Could the current film camera manufacturers help their cause by developing a scanner?

[Keith]

It occurs to me that one of the things that penalises film cameras and their more frequent usage is scanning. A lot of dedicated film shooters now use a hybrid system in preference to messing around with enlargers and chemicals etc but the availabilty of decent scanning equipment at a sensible price doesn't seem to have a very positive future IMO.

The three major manufacturers still producing film cameras are Leica, Zeiss and Cosina. It would make sense for one of these companies to involve itself in the production of a high quality reasonably priced scanner for 35mm. I guess the words 'reasonable' and 'Leica' can't really be used in the same sentence when discussing pricing so I guess it's up to Cosina or Zeiss! I know it's probably not going to happen but to me it makes some sense.

With Nikon abandoning ship there's not too many options for high quality 35mm home scanning in our futures ... and the current Nikon and Minolta users must be worried about future servicing and repairs.

Or should we just accept defeat and all buy M9's or used M8's? 😛

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

R&D is simply too much for these companies to take. Once the Nikons are gone, I presume someone will step back in.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I think in the long run, and it might not be that long, you just might have to accept defeat if you are using a hybrid work flow.

Bob

 

[amateriat]

Minolta did it, and kept doing it right up to the end (when the then-merged Konica-Minolta felt too much heat and got completely out of the photographic kitchen–forgive the tortured metaphor). Right up to the DS 5400 II, they kept pushing the envelope, and probably would have kept on going except for someone from on-high telling them to pull the plug on the whole deal.

As Bill would likely point out, it's not a question of whether there's a market at all for the things–there sure as Hades is one–but how big and sustainable from a manufacturer's POV. The one thng to hope for now is Epson continuing to improve the 35mm scanning capabilities of their upper-tier flatbeds (V700/750). I did my bit some years back when I bought a Minolta 5400 (I) not long after its release, since its bang-for-the-buck appeal was irresistible. It still gets tons of use in my little atelier.


- Barrett

 

[Keith]

What I have noticed is that there is a range of very crappy little negative scanners out there for people who just want to see their old film stuff on computer ... and to hell with the quality! 😛

ebay is littered with them!

 

[shadowfox]

I agree that the days of quality film scanner is probably never going to come back. Sad as it may be.

But looking at the problem a completely different way, I see a glint of hope that as the camera sensor technology improves in resolution and the amount of recordable signal-bit, soon we'll be hard-pressed to distinguish between an image from a Coolscan vs from a DSLR equipped with a planar-type lens.

Then, what should follows is a cottage industry of either commercial or DIY gadgets to properly aligning and back-lighting film frames. If we can take a cue from lens adapter "industry," this is not too far-fetched.

 

[photogdave]

I agree with Barrett - the most likely scenario is the high end Epsons improve enough to give us good 35mm scans for large prints. They are already there with medium and large format.
Maybe a smaller company will buy Minolta's designs and patents, like Kenko did with their exposure meters.

 

[gb hill]

I've questioned myself many times why a company like Kodak which is in the film making business not have a good or at least decent film scanner. They sell cameras & all in one printers but no film scanners. Sometimes I wonder what goes through the minds of CEO's of these companies.

 

[amateriat]

I've questioned myself many times why a company like Kodak which is in the film making business not have a good or at least decent film scanner. They sell cameras & all in one printers but no film scanners. Sometimes I wonder what goes through the minds of CEO's of these companies.

They actually do make one (sort-of), but it's not generally available to the likes of you or me. One of the few they did make semi-available in the not-so-distant past was based on a Pacific Image(?) model that left something to be desired on the build-quality front.

And, remember: the hills (and auction sites) are alive with good used film scanners. Some are priced silly, but hardly all. I helped a client score a Minolta DS 5400 II a few years back, and he's been a happy scanning fool ever since.


- Barrett

 

[migtex]

I think we got to stick to what is available...
Epson flatbed's and the Plustek's of this world.... or 2nd and 3rd hand Nikon Coolscan's some day...
Cosina could do it... though.

 

[Fujitsu]

With Nikon abandoning ship there's not too many options for high quality 35mm home scanning in our futures ... and the current Nikon and Minolta users must be worried about future servicing and repairs.

Exactly. Thats what killed film for me.

 

[Fujitsu]

I've questioned myself many times why a company like Kodak which is in the film making business not have a good or at least decent film scanner. They sell cameras & all in one printers but no film scanners. Sometimes I wonder what goes through the minds of CEO's of these companies.

Kodak does not invest in film anymore.

 

[Roger Hicks]

If there were any real demand, I'd expect someone to buy the rights to the Dimage 5400 and reintroduce it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[btgc]

Another issue for those scannerless is that automated scans "soup + CD" aren't reasonably priced, not in all places, at least.

 

[rbiemer]

Does the paucity of new 35mm film scanners make those "slide copier" lens attachments viable as an alternate way of digitizing 35mm film?
Rob

 

[wgerrard]

I wonder what percentage of all film used finds its way into a scanner. Folks like me buy new film cameras and then buy scanners. But, we can't be a significant part of the market. As friends and family ask, why didn't I take that money and just buy a really nice digital, since the pictures end up on the computer anyway?

It's not an irrational question.

 

[thegman]

I've not used these guys yet, so cannot vouch for the quality, but I think the price for developing + CD is pretty good:

http://www.photo-express.co.uk/digital.html

They only do C41 I think though.

 

[retnull]

Does the paucity of new 35mm film scanners make those "slide copier" lens attachments viable as an alternate way of digitizing 35mm film?
Rob

Exactly my thought. I have seen people get good results from taking a macro digital photo of a negative on a light table, then inverting the colors in post-processing. Maybe the scanner of the future will be a dedicated digital copy stand (especially as sensor resolution and macro lens design improves).

 

[dfoo]

Does the paucity of new 35mm film scanners make those "slide copier" lens attachments viable as an alternate way of digitizing 35mm film?
Rob

Not for those people interested in scanning color (either neg of slides). No digital ice means ages spent cloning out dust.

 

[bmattock]

I would not expect a film company that is heavily involved in trying to move from film to digital technology to spend a lot of money investing in technology tied into what they're trying to move away from. One often confuses the public statements of a company ("We're committed to film!") with the actual reality. One could always call one of the major companies and ask them, however.

Or just twitter:
http://twitter.com/JeffreyHayzlett