Best Film Scanner for around $250?

Jeff Fillmore

Jeff Fillmore

Member
Local time
1:23 AM
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
32
I am currently waiting on delivery of my Nikon FE and shopping for a Zeizz Ikon, and trying to decide how to get what I want from 35mm at the end of the process- which is a good quality digital image which carries through the interesting feel and unique characteristics of film. I am still a bit undecided between using a lab for processing and self developing the film- but assuming I do this myself as I am leaning- are there some decent film scanners in the $250 range? I was looking at the Plustek Opticfilm 7300 since it seems to be about the low price point for units that scan at 7200 dpi but I really don’t know much about the process. Important to me would be the range and quality of the final image- I am not so concerned about the speed of a single scan or running hundreds of scans through it.

Should I but new- or maybe look for something better used/refurbished that would be better for the same price?

Thoughts? Comments? Examples? Any input would be appreciated.
 
i got a minolta dimage dual scan IV off KEH for $250, i have been really happy with it's performance using Vuescan. It wasn't new but was in the original box and all. I would recommend that scanner.
 
I can tell you that I am very happy with my 7300 for posting scanned B&W negatives on the internet. But, I've never tried printing from those scans so I can't say one way or the other in terms of print quality. Also, I've never been able to get a satisfactory color scan from the 7300. The colors are never as vibrant and true as when they are scanned at a good photo lab.

If your looking for really nice color scans for archiving or printing, I would skip the 7300 and go for a good Nikon scanner when you can afford it. For B&W negatives, the 7300 is probably good enough. All my recent B&W stuff on Flickr is scanned with the 7300 if you want to have a look.
 
How large a print?

I print 8x10 from Epson 1680 and 4990. I'm about to send a file off for a 16x20.

$250: Used Epson 4990.
 
gerbilthemistake said:
Not trying to take over OP's thread, but are the scans from the v500 or v700 good enough to make prints? Always been curious about the performance of flatbeds.
Click to expand...

It depends entirely on how you frame the question.

Good enough to make prints? Yes.

Good enough to make post-sized prints from 110 negatives? Perhaps not.

I have used my Epson 4490 (indeed, my old Epson 2400 too) to make huge prints - from medium format negs. If I had wanted to make 4x6 prints, I am sure I could have done so with scanned 35mm negs.

I have found that the flatbeds do not have the ability to penetrate very dense negatives that a dedicated scanner does.

When in doubt - dedicated scanners (35mm and medium format) always work best. Second choice is flatbed scanners. However, the difference between them is not monstrous, and is generally down to budget and expected size of prints to be made. Spend more, get more.
 
I've made 16x20 from 35mm negs and the Epson V500 as well as the Epson 4990. Beautiful job from both.
 
That's good to know, I am glad that it seems like flatbeds have improved significantly. The only experience i've had with them is my friends old flatbed scanner with a cheaply made 35mm insert, that did a not so good job.
 
gerbilthemistake said:
Not trying to take over OP's thread, but are the scans from the v500 or v700 good enough to make prints? Always been curious about the performance of flatbeds.
Click to expand...

A decent 35mm negative gives me an 11x14 print I like. YMMV.
Certainly working with medium format and above, there is more than enough to work with.

I don't doubt that a dedicated 35mm scanner will give better results (I take the word of others on that).
 
I routinely make 8x10 prints from my epson v500. I think they look great. :)

I do have the betterscanning holders though, which help -a lot-.

If you want, pm me and I can send you a full size jpeg or tiff scan that you can print from and judge for yourself.

At any rate, I can recommend an epson v500 with betterscanning holders. Never used anything else since I"m perfectly satisfied with my setup.
 
I'll "third" the Minolta DS IV. Excellent bang-for-the-buck. Some flatbeds can, with care, do a decent job, but with a good dedicated film scanner there are no ifs, ands or buts.


- Barrett
 
I have a plustek 7300 that I like. Color is more difficult, but not impossible. It just takes some time fiddling with the different controls. Here are a few scanned with the 7300 that have some nice color in them.

2490042369_c42213b585.jpg
2538376966_baecb28ac1.jpg
3016947594_49052656c1.jpg


If you get really bored, you can sort through a bunch of pictures scanned with the 7300 here.
 
Last edited:
Those look really nice! I'd love to try the Plustek scanners at some point, but since I run Linux, there is no driver for them (I also run Vuescan). And I won't run WINE, the whole point of Linux is to NOT run Windows products. So until Plustek supports Linux...meh.
 
amateriat said:
I'll "third" the Minolta DS IV. Excellent bang-for-the-buck. Some flatbeds can, with care, do a decent job, but with a good dedicated film scanner there are no ifs, ands or buts.


- Barrett
Click to expand...

I used a Scan Dual II for a number of years and never believed that any scanner did a better job. I sold it for $125 (that was the market) when I got the MultiPro as I simply did not need two scanners. I tried rescanning some negs with the newer scanner but just could not see any difference in the prints.

There just has not been significant improvements in film scanners in recent years. Some of the consumer flatbeds have improved but I believe even the latest consumer flatbeds still trail the early film scanners in quality. (When I say "consumer flatbeds" I mean anything made by Epson or anyone else under the $8,000 price range)

So I suggest buying an older film scanner, either Minolta or Nikon for the best within your budget.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom