.com/county_fair/county_fair.htm">http://mooostudios.com/county_fair/county_fair.htm</a> . all those are Kodachromes too.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>I just bought an HP Scanjet G4010 flatbed ($160) that also scans 35mm negatives & slides. I am not sure if I made a mistake. My older scanner from 10 years ago had no drivers for Windows 7 (Epson Perfection 1200U). Maybe I bought the wrong one?</p>

[bill_pearce1]

<p>Victor,</p>

<p>I don't know about cheap, but here's my experience. I was sucked in by Epson's alleged reputation once, and won't be fooled twice. I got a Minolta Multiscan. It handles 35, two an a quarter, and important to me, Xpan. Much better than a flatbed. This is a victim of the sony buyout of minolta, so you will need to find a used one.<br>

Much wil be said abou tlamp availability, but I haven't heard of anyone having one go bad.</p>

<p>Bill Pearce</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>Personally I would stray away from the Epsons, and any other flatbed scanner for that matter. I had a V700 and I must admit, the scans it produced in both 35mm and especially in 120 looked like <em>absolute crap </em>compared to my Nikon Super Coolscan LS-8000 ED.</p>

<p>If you are looking for the best quality, steer clear of the flatbed scanners entirely and go with the dedicated ones. You will never look back. I haven't.</p>

[victor_bareno]

<p>@ Kostya - The scans are a little small. so it's hard to see. But they're very colorful for sure! I just bought my first rolls of slide (velvia 50 and kodachrome) and I am eager to try them out. I'm a bit nervous though because it's expensive and i don't want to mess up the exposures.<br>

I also see you took the photos in Tucson, AZ, that's what it says. I lived there for 2 years. I was just there last week. Small world.</p>

<p>The v500 may provide a temporary use right now, as paying walmart $3 a roll to scan is adding up quickly. I can always re-sell the v500 and get my money back. But in the future, I would like a dedicated one. How much does the Minolta Multiscan put out in MP from a 35mm? I see the epsons going up to 10mp, 12mp, whatever. But I'd like to get higher DPI's and therefore have larger better photos. Are dedicated ones limited to only one format or another?</p>

[BruceSturm]

<p>i don't think you can use photography and inexpensive in the same sentence. i would find a specialty film processing outfit and have them produce quality scans of your negatives.</p>

[ishi_p]

<p>I am using a Nikon D40 and the front group from a vivitar 28-90mm lens, over an enlarger. See below.<br>

But I got very similar results for an Epson flatbed. I actually like tones of the flatbed better, though it's (a bit) more soft. But I like softness sometimes, And should I get a shot that it works with, I would blow it up as big as I think fits the shot.<br>

It really depends what you want. But I would be perfectly happy to print my works and sell them, done on a flatbed. But It's my content that I want to improve, not resolution.<br>

I chose enlarge for other reasons than resolution. </p>

 

[ishi_p]

<p>shot.</p><div></div>

[ishi_p]

<p>I think this was an epson 2450. I hope posting this full is ok.</p><div></div>

[ishi_p]

<p>I think the old saying still applies. Start with a good negative. </p>

[john_ashby2]

<p>I'm fairly impressed by the sample scans from the v500. I was thinking about renting a coolscan 8000 for a weekend for about $110 and trying to get through about 100 rolls of 35mm and about 200 6x6 negatives. But if I can get a v500 or v600 for double that, it might be a better route. Can anyone comment on how big a difference there is between the coolscan 8000 and these $200-300 scanners?</p>

<p>I'm also wondering if I should look for a used CS8000 or 9000 and flip it in a few weeks. If I lose $100 on that deal I'm still ahead.</p>

[maderik]

