Is Medium Format the best for Film Scanners under $1K?

[Dovo]

I would like to start shooting film again and was hoping to go 35mm but it seems like the cheap sub $1k scanners are not well liked for 35mm

I know scanning film is not fun but what would be the least painful way to do it?

Is a flatbed scanner like a Epson V850 best or are the 35mm dedicated scanners like the Plustek 8200 ai or the new 135 better?

I don't want to have to fiddle around much to get the images digitized. I also don't want to go the route of some 10 year old unsupported scanner.

 

[Johnmcd]

I use a very inexpensive 35mm Plustek Optifilm 8100 purchased second hand for only $250 Australian and while I haven't printed anything from it, the sampled down 3600 dpi images for web use are just fine and indistinguishable from my broken Minolta MultiScan pro.

All of the images here were scanned with it.

http://johnmcd.zenfolio.com/f958035263

and here http://johnmcd.zenfolio.com/p975704314

Perfect for sharing and if the neg is good I wet print it. I hope to make a photo book later in the year of my grandaughter and I'm sure scans for that resolution will be fine also.

Hope this helps - John

 

[lynnb]

I haven't used dedicated 35mm film scanners. I've used a V700 to scan 35mm negs and transparencies, and have been able to produce from those scans pleasing A4 prints on a quality inkjet (Epson 3880).

 

[tuanvinh2000]

i use a digital camera sony a7 plus the leica beoon stand. it's prob < 1k and scan BW 35mm film in great details. see my flikr link for samples.

 

[FujiLove]

I find wet printing much more fun, but the least painful scanner I've ever used is definitely my Pakon 135. It scans an entire roll in one strip, takes about ten minutes and produces great colour without hours of messing about in Photoshop. You need to be able to run Windows XP (a virtual environment is fine) and the software isn't very intuitive. Easy enough when you have scanned a few rolls though.

Highly recommended, as is the Facebook Pakon group who will get you up and running if you want to go that route.

 

[nukecoke]

Another vote for PlusTek series

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

I did some experiments scanning 120 film, 6x9 from a Mamiya Press with the superb 100 f/2.8 lens.

Using the inexpensive V500, I find I get quite nice prints at 12x18" from my V500 scans. That's a print of about 6x the linear dimension of the film.

This thread has much more, from me and others, including a sample image ready to print 12x18". And, in case you want to skip to the 12x18 sample image, here it is (8MB)

 

[Dovo]

I haven't used dedicated 35mm film scanners. I've used a V700 to scan 35mm negs and transparencies, and have been able to produce from those scans pleasing A4 prints on a quality inkjet (Epson 3880).

How hard is it to produce a quality 35mm scan? It seems like people don't typically like flatbeds for 35mm. I definitely like the flexibility it offers though.

I find wet printing much more fun, but the least painful scanner I've ever used is definitely my Pakon 135. It scans an entire roll in one strip, takes about ten minutes and produces great colour without hours of messing about in Photoshop. You need to be able to run Windows XP (a virtual environment is fine) and the software isn't very intuitive. Easy enough when you have scanned a few rolls though.

Highly recommended, as is the Facebook Pakon group who will get you up and running if you want to go that route.

Is the Pakon better than Nikon and Minolta? They seem to be just as old but I don't hear anyone saying theirs has died?

I use a very inexpensive 35mm Plustek Optifilm 8100 purchased second hand for only $250 Australian and while I haven't printed anything from it, the sampled down 3600 dpi images for web use are just fine and indistinguishable from my broken Minolta MultiScan pro.

Hope this helps - John

Hi John, If I were buy a new Plustek which one would you recommend? There is now the 8200 se and ai as well as one called the 135 which is newer.

 

[mpaniagua]

I scan all my film with Plustek 8100 from the bay. Not that expensive and very nice performance.

Only possible drawback from this kind of scanner could be the slow scanning process, but, mostly because I'm very selective at what I scan, I dont find it much of a drag.

Hi John, If I were buy a new Plustek which one would you recommend? There is now the 8200 se and ai as well as one called the 135 which is newer.

If you are shooting B/W, go for the 8100, mostly because dust and scratch removal, IMHO, doesn't perform as well on B/W; also, if you like to tweek the photos, 8200 would mostly be on your way. Main difference between both models is that 8200 has image correction build on the scanner and on the 8100 you do it on your PC , using Gimp,Photoshop, etc.

 

[Dovo]

Is the difference between the Pakon F-135 and the Plus model huge?

It's pretty interesting that you could buy these for $200 a few years ago but supposedly the only repair center in the USA charges $1,789 for a Plus and $837 for a refurbished non-plus.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

If you are trying to reproduce 18-24 MP digital on super fine A3 prints, sure, MF is good for it. Or for blowing it on 24inch monitor for pixel peeping.
I'm not into it. Every time I'm buying MF camera it lasts for few weeks and I'm ditching it. My Leica, FED taken negatives are absolutely good enough for 8x10 and slightly larger lab thermal prints. Main thing is to prepare negatives scans for their printers, if bw is needed. I have bw negatives scans done by cheapest Epson V330 (100$ new), printed on 8x10 in Costco and framed for the wall. Good enough to see them every day

 

[Dovo]

How is the Pacific Imagine XA compared to the PlusTek and the Pakon? I would buy a Pakon since they are more expensive I am not sure it's worth the risk.

 

[Steve M.]

Just get one of the Minolta film scanners that are dedicated 35mm scanners. I did a test between one of those and a Nikon Cool Scan 4000 ED, and the only real difference was that the Nikon file was bigger (4000 compared to 2850 if I remember correctly). The Nikon did have Digital Ice, but that feature did not work on B&W film so it was a moot point. My printer was capable of 13x19, and that worked fine for the Minolta. Yes, the Nikon resolved more detail, but not enough to really be noticeable on large prints.

Scanners will accentuate film grain on B&W too Everything gets blown up during the scanning process. If I had known how much more fun working in a darkroom was compared to scanning film, I would have never gone that route.

 

[FujiLove]

Is the difference between the Pakon F-135 and the Plus model huge?

It's pretty interesting that you could buy these for $200 a few years ago but supposedly the only repair center in the USA charges $1,789 for a Plus and $837 for a refurbished non-plus.

The Pakon will be much faster than the Nikon or Minolta, but I believe (haven't owned either) they can squeeze a little more detail out. The Pakon isn't great for slide film if that's your thing, but it excels at colour negative film and works fine for B&W. If you have a 36 frame roll of film, you're likely to need five hours+ to scan it with a non Pakon scanner. In that time I bet I could scan twelve rolls and have the images sorted and filed in Lightroom!

I used to own a plus model and now own a non plus. You can force the non plus to scan at the same resolution as the plus using the tlxclient software so there's no practical difference. The excellent, automatic colour balance magic is the same from both scanners. I wouldn't buy a plus again, but I'd buy another non-plus Pakon tomorrow if mine died.

 

[FujiLove]

If I had known how much more fun working in a darkroom was compared to scanning film, I would have never gone that route.

Agreed. I wouldn't bother scanning anything except for sharing with family overseas and the odd forum post.

Scanning is tedium in the extreme. When I see those threads where someone asks which scanner to buy because they have two thousand old slides to scan, I feel like weeping for them!

 

[Scapevision]

Sounds like you already have a Digital camera, why not buy a copy stand and use the camera to "scan" your film. Most people swear by it. I personally don't give much crap and use a V700 for all.

 

[johannielscom]

Just the other day I saw this in a Facebook group I administer:

Nikon D3300 with 40mm 2.8 Macro, spirit bubble and cable release, on a regular tripod (vertical rod inverted) over a wooden cake box with a bathroom LED light and some opaline glass over it for a diffuser. Wooden frame painted flat black to hold the negative. Normally used in the dark to eliminate glare etc.

The poster shot Rolleiflex negatives with it and had no issue printing them in 30x30cm IIRC.

For 35mm negatives this might not be suitable, but for MF it worked like a charm. I saw a digital file from it and that sure looked better than many a 'regular' scan that gets shown in that group.

 

[Johnmcd]

I scan all my film with Plustek 8100 from the bay. Not that expensive and very nice performance.

Only possible drawback from this kind of scanner could be the slow scanning process, but, mostly because I'm very selective at what I scan, I dont find it much of a drag.

If you are shooting B/W, go for the 8100, mostly because dust and scratch removal, IMHO, doesn't perform as well on B/W; also, if you like to tweek the photos, 8200 would mostly be on your way. Main difference between both models is that 8200 has image correction build on the scanner and on the 8100 you do it on your PC , using Gimp,Photoshop, etc.

Dovo, just what he said - Cheers John

 

[Godfrey]

I would like to start shooting film again and was hoping to go 35mm but it seems like the cheap sub $1k scanners are not well liked for 35mm

I know scanning film is not fun but what would be the least painful way to do it?

Is a flatbed scanner like a Epson V850 best or are the 35mm dedicated scanners like the Plustek 8200 ai or the new 135 better?

I don't want to have to fiddle around much to get the images digitized. I also don't want to go the route of some 10 year old unsupported scanner.

The Nikon Coolscan V ED is generally available used in excellent condition for around $500-$600 with the SA-21 film strip negative carrier. Nikon's software for it is way out of date and doesn't run on the lastest versions of macOS either, but VueScan drives this scanner perfectly and, imo, produces better quality scans more easily than any other scanning option. The SA-21 film strip carrier permits automated batch scanning of up to six frame strips. While not particularly quick, the Coolscan V ED produces the best and most consistent quality scans in your price range.

Although old and no longer produced, my Nikon Coolscan V ED outperforms several new flatbed scanners and film scanners as well, including the Epson V700, per the last set of tests I did.

For convenience' sake, I often scan film using a Leica SL and the BEOON copy stand (35mm or 6x6cm format) or by using the SL with a Spiratone Vario-Dupliscope (35mm only). These are quicker to set up and use but take a bit more insight when processing since you must do both inversion and gamma correction (and compensate for color film's orange mask) when shooting negative films. Capture quality is less consistent as well since you must properly focus each exposure individually to get the best results. On balance, if I have a half dozen random film images or less to scan, I use this setup. For any more than that, the Nikon Coolscan V ED comes out of the cabinet.

G

 

[narsuitus]

Is a flatbed scanner like a Epson V850 best or are the 35mm dedicated scanners like the Plustek 8200 ai or the new 135 better?

The Epson V850 is better for me because I need to scan 35mm, 6x6cm, 6x7cm, 6x9cm, 4x5 inch, and 8x10 inch film.