Film scanners

K

Kat

Well-known
Local time
3:16 AM
Joined
Jun 26, 2005
Messages
445
Location
Philippines
View My Gallery
Hi, I just wanted to ask, what film scanners do most of you use? What is the average price of a decent one (are there any below $500), that can work with 35mm, B&W, and maybe slides? After I had my film developed and scanned by a lab, I was wondering if a scanner might be worth the investment...
 
I will be getting a new scanner in the next couple of weeks. I am getting the Epson Perfection 4490. Does up to 120 MF negs and slides, as well as being a flatbed scanner. There is a model up from the 4490 but at nearly twice the price I am sticking with the 4490.

Price here in Australia is around the $550 mark, which is pretty good, especially when you consider how much it is going to save me in the long run. I will only need to have my film developed when I get it, no printing or scanning.

Here is a link to a page on the Perfection 4490:
http://www.epson.com.au/products/scanner/perfection4490photo_specs.asp

Hope that helps.

Heath
 
Heath, let me know when you've got some scans from this 4490. I'm looking forward to getting a medium format scanner myself but dedicated MF scanners are way out of my price range. The Coolscan 8000 currently on Ebay.au has fetched $2000 and there's 1 day left for biding. I'm more interested in density range of the 4490 since my Rolleiflex doesn't produce super duper ultra sharp slides anyway. 🙂
 
I am using an older Epson, the 3200. It is pretty good scanning 35mm film, all the shots in my gallery were scanned with this tool. It does a good job with 120 film too. The next generation Epson Scanners, the 4490 and beyond, were designed to be more optimized to scanning film. I looked one over and you can see the difference in the film holders, it just seems to be better designed for this job.

A dedicated film scanner though should do a better job yet. If you only shoot 35mm the Minolta Dual Scan IV is highly thought of in the $250 US range.
 
Kris said:
Heath, let me know when you've got some scans from this 4490. I'm looking forward to getting a medium format scanner myself but dedicated MF scanners are way out of my price range. The Coolscan 8000 currently on Ebay.au has fetched $2000 and there's 1 day left for biding. I'm more interested in density range of the 4490 since my Rolleiflex doesn't produce super duper ultra sharp slides anyway. 🙂
Click to expand...

No problem Kris, will do. I am surprised the Rollei doesn't produce sharp slides. My Yashica-A produces very sharp images, and the Yashica is often thought of as a lesser camera than the Rollei.

Heath
 
Hi Kat

What will you mostly use it for? If medium format (120-size film) as well as 35mm, that's a different story from just 35mm. B&W as well as colour?

I know some of the more experienced people around here can provide you with good advice for your particular needs.

I'm very happy (at this stage) with my Nikon V for 35mm only, in both colour and B&W. The scans of the colour negs are better than anything I can get at local fast-photo labs. I'm still learning about using it with B&W (have only scanned about 15 rolls so far) and I'm learning developing too, so I suspect I have a way to go before I get the best results possible from my equipment.

And, every day, I have to stop myself lookig at medium-format cameras, because I would then have to buy another scanner. 🙁 😡 😛
 
Kat,
If you shoot only 35mm then try to get a dedicated film scanner. If you shoot both 35 and 120 then you might want to try the Epson 3170. It is no longer in production but you can find some new for a real good price. The photos in my gallery were scanned with the 3170. If you are careful and take your time you can make wonderful prints. I have some up to 8x8 and am impressed. This would be an inexpensive way of trying it before investing a great deal of money.
Richard
p.s. I didn't realize you live where you do!
 
Heath, my Rolleiflex is model T with Tessar 75/3.5 lens. It's absolutely fine and offers enough sharpness but still not in the same level of, say, Hasselblad Distagon 40mm or Leica 50/2 Summicron. Must...not....get.....Hasselblad.....!!! :bang:
 
Kris said:
Heath, my Rolleiflex is model T with Tessar 75/3.5 lens. It's absolutely fine and offers enough sharpness but still not in the same level of, say, Hasselblad Distagon 40mm or Leica 50/2 Summicron. Must...not....get.....Hasselblad.....!!! :bang:
Click to expand...


Yeah, I know what you mean. I would love a Hassy, but at the moment they are not really an option for me. But I do know where there are close to a dozen Hassy's just sitting arouind not being used. In fact they have been where they are for a few decades. I have heared thet anyone can have them, just as long asthe person pays to get them.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
BTW, they are on the Moon. They are the Hassy's used when the astronauts landed on the moon.

Heath
 
If you get a dedicated film scanner (35mm), and you then elect to have your local lab do processing only (no prints) of your negatives, you will save about $4 per roll of film (color c-41 process). You save even more if you were having scans done of your negatives. In my case, the math was easy - I saved a ton of money by buying a Minolta ScanDual IV. The scans are about 1,000% better than the best a one-hour lab can do.

The trade-off is your time - since it takes time to scan film yourself. I find that I can do other things while the scanner cranks away and I keep it fed - but your milage may vary.

Slides will cost the same to have processed whether you scan them or not - you only save over the cost of having them scanned. B&W is the same - if you do your own, then scanning them yourself is your only viable option.

The choices for dedicated 35mm film scanners remain KonicaMinolta and Nikon. The others may be fine, but are not particularly well regarded, and more importantly, supported. KM covers the low-cost spectrum, Nikon the medium to high.

For flat-bed scanners, Epson remains an excellent choice for medium format and even 4x5 if you're so inclined.

A simple analysis of what you spend for having prints made (in the case of C-41) or having scans made (everything else) should allow you to do a projection - the cost over a period of time. If that exceeds the cost of buying a scanner and you have the time to do your own scanning - buy the scanner. This is pretty easy math.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
I use the Epson 4180, which does 35mm slides/negs and medium format. I upgraded to siverfast software. I was intending to get the big brother 4870 but have now decided to get the 4990 pro. The 4180 costs 200 and the software was another 100 the 4870 was about 350. The 4180 has done wonders for me and my scans allow a 13x19 print to lokk outstanding. Right now I am getting about a 75 MB file from 35 and over 120 with 6x6
 
Thank you for all the suggestions. I am going to use it strictly for 35 mm--color and black and white. Other formats would be a problem to find film for and develop in my area, so I stay away from those. I can live without the slides. My plan is to limit my costs to buying film and paying for developing, I just want to be able to take as many pictures as I can without worrying about the costs. Scanning my own would cut my overall cost per roll by about half.

I was just looking up the Minolta suggested by rover, someone in Amazon said though that it doesn't have dust remover? I'm not sure how big a deal that feature is, but the person said dust, hair, etc, was a real problem when he/she was using it...

I'll do research on the other models and brands you guy have suggested.
 
Last edited:
Kat said:
Thank you for all the suggestions. I am going to use it only for 35 mm, color and black and white, other formats would be a problem to find film for and develop in my area, so I stay away from those. I can even live without the slides, as I won't likely use those too often, anyway. My plan is to limit my costs to buying film and paying for developing, I don't want to hesitate or scrimp on taking pictures just because I keep worrying about the costs. Scanning my own would cut my overall cost per roll by about half.

I was just looking up the Minolta suggested by rover, someone in Amazon said though that it doesn't have dust remover? I'm not sure how big a deal that feature is, but the person said dust, hair, etc, was a real problem when he/she was using it...

I'll do research on the other models and brands you guy have suggested.
Click to expand...

Digital ICE (tm) is a nice feature to have, I am told. I have never had it on any of my scanners. I am told that it slows down scanning quite a bit, but can be very effective on very dusty negs.

My KM SD IV does not have Digital ICE (the 5400 and 5400II do), but it has a 'dust-removing' feature that I never use - it makes the scans too soft for my taste.

I have not had an overwhelming problem with dusty negatives. My problem has been with scratched negatives, and in those cases, it has almost always been because the one-hour lab mishandled my negs. Having negs printed DOES damage them, every time - in my opinion. Many disagree with me on that, which is OK with me.

I take my C41 negs in and ask them to process, cut, and sleeve ONLY. Costs about $2 per roll. Then I scan, and with a bit of luck, don't spend too much time in Photoshop (actually I use The Gimp, but I'm a Linux weenie) cleaning up dust spots and small scratches.

Digital ICE is nice - it tends to add about one hundred bucks to the price, IMO. Worth it? I'd say that one is up to you - since I haven't used it, I can't say.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
The ICE that comes with the original Minolta 5400 heals scratches also. I like and use this feature but it does greatly slow the scanning process. Without using it the time saved might be used in post processing to get rid of the dust and scratches so it can be a draw. IMHO ICE is nice.

Bob
 
I use the Konica-Minolta Dual Scan IV. I know it got trashed in another thread, but this one works fine, does not have any bands in the scan, and the software installed and connected fine on the first attempt. So far (knocking on wood) I'm very happy with it.
 
I've got to get something for 120, right now I have no real alternatives to printing, and the shops that will develop 120 are expensive to print. Unfortunately, I think in the long term I'm still looking at buying two additional scanners, a dedicated 35mm film scanner and a flatbed for 120. Anybody want an epson 2480?
 
After (another) bad and expensive experience with commercial scans today I have also decided that it may be time for a dedicated film scanner. There are very few cost effective choices in the UK - the KM Scan Dual IV is about $400 and some other third party scanners from $200 upwards. Happy to hear any comments on the KM before I finally decide.
 
zuikologist said:
After (another) bad and expensive experience with commercial scans today I have also decided that it may be time for a dedicated film scanner. There are very few cost effective choices in the UK - the KM Scan Dual IV is about $400 and some other third party scanners from $200 upwards. Happy to hear any comments on the KM before I finally decide.
Click to expand...

I had a SD III and had severe trouble with it - it locked up constantly. However, based on other reports, I suspect mine was just a lemon. Sold it (after thoroughly describing lock up problem) and bought a KM SD IV and am quite pleased with it. But I run mine with Vuescan under Linux, your milage may vary.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rogier
Does software make the difference?
Replies
6
Views
380
Jan makowski
J
Retro-Grouch
Airport CT scanners
6 7 8
Replies
140
Views
17K
Prest_400
Prest_400
S
Developing Tri-X Suggestions?
Replies
13
Views
909
Muggins
Muggins
T
Proper film Chemistry for PET based films-from a Lab-Box with D96 user
Replies
7
Views
669
agentlossing
agentlossing
Rogier
Film holder Epson V850
Replies
4
Views
557
Rogier
Rogier
Back
Top Bottom