Best negative scanner

[andrew_viny]

<p>Hey guys,</p>

<p>Getting back into film and finding that all of my trusty 1 hour photo spots are gone. I've looked into sending my film out for development but scanning doesn't seem to be included and seems to cost a ton. I'm thinking about getting a desktop film scanner like the hasselblad one we have at school but not $13,000. Jumbl seems to make one for about $100 (22mp) as does a company called Wolverine (20mp). Just wondering if anyone has some recs on good affordable negative scanners.</p>

<p>Best,<br>

Andrew</p>

[glen_h]

<p>Many scanners have been discontinued, and are available used for reasonable prices.</p>

<p>I have a Minolta Scan Dual IV, which seems to work fine, but somewhat slow, and is 35mm only.</p>

<p>Many seem to like the Epson V700 or V800. Both can scan some strips or slides in one batch, so you set it up and go away for a little while. </p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>I looked up the Jumbl device.<br>

My local supermarket soldout something similar and less posh for 20 Euro and less and yes I grabbed 2 of these boxes and am somewhat glad to own them, but now please wait for my lengthy disclaimer...<br>

What I got lacks preview screen and a write to card option. Its basically a platic box holding a light source a slot for the film feeder and a tiny 5MP camera + USB cable.<br>

From my previous experience tiny sensor cameras seem capable of delivering bearable 3 to 5MP pictures. That resolution is OK to post something here to share it on social media or to include it single or double column into some text. And of course I handheld 1/60th seconds behind crappy consumer zooms during the 1980s, so such a device is right to digitize one's happy-snapping heritage for an overview.<br>

We have ongoing discussions about scanning vs. DSLRing film over here. I simply say its unlikely a $100 device will blow a $600 macro lens on a half decent camera fetching $300 on the used market straight out of the water. - looking at results from my 50 Euro 14MP P&S, I'd say even downsized to 5MP they aren't grea and at full res simply "data junk".<br>

If its data you need to <em>print</em> from: Don't expect much from the Jumbl. Hit the used market, get some "high end" Epson flatbed or be lucky to catch a dedicated film scanner thats still working or cobble a copy stand for your best digital camera together.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I've got a <a href="http://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaProScan7200.html">Reflecta ProScan 7200</a>, in the US sold as the Pacific Images PrimeFilm 7200. Very affordable, I like the results I get. Around 14 megapixels realistic resolution - I've had large prints made of these scans, and it holds up fine. Plustek makes similar devices, and those seem to be able to deliver similar quality. Many here dismiss them in favour of Nikon Coolscans, and while the Nikons are very likely the better devices, they cost 10 times as much and come without warranty, and with no options to repair anymore.</p>

<p>Note that the claimed 20MP of the devices you note, are the absolute theoretical maximum, otherwise known as marketing claims. Most scanners do not come close to reaching the claimed resolutions. They're fun, easy ways to save some memories, but if you're serious about your photos, getting a better device is money well spent.</p>

<p>There have been numerous threads on affordable 35mm scanners recently, so with a bit of searching on this site, you will find a wealth of information already available - including good quality flatbeds, and DSLR copying:<br>

http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00dci2<br>

http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-printing-finishing-forum/00dbyQ<br>

http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00db9g<br>

http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00dXpI<br>

Just a few examples... and yes, I do feel like a parrot on my scanner... :-)</p>

[Member69643]

<p>If you are looking for affordable, the Epson V600 is about the best bang for the buck out there. I have a Nikon Coolscan 5000 and it's a wonderful machine, but not cheap. Flatbed scanners like the Epson can produce very usable results.</p>

<p>Nobody asked, and you didn't say, what film size you shoot. The scanners you mentioned are 35mm, while the Epson can do bigger film sizes - not great, but it can do them. </p>

[plasma181]

<p>I don't know it it is the best, but I have a Nikon Coolscan IV which I have had very good luck with Before that, I had a Coolscan LS-2000. I have had good luck with both. The majority of my portfolio was scanned with one of them. </p>

[donald_miller5]

I use a Canoscan 8800f with Vuescan and like the results. No one else seems to use one. I am afraid that if I try one of

these mentioned here I will feel compelled to purchase one because it would probably so much better.

[rossb]

<p>I am using a Plustek with Silverfast 8 software. I am happy with it and you can buy it new. It is a dedicated 35mm scanner. Before that I had an Epson 500 scanner and it was a very poor machine. Before the Epson I had a Minolta scanner and I do not remember the numbers on it but it broke long before it should have.</p>