Best Film Scanner for around $250?

The Konica Minolta Scan Dual IV (if you can get it that cheap) is surely one of the best in this price range. It will beat the Plusteks and of course all flatbeds. Also lacks some minor problems (like flare) the Nikons have. Maybe even III will do the trick...

It is a clear fact (at least so far) that for 35mm, a flatbed will not fight in the same league as the result of a true film scanner, not even closely. For web photos it might be just great though, but I'm quite sure that in bigger prints there would be a great difference. Maybe a flatbed can be ok or even good, but then the dedicated film scanner will be great ;).

For image quality tests you can check www.filmscanner.info which I think is the best and almost only reliable source for the performances of these scanners. Shame that the tests are available as long versions mostly in german.
Most other reviews focus too much on automatic actions to help any newbie get some nice colours into the images.
 
Last edited:
Well I think a Canon 8400F, 8600F or 8800F would result in pretty much the same as above. For that size of a picture pretty much anything goes and sharpening helps.
 
Sorry, cant do that. I scan with V700 and Scan Dual IV now and dont have my 8400F scans anymore, but I scanned with that for a couple years. It was not bad for websize photos of this size but when I got the Minolta I was satisfied with the quality even 100% size.

Even if I did post a photo of this size, it wouldn't tell us any difference.
 
Actually I found one photo still scanned with my 8400F:
kuvailija.jpg


..but I still dont think this kind of web-sized jpg will tell much anything of the quality of the scanner, because the image is downsized much and sharpened.

Oh, and this is Trix pushed to 800 or 1600 I think. Shot with M4-P and the Nokton 35/1.4 (notice the curved bricks).
 
Last edited:
Anyway, when you people see the difference between a 100% size scan from a flatbed and a good film scanner, you know...

BTW Wahoo, you have the highlights blown out pretty badly in the two first photos =). Just to be picky, no offense in any way...
 
I always wonder, when reading these threads, whether the individuals touting the superiority of dedicated film scanners have ever used one of the newer flatbeds. At the same time, I always wonder whether those who claim that flatbeds can do just about as well as the dedicated film scanners have ever used a dedicated film scanner.

:)
 
Well I just wrote I currently own the Scan Dual IV and Epson V700.

I think the Epson is not bad for 35mm but the V700 is clearly improved over the V500 I hear from friends who have experience with both. V700 is also quite expensive for just 35mm and you can get a dedicated scanner cheaper if 35mm is what you shoot.

I have only compared V700 for a Kodachrome scan to my Minolta and the difference was not SO BIG, but it was there. Im guessing for a bit grainier black and white the difference would be clear. Even this "close case" needed some sharpening for the V700.

I've also had some photos scanned with my friends Nikon Coolscan V when I had my Minolta borrowed. Those looked a bit "sharper" but I saw here a comparison with a white paper put in front of Nikons light source, which looked exactly like what I get out of my Minolta, compared to Nikon with the original light source. So I guess the Scan Dual IV is pretty much all you need and gives a great value for the price if 35mm is what you shoot.

For a single scanner for 35mm and 120 I would get the V700 or the 8800F Canon if money is tight, because I've heard it has better holders than the Epson V500.
 
Svitantti - Yup, I saw that. Not calling you out or anything. Was just wondering in general. :)

Like I said earlier in the thread, I results from the V500 with betterscanning holders that work perfectly for me for prints up to 8x10. I only do output sharpening in lightroom, standard level for matte paper; I dont do any sharpening in the development tab. I've never tried print any larger than 8x10. If I did, I would probably upres in genuine fractals.

I've never used a dedicated film scanner.

Also, I think what results are acceptable varies based upon the needs of the individual.

Thanks for the comparison writeup.
 
I wish the Minolta was still made and built a little higher quality, but for an average price of $250 used, you can buy another one once it craps out. Ten or twenty years from now it is going to be a pain in the butt to get 35mm scanned as well as what one of these Minolta or Nikon Coolscans can do.

I use VueScan to run mine, and having done some Coolscan scans I am confident that I can get good results at a slightly lower res from the Minolta, at least with B&W film that scans differently than color films (you can't use Digital Ice for example, and the grain looks different).

I use the Epsons for larger format and they are a great value. But even my 120 plugs up on it compared to the film scanner, it only comes into its own with 4x5 or 8x10 film.

Somebody will mention that they can get their film scanned at the one-hour processing places. OK, knock yourself out ;-)
 
Frank Petronio said:
I use the Epsons for larger format and they are a great value. But even my 120 plugs up on it compared to the film scanner, it only comes into its own with 4x5 or 8x10 film.
Click to expand...

Indeed...

After seeing my friends scans from a Scan Dual IV, I just had to get one for me. Before that I was not too disappointed with the Canon flatbed, as I used it mostly for web photos anyway. Still having a good scanner gives certain relief, even though the difference doesn't show that much on photos with for example max 800 pix for the longer side.

The same goes for comparing flatbeds with 120 capability to a Nikon 8000 of my friends. You think the flatbeds are just great but when you see a good scan from a film scanner you notice the difference.
 
For my output needs the V700 is just fine .... Almost every thing I use goes to the web at 72 dpi, very easy for any modern flat bed. Most of what I print is 8x10, scanned at an ouput rez of 240, all three of my epsons would do just fine, it was V300 (350?), 4490, and now a V700. Each film format change requires a bigger scanner! The few things that I print bigger than 8X10 from the V700 have been just fine for my needs. In reality, if I REALLY need a good print, I will just have the negative drum scanned by a professional. It costs $35 a scan, but if I'm using a really high quality printer, not Sams, then the prints get near $70 ....

It al comes down to output needs. For me, sharing on the web is much more important than sharing big prints. For a blurb printed book, I see no diffirence in IQ with my Nikon D80, D300, M6, Contax, or Fuji MF. The character shines through, but not diffirences in IQ.

Dave
 
Quite literally my best BANG for the buck is my Coolscan III (LS30) as you have to give it a stern thump on the top to get it working sometimes ;) It's just about had it but it's worth considering. It's SCSI based so you may need to be able to plug in a PCI SCSI card but it will work with Vuescan (the Nikon software doesn't like XP much, and certainly not Vista) but it's pretty good considering it's 10 years old, resolution is 2700dpi and that means a 4000x3000 pixel scan roughly I think.

Its biggest downfall is it being an 8bit per channel scanner so the colours especially on chromes tends to get a bit blunted at times.

Here's an example scan:

Overall approximation (1/3rd original scan size):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lilserenity/3708853765/sizes/o/

Full size 1:1 of original scan (section of at least of the full frame): Full Size Crop

It's not the best scanner in the world but mine cost me £52 about 4 years ago, for that it's been pretty good. It tends to excel with C41 or chromes mind,

Vicky
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom