Best film scanner (35mm and Medium format) for the money

[eleskin]

I am doing some research on scanners, and it seems to me the best value out there is from Nikon (Super Coolscan 9000 ED). I have had a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi for years (1999), and It seems time for an upgrade. Now there are some flatbed scanners that are out there (Epson) that have advanced to the point where it is claimed they work as well as dedicated film scanners. I have always believed a dedicated film scanner works better than a multi use flatbed. I would love to be proven wrong (that would save me over a thousand dollars).

 

[Peter_Jones]

I use a Canon flatbed with film capability. It'll take 120 with the supplied holders as wel as 35mm strip/slide. I have also scanned glass 1/4 plate slides over 100 yrs old with very good results.

However...

The dynamic range is a bit lacking, dense negs/slides produce "noisy" scans.

For me it is versatile and gives me enough for what I do. If you've used dedicated film scanners (even a few yrs old) then a flatbed might disappoint...

 

[ray*j*gun]

I don't have a ton of experience with scanning since I mostly do B&W wet processing but since I bought my Epson V500 flat bed I have been very impressed with the results with color negs and slides. I don't like the software much but it produces beautiful results.....just don't use the dust option.

Ray

 

[bmattock]

I am doing some research on scanners, and it seems to me the best value out there is from Nikon (Super Coolscan 9000 ED). I have had a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi for years (1999), and It seems time for an upgrade. Now there are some flatbed scanners that are out there (Epson) that have advanced to the point where it is claimed they work as well as dedicated film scanners. I have always believed a dedicated film scanner works better than a multi use flatbed. I would love to be proven wrong (that would save me over a thousand dollars).

You seem to be asking two questions:

1) Best scanner, period.
2) Best bang for the buck.

Different questions, different answers. IMHO, the Nikon would be best of breed. The Epson (I presume you mean the V750) would be best value, but not as good in ultimate quality as the Nikon.

Now, you may get arguments from people who are more than satisfied with the images they get from flatbed scanner XYZ, and I doubt they're wrong - but that's not the same as asking which one is the best.

I am happy with my Epson 4490 for MF and my ScanDual IV for 35mm. There are better units out there, but I am quite satisfied with what I have.

If I were budget constrained (as I generally am) and needed to start over for some reason, I think I'd probably save my sheckels and buy the V750, since I do MF and 35mm and could not afford the 9000. I have no doubt that would be more than adequate for me - but I'm sure not for everyone.

 

[estenh]

I have an Epson V700 that is generally a pretty good scanner. The only problem for me is keeping the film flat. I shoot a Hasselblad for my medium format work, and sometimes the scans end up way softer than the negative is (even when checked with a loupe). Really, if you're looking for perfectly sharp scans, get the Nikon. I couldn't afford that as a student, so I'm pretty happy with my Epson.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I had the Epson V500 for a year and it's amazing for the price. But I just sold it and got a Coolscan 5000ED, and the difference is enormous. The Nikon is way better.

I was perfectly satistfied with the Epson for quite some time, though.

 

[freeranger]

For 35mm scanning the plustek opticfilm 7200 is great VFM.

 

[fbf]

minolta multi scan pro, nikon 8000/9000ed, microtek 120tf and imacon 343 (flextight) are within the 2000$ price range. Glass carrier are available and recommended for the best result(except for 343).

 

[hiromu]

I use V500 and I am happy with the result. However, I am now shooting more 35mm than MF, so I am thinking to buy an dedicated film scanner for 35mm, and use V500 for medium format...
Hiromu

 

[iamzip]

Hard to beat the Epson flatbeds for value when you're doing MF.

 

[mh2000]

I have a Coolscan V ED and an Epson 4990... I wish I would have just gotten the Coolscan 9000 ED. I doubt that 6x9 scans from the Epson beat 35mm scans from the Nikon... yeah, they're ok, and by you get to 4x5 images are pretty amazing... but that is a huge jump in negative size to see any benefits.

If you are serious about your images get the best scanner you can afford... I guess I justify the Epson on the grounds that I'm not that serious about LF and MF and more serious about shooting 35mm (>95% of my work).

 

[Svitantti]

I have no experience, but I've heard and read that the 8000 is pretty close to 9000 in image quality... Except for the software. There are problems with the software (the original one) with negatives and the software clips a lot of both ends.

Other than that I would go for Nikon 8000 and get VueScan or something.

A dedicated film scanner will surely beat any flatbed, even though V700 could be already quite good... But I would buy a V700 vs. the 8000 only for these reasons:

1) Money
2) Need to scan paper originals or 4x5 etc...

And in case 2, if I had a lot of money, I would still get the 8000 and a cheaper flatbed, if I dont need to scan sheet film.

 

[Frank Petronio]

I use a Konica-Minolta Dual Scan IV for 35mm, only $300 used but sort of disposable when it breaks. I have an Epson 4990 for larger formats but I hate scanning 120 with it, the film is too small. I can't imagine scanning 35mm on it.

I've compared sample scans from the $2000 Nikon 9000 using 6x6 film and it is very impressive, a large step up from the consumer flatbeds like the Epsons, even the latest models. It was also better than the Imacon they were comparing it to. I think you'd have to go to a $xx,xxx Creo EverSmart or a better drum scanner to do any better, given good technique all around.

My only concern about the 9000 is that scanning 35mm seems a little trickier and more tedious than with the 5000 which is dedicated to 35mm scanning.

 

[Svitantti]

I also use Scan Dual IV for 35mm. Great value for the price (I paid 181 euros). There was even a small fault which I serviced by blowing some dust out of the sensor that detects the film holder 🙂. I found the tip how from RFF actually!
I have a Canon 8400F for medium format and it is not awesome, but works for web scans. I'm thinking about some flatbed for 4x5 because I recently got a Speed Graphic... I dont want to put as much money to a scanner that a (good) MF film scanner would cost.

A friend bought a Nikon 8000 about a year ago from eBay. There was something broken, but a finnish service (JAS) which repairs a lot of digital cameras etc, got it fixed for a nice price.

Of course theres always the risk to buy used, but the 9000 will cost like 2,5 times the price of a 8000 (which I guess is around $1000).

 

[aniMal]

I have tested lots of scanners before I found one that I am actually happy with. It is the epson f3200, which does 35mm-120-4X5.

It is NOT a flatbed, and I suppose you´ll find it on ebay! Got mine for the equivalent of 400$ second hand.

 

[aniMal]

This is the one:

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Scanners/Epson_F3200/page-1.htm