<blockquote>

<p> I was thinking about renting a coolscan 8000 for a weekend [...] and trying to get through about 100 rolls of 35mm and about 200 6x6 negatives.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>100 rolls in a weekend (say 72 hours?) That's, um, ambitious. The advertised time of 47 seconds is for only 8 bit output and no options. A lot will depend on your workflow, 15 frames per hour is more realistic if you do some previews and adjustments. Maybe 40 frames per hour if you do pure batch with ICE (and hope the auto framing works right.) Don't forget there is going to be non-trivial film handling time as well to load/unload every two strips (hopefully your negs are cut into strips of 6 instead of 4.)<br>

<br /></p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>I was thinking about renting a coolscan 8000 for a weekend for about $110 and trying to get through about 100 rolls of 35mm ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For uncut strips, a Nikon 5000 with the SA-30 feeder is much faster. Even then, expect no more than one 36 exposure roll per hour. I have a Nikon 9000 as well. I haven't measured scanning time, but expect more than one hour per roll of 120.</p>

<p>By the way, my Epson V500 is significantly slower as a film scanner than either Nikon.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Can anyone comment on how big a difference there is between the coolscan 8000 and these $200-300 scanners?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p><a href="00W7Rk">This thread </a>has actual scan samples.</p>

[carlwakefield]

<p>Victor I don't understand the comment the Coolscan LS 9000 not cutting it. I think this is the top end of the market, have one myself and it is a dream. The only problem I see is its way over budget. But if you get the chance to buy one second hand for a good price, get it you will not be dissappointed. Just note for MF scans you need the glass holder. But for scanning 35mm you have no advantage over the LS 5000 but you can scan both 35mm and MF with a 9000. But the examples with V500 look great you problably just need to spend more time getting the result. Depends on your scanning volume.</p>

[victor_bareno]

<p>Carl - It was just a reference from another topic. Perhaps it wasn't cutting it for them but their standards were way too high. Or maybe they were talking about the 8000. I just used it as an example because there's alot of mixed opinions everywhere I looked, and I couldn't find definite scans that showed their capability.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<blockquote>

<p>I had a V700 and I must admit, the scans it produced in both 35mm and especially in 120 looked like <em>absolute crap </em>compared to my Nikon Super Coolscan LS-8000 ED.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But isn't that like saying a 6MP Rebel is absolute crap compared to a 5D MkII? If you expected them to be similar you are way off base and I would wonder why you even considered the V700 in the first place. The fact is that for the money and the fact part of V700 costs have gone into the option of scanning prints, it gives decent results. I bought the V700 because (a) dedicated film scanners of the quality I wanted are hellishly expensive (for me) and (b) I wanted to scan some prints as well.<br>

I would love a dedicted film scanner but that is the compromise I chose and I do get decent 10x8 from it.</p>

[steve_larese1]

<p>I wish Fuji, Kodak, Ilford, etc. would support a high-quality film scanner, or offered a scanning service, even at a razor margin. It would certainly support their film sales.</p>

[randyhargraves]

<p>There are some other options for 35mm only, like Pacific Image and Plustek. I believe someone started a thread on here the other day that had examples from the PI scanner vs. the V500 and it was much better. I checked B&H and the PI scanner sells for around $500. Well more than the $200 V500 but less than a V700. </p>

[maderik]

<p>Periodically Epson offers refurb v500 (and older 49xxx) scanners on their online store for $150 (or less for the older models.) The results (with a little practice) are definitely better than you get from most mini-labs. I've made 11x14 prints from 35mm v500 scans that have compared well to digital camera prints in local competitions (e.g. judges and viewers did not realize it was film.) So for modest prints and web viewing it is certainly capable. Like with the Nikons, scan speed will depend on the scanning options and film handling - ICE will slow things down considerably. Compared to the cheaper film scanners, it can do two six frame strips per batch rather than one (or 4 mounted slides per batch vs. 1). A somewhat informal comparison (the same negative and slide scanned 4 ways) of v500 vs. Coolscan IV vs. HP Photosmart vs. scanning via digital camera can be found here: <a href="http://www.pbase.com/maderik/scan">http://www.pbase.com/maderik/scan</a>. Obvious YMMV. </p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>No surprises here... The V500 or V600 for a couple hundred dollars give a certain class of scanning quality. I am pleasantly surprised that the V500 gives me scans of 6x9 that have the sharpness I want when printed at 12x18". (See the thread referenced above for actual samples and files you can print to judge for yourself. I suggest others post actual printable files so we can all get a feel for the image quality obtainable.)</p>

<p>For 10x the money, you get a much better scan of MF with a Nikon 8000 or 9000. Do you want/need that? Depends on your use. I'm thinking of these two categories:</p>

<ul>

<li>Archival scans of all your old negatives. You probably want "everything that's on the film." That's difficult and expensive and may not be obtainable. Scancafe is hard to beat for price. Scans on exotic equipment by talented operators are expensive, but there's the quality.</li>

<li>Scan for current use; quality requirement depends on the use. Save the negative in case you want a better scan later.</li>

</ul>

<p>My scanners help me enjoy shooting film today. When your wife says, "If that <em>big fancy camera</em> is so great, how come I don't have photos from it on my iPhone?" Good scans, conveniently, cheaply, help me enjoy shooting film. I want files I can print 8x12 or 12x18 for anything that's good. The V500 does this with 120 film, and the Coolscan V does it for 35mm. For me... YMMV.</p>

<p>Enjoy shooting!</p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>Richard,<br>

<br />VERY well said. Well, except for the Coolscan V doesn't seem "cheap" at $1000. ;-)</p>

<p>So, you'd recommend Scancafe for those film images that need printing beyond 12x18"? I was thinking of using them for some Kodachromes and possibly some MF, but I think I'll never see any benefit if I don't print large. I think my Kodachromes may just stay online.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4564852">Mike Hitchen</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub2.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 07, 2010; 06:31 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>I had a V700 and I must admit, the scans it produced in both 35mm and especially in 120 looked like <em>absolute crap </em>compared to my Nikon Super Coolscan LS-8000 ED.<br />But isn't that like saying a 6MP Rebel is absolute crap compared to a 5D MkII? If you expected them to be similar you are way off base and I would wonder why you even considered the V700 in the first place. The fact is that for the money and the fact part of V700 costs have gone into the option of scanning prints, it gives decent results. I bought the V700 because (a) dedicated film scanners of the quality I wanted are hellishly expensive (for me) and (b) I wanted to scan some prints as well.<br />I would love a dedicted film scanner but that is the compromise I chose and I do get decent 10x8 from it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am hardly way off base, maybe my standards are higher than yours or perhaps you do not print to 16 x 20 or 24 x 30 like I do. I saw a noticeable difference between a hand printed 11 x 14 and a scanned 11 x 14, for me that's a big NO GO. I got the V700 for the medium format capability. I had heard from several people that it did a very good job. It did not take long before I realized that it was not performing up to my expectations. The images required a lot of sharpening to meet my standards. I tried a friend's LS-8000 and was amazed at the difference. It was then that I ditched the Epson and got a used LS-8000 and have never looked back.</p>

[wblynch]

<p>For 35mm I use a Pakon F235 mini-lab scanner. </p>

<p>It can scan a roll of 36 frames in about 5 minutes with Digital Ice turned on and at its highest resolution (2000 dpi). It also can save the scans in TIFF, JPG and even raw format with only a single pass. If you're inclined you can output straight to a printer or minilab print processor as well.</p>

<p>It uses USB but you have to have the dedicated software to use it. That can be purchased for $150 if the scanner doesn't come with it.</p>

<p>There were a lot of these scanners available a year or so ago really cheap, under $100, but lately they're becoming scarce. (perhaps I'm revealing a well-kept secret?)</p>

<p>I did see a Pakon F135 recently with a buy-it-now of $750 and it went unsold. That model is more compact with fewer features but it's newer than the F235. It also can not scan APS film like the F235 of F335 can.</p>

<p>The software is complicated to setup and you need some computer skills to get them going but they are a great solution for those with hundreds of rolls to scan.</p>

[saud_jamal]

<p>Epson V750 Pro, is a good one for you</p>