A "Scanner" Darkly!

flashfirenze

flashfirenze

Member
Local time
4:14 PM
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
41
Location
New York City
View My Gallery
Hello all,

I am in the market for the best scanner that not so much money can buy 😱

I have narrowed it down to three scanners, flatbed all. I went with flatbed, eventhough I will primarily be scanning 35mm for two reasons. 1. the budget dedicated film scanners seem to be crappy (Im looking at spending about $200 or less here), and 2. I really, really want to pick up a nice TLR in the near future so wil need capacity to scan MF in the near future!

Anyway I was wondering if anyone had familiarity with these three scanners and any recommendations. I am not married to these so would be very open to other suggestions. Just can't spend much right now unfortunately!

I'm leaning towards the HP.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000HDQ2FW/ref=wl_it_dp/002-7403937-8337631?ie=UTF8&coliid=IQ4VOTUBTECXU&colid=1QJTMNI4LZUWB

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000LZIGIC/ref=wl_it_dp/002-7403937-8337631?ie=UTF8&coliid=IZZFN2XM7TYDP&colid=1QJTMNI4LZUWB

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000HI5AR8/ref=wl_it_dp/002-7403937-8337631?ie=UTF8&coliid=I35E31JH3217Q0&colid=1QJTMNI4LZUWB

Any and all suggestions and recommendations are very welcome, thanks!

Flash
 
Last edited:
Not sure I get the relevance of movie title reference myself....

Anyway, getting a TLR and scanning it's negs with one of those scanners would be criminal and a complete waste of time. If you are so completely budget minded I'd recommend a used Epson 2450.
 
Some scanners in $200 range will give you better results than the flatbeds.
 
rich815 said:
Not sure I get the relevance of movie title reference myself....

Anyway, getting a TLR and scanning it's negs with one of those scanners would be criminal and a complete waste of time. If you are so completely budget minded I'd recommend a used Epson 2450.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the advice. There was no movie relevance, just kidding around.
Also, I am not "completely budget minded" I don't HAVE ENOUGH MONEY to get a better scanner. One must make do with what they have, no?🙁
 
I am no expert, but the Canon 8600F works fine if you only need web output for 35 mm. Works a bit better with MF but I am not sure it would be enough for output on a printer, above 8x10. What sucks with the Canon is that the usb cable for the usb port on the scanner is very sloppy. Scanners are an exercise in dogged patience and bad word vocabulary. Given that, I think I can recommend it anyway. 🙂
 
flashfirenze said:
Thanks, would you have any models or brands in particular in mind?
Click to expand...
I use Plustek OpticFilm 7200, which can easily pull out 16 or so meaningful megapixels of resolution from a 35mm original, and has acceptable dynamic range. I heard of some other cheap brands doing well (Reflecta?) but have no personal experience with them.
 
He says he wants to scan medium format, though, so a dedicated film scanner is likely out of his budget.

I'm torn between the Epson 4490 and the Canon 8600F, myself.
 
Well, I was just addressing the 1st point 🙂

As of MF, for low volumes it could make more sense paying a lab to scan. Especially if you have no MF camera yet 🙂
 
varjag said:
Well, I was just addressing the 1st point 🙂

As of MF, for low volumes it could make more sense paying a lab to scan. Especially if you have no MF camera yet 🙂
Click to expand...

It's true. Maybe I should consider the dedicated film scanner.

Thanks for the advice guys! Though I think I'm more undecided than before!:bang:
 
Stephanie Brim said:
Having a lab scan them isn't an option for me, but considering he says his location is NYC I'm pretty sure he can find a lab who can do it.
Click to expand...

Yes, I live on west 18th street and there are literally 25 pro photo labs less than 5 minutes from my apartment on foot.
I am lucky in that way. But that is only for the odd great shot that I need drum scanned or something (very rare unfortunately), otherwise out of the question budget-wise
 
flashfirenze said:
Thanks for the advice. There was no movie relevance, just kidding around.
Click to expand...

Ok, I thought maybe I missed the joke or something... 🙂


flashfirenze said:
Also, I am not "completely budget minded" I don't HAVE ENOUGH MONEY to get a better scanner. One must make do with what they have, no?🙁
Click to expand...

I owned an Epson 2450 for years for my MF negs and only upgraded to a 4990 because I thought I "needed" to. Except for some improvement in shadow detail it's not all that better than the 2450. They can be found for less than $100 used and in good condition. They are VERY good scanners.
 
rich815 said:
Ok, I thought maybe I missed the joke or something... 🙂




I owned an Epson 2450 for years for my MF negs and only upgraded to a 4990 because I thought I "needed" to. Except for some improvement in shadow detail it's not all that better than the 2450. They can be found for less than $100 used and in good condition. They are VERY good scanners.
Click to expand...

That sounds good, thanks! I am curious though how the 2450 is better than scanners that are much newer and have more features (at least on paper) like the ones I listed in the original post.
 
I think epson makes the best system for scanning negatives in a flatbed. All the film photos in my gallery were scanned using an Epson 4180 or 4780. Both are great. The 4780 can do large format as well.
 
trittium said:
I think epson makes the best system for scanning negatives in a flatbed. All the film photos in my gallery were scanned using an Epson 4180 or 4780. Both are great. The 4780 can do large format as well.
Click to expand...

Thanks, again same question: the 4180 is 4-year old technology. Not that that makes it inferior, but wouldn't the epson V350 that came out late last year and is the same price as the 4180 be the better option? This was one of the choices on my orignal post
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom