Old dedicated 35mm scanners.

[hamradio]

It doesn't seem that anyone is still using some of the rather old dedicated 35mm scanners, such as the Minolta Scandual III, various Polaroid Sprintscans, etc. Provided one can manage to get it to play nice with their computer, are any of these things worth messing with? I've been using an Epson 4490 for a few years, but am getting tired of its mediocre 35mm performance and junk 35mm negative holders.

Thanks!

 

[cabbiinc]

Well there's a number of people here who do use old dedicated 35mm scanners. I have a Nikon LS-2000 and a Canon FS4000US. Use them all of the time. Others will chime in. So I wouldn't say that anyone is still using old dedicated 35mm scanners. Besides, Plustek is still making NEW 35mm scanners.

 

[Takkun]

not quite THAT old, but I'm using a Minolta 5400, which I guess is well over 10 years old, but not the pre-USB era. Back in high school our newsroom had a Polaroid SprintScan that gave great results, especially since we weren't doing huge enlargements. even at 2700 DPI, my scans are overkill for most of what I do.
But a dedicated scanner will give you cleaner, if not less frustrating, results compared to a flatbed.

 

[Gregoyle]

I use a Minolta Scan Dual III. It is fantastic. The only downside is no Digital ICE, but the Scan Dual IV adds that. I think it is USB 1.0, and is a little on the slow side, but the output is great.

I use it with Vuescan, which works with just about any scanner that you can attach to your computer.

-Greg

Edit: I was wrong, it is USB 2.0.

 

[Godfrey]

I have and use Nikon Coolscan V and SuperCoolscan 9000 scanners presently. I had Polaroid SprintScan 35E/S and Minolta Scan Dual II in the past ... both long dead and gone.

Much older than the Scan Dual II and you're into mostly SCSI interface scanners, which pose some challenges with current computer systems. I wouldn't go that way.

G

 

[ronnies]

Nikon Coolscan IV user here. Not used as regularly as I'd like mind you. Use it with Vuescan and OS X Mountain Lion and Mavericks.

Ronnie

 

[Meakin]

A Minolta Dimagescan 5400 (version 1) may be an option. Good D-Max, good resolving power...but slooow.

Silverfast scanning software version 8 now supports it too...something I seem to remember it's previous version didn't last time I looked.

/Meakin

 

[Texsport]

Nikon CoolScan 9000 here.

Texsport

 

[lawrence]

I have two Canon FS4000US (one has a slight fault) and I use VueScan which gives excellent results. Nearly all of my scanning is with traditional monochrome film. I like this scanner very much, IMHO it is a better design than my previous Coolscan IV however I would also consider the currently in production Plustek Opticfilm 120 if they ever get the bugs ironed out.

 

[Tijmendal]

Pakon f135.
You can get one at AAAImaging for 250$. It's extremely fast (2 mins a roll of 36 exposure's), has autofeed, easy to use, 3000x2000 images and just looks great for any webuse or prints up to decent size.
Absolutely love mine!

 

[Bob Michaels]

There have been no advancements in scanner technology since the development of Digital Ice some 12 years ago. And that is not applicable if one is scanning b&w film. Scan quality remains a function of the quality of the optics, mechanical precision alignment, and quality of the electronic components. Unfortunately, those are are directly related to price. So a scanner built 10 years ago to sell back then for $500 (say $1,000 in today's dollars) will almost always do better than one built to sell for $500 today.

And mechanical precision alignment and frequently the optics of a dedicated film scanner is pretty much in a different league than a flatbed designed to scan everything from documents to film. Note: there were some precision flatbeds made many years ago that remain great today other than their SCSI connections. But they originally sold in the $30,000 to $80,000 range.

I am still using my Minolta MultiPro as I also shoot medium format. But I occasionally print from files created by my Minolta ScanDual II that preceded that and find nothing wrong with them. If my scanner went up in smoke tomorrow, I would unhesitantly replace it a scanner of the same vintage.

 

[dxq.canada]

I have the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi (not the Pro) and it does a great job on my 35mm and 120 B&W negs. The Pro would be better but asking price is still high.
I was lucky enough to get it with a SCSI->USB/Firewire adapter, so it works with Windows 7 + VueScan.

 

[Gerry M]

For 35mm I use a Scan Dual 4 and am satisfied with the results. Certainly better than my V700 with 35mm.

 

[jbielikowski]

I had Scan Dual III and it was terrific for color, for dia it was best thing I've ever used. But B&W output was meh and it's 90% of my photos, so I decided to sell it and stick to CanoScan 9000F flatbed, also beacuse I shoot MF.

 

[Highway 61]

I had Scan Dual III and it was terrific for color, for dia it was best thing I've ever used. But B&W output was meh and it's 90% of my photos, so I decided to sell it and stick to CanoScan 9000F flatbed, also beacuse I shoot MF.

The Minolta Dual Scan II and Scan Dual III are basically the very same machines (the III features a dust remover which isn't ICE and doesn't work very well, but that's all).

B&W outputs cannot be meh if you scan your B&W films as it ought to be done with those scanners : as color slides, in 48bits, and creating Tiff files. Then you export, invert, remove the colors and post-process the Tiff files in a recent version of PhotoShop, and you get files absolutely undistinguishable from the Coolscan V ones if you downsize the images so that the Coolscan gets down to 2820 dpi (the Minolta scanner res.).

People seem to keep confusing the raw scanners outputs and what the scanners software do. Yes the Minolta software is really meh, and NikonