35mm only scanner: inexpensive options?

P

paulfish4570

Veteran
Local time
1:21 PM
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
9,816
I intend to get a first-class one later, but right now, I want to get some negatives scanned at home. I just started developing my own BW. Anything out there suitable? We have a solid Toshiba laptop with Windows. We live in a very small cabin. The scanner must be small as possible. Thanks.
 
I was wondering when that question would come :)

I recommend either an older used film scanner (like Minolta, etc.), or a new inexpensive flat-bed like from Canon. Budget around US 300 or so, and you should get something very good, Paul. The advantage of a flatbed is that you can easily scan entire rolls, pre-cut in strips.

Roland.
 
Have been happy with my Coolscan 4000, but you need firewire, they give them, and the older models away at camera shows when they appear.

Regards, John
 
I have an Epson V500, a flatbed that will take multiple neg sizes. Not exactly your criteria exactly, but I got it from the Epson refurb site for $150. It came looking like new and has performed very well. Refurbs are a good way to cut costs if you're willing to open up your search parameters.
 
Just ordered a plustek 7600i SE from B&H for like $350. It's small, and has a "real" output of around 3600 (when using theh 7200 setting). I should be getting it tomorrow. Seems to fit your bill pretty well.

Only drawback is that you have to manual advance every frame, so unlike flatbed scanners and the coolscans, you can't scan multiple frames at once.

If you're interested in it at all, send me a PM and i'll let you know how I like it. I'm currently using an epson 4490.

If you have around $800, check out a coolscan 4000 or coolscan V
 
you might want to have a look at the reflecta rps 7200, it scans a whole 35mm roll in one batch! :) I would buy new though, since it seems that the CCD can be erratic in some.
I want one myself!
 
Second hand Canon 35mm scanners seem to be cheaper than Nikon or Minolta, I find it pretty good, if I had my time again though, I'd consider Epson V700, OK, it's huge, but the results you see on Flickr and other sites are superb, also gives the option for medium format at a later date.
 
Is there a digicam in the house? If so, check out the set-up in post #13 here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=87939

That said, my Epson 4490 was $80 on Craigslist. People tend to sell them cheap once they're done digitizing the family Kodachromes.

Besides the 4490 flatbed, I also use a couple of old 35-only scanners. There's not much of a meaningful difference in space requirements, really. The strip scanners take up less storage space but in use, they need almost as much desktop real estate, since they need to run the strip in and out.
 
I'd consider a Minolta Scan Dual II - about the size of a shoe box. I use it, and for my purposes it's not too bad to begin with - especially when coupled with Vuescan
If you want to see real world results, then have a look here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/31422927@N04/4687749629/

and here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/31422927@N04/4678361210/

The first is XP2, and the latter Fujicolor C200 (i.e. cheap film). Both are pretty much as scanned except for a little dust spotting.

Good luck!
Best regards,
RoyM
 
wakarimasen said:
I'd consider a Minolta Scan Dual II - about the size of a shoe box. I use it, and for my purposes it's not too bad to begin with - especially when coupled with Vuescan
<snip>
Click to expand...

I still exhibit prints made from files scanned with a Minolta Scan Dual II. They seem to sell now for $100-150. I have tried rescanning with my $2,000 Minolta Multi Pro but cannot see any improvement.

If price is a factor, try a 10 year old film scanner. There have not been great improvements in scanning technology, just marketing hype.
 
Recently, I was handed a Nikon Coolscan III, with filmstrip adapter, and the regular slide and neg-film-holder bits, for free from a client. Mind you, I've been using a Minolta DS 5400 (first version) for about six years, but the filmstrip option of the Nikon comes in handy from time to time (alas, only six frames at a time, unlike the Reflecta). I've had a mind to look for cheap/free film scanners like this and offer them to people who could use them, but don't have the scratch to buy one. Stay tuned.


- Barrett
 
Bob Michaels said:
If price is a factor, try a 10 year old film scanner. There have not been great improvements in scanning technology, just marketing hype.
Click to expand...

Yeah... same for digital cameras, computers and smartphones. No improvement in the last 10 years. All marketing hype. Right?
 
Fujitsu said:
Yeah... same for digital cameras, computers and smartphones. No improvement in the last 10 years. All marketing hype. Right?
Click to expand...

Thats a unfair comparision. I agree with bob on this since their have been only incremental advances on scanners and not the leaps and bounds that other consumer tech has gone through. The late ted harris did a nice comparision once on LF forum for concumer scanners and didn't see much difference.

Here's one on LF homepage

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

You can compare images (although it's more centered on large format film). The diferences are not that great.
 
Fujitsu said:
Yeah... same for digital cameras, computers and smartphones. No improvement in the last 10 years. All marketing hype. Right?
Click to expand...

I stand by my statement. I would ask what has been the most recent technical improvement in scanning technology? Could it have been Digital ICE ten years ago? Certainly not in optics, sensors or software.

There simply has been no market to fund R&D for scanner technology. It is a shrinking market losing manufacturers.

Moore's law certainly applies to computers, smartphones and even digital cameras. But not scanners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom