Best under 200$ scanner (120&135)

[Tijmendal]

Hi,

being a young photographer, I didn't grow up in the film era. And the little film I did shoot, I certainly didn't develop myself. Lately I've been really getting into film photography (LOOOOVE IT!) and now I'm looking at a scanner myself instead of getting them scanned for me, because I suspect I'll be scanning a lot of 'em!

As a student, my budget isn't big so I can only go up to 200$.
Basically a Canoscan 9000 vs Epson V600 (or 8800 and V500) I guess.
What I've read so far is that it doesn't really matter, but what about software? Is there a big difference?

Thanks in advance! All input will be appreciated!

Regards, Tijmen

 

[kmallick]

I have a Canonscan 9000F that I paid less than $200 for, purchased new. I use it for scanning mostly medium formats and some 35mm. I am quite happy with it. The software it comes with it is not the best. I am currently using VueScan and I am pleased with the results after I tweak it. I think you have to try the softwares, including a trial version of a VueScan and see for yourself. Have fun.

 

[Crazy Fedya]

+1 on Canoscan 9000F.

 

[Tijmendal]

Thanks for the input!
Any other thoughts?

 

[kmallick]

Any other thoughts?

If you plan to scan the 120s, definitely look into the negative holder with ANR glass from betterscanning.com to keep them flat and moire-free.

 

[venchka]

Keep saving your money. When you have enough money, buy an Epson V700.

Wayne

 

[Murchu]

I have a Canon 8800F, which I dislike for anything more than webprints in 35mm, 120 its ok, but there is an inherent softness in flatbed scans, imo. If your budget is really tight, perhaps get one of the above scanners you mentioned for now and add a cheaper Plustek later for 35mm when you have more money, or else save your money for a V700 which will give you a 50% bump in real resolution compared to the other Epson and Canon flatbeds (2400 real dpi vs 1600 real dpi).

 

[kanzlr]

I bought a used Epson 4490 that I use for 120.
with the betterscanning holder the resolution is not even that bad. Around 9 MPixels for 6x6 and good detail.

still waiting for the Plustek 120 to replace both my Nikon 4000 and Epson 🙂

 

[kanzlr]

and yes, there is a certain softness to the scanned image:

 

[Stuart John]

I've been using a v500 for 120 and 35mm.
Here's a few 35mm scans from the v500.

 

[Tijmendal]

Thanks for the input everyone! I ordered the V600 and it arrived today through Amazon prime (Hallelujah for Prime!).
I gotta say: I'm very glad I made the choice for the V600: it's a beautiful scanner. Unlike the Canoscan which I think is atrocious. Might be stupid to pay 20$ extra, but I'm glad I did in the end. I've just unpacked it and put it on my desk. Still have to connect it and read the manual etc. Hopefully scans in a couple hours. Gotta go to school now! 🙁 🙁 🙁

 

[kanzlr]

If you plan to scan 120 films, invest in a betterscanning.com holder, it made a lot of difference for my 4490, due to it being adjustable and the lack of autofocus in Epson scanners.

 

[waltereegho]

I have the 9000F myself. It's a decent scanner, but the Canoscan software is terrible. Even in advanced mode at very high settings, the pictures looked as if they had been saved as a highly compressed jpg (even though they were .tiffs). With Silverfast, the scanner works as it should and delivers good results. The real optical resolution is about 1800-2400dpi, it doesn't resolve more detail at higher settings.

 

[Tijmendal]

Thanks everyone!

Few questions:
- It makes a LOT of noise: is that normal?
- Sometimes when scanning film, it alligns everything super weird. Cutting everything straight in half. Even with 35mm tray it's just scanning straight in the middle. Is there a kind of automatic recognizing system that determines where your scans begin and end?

Thanks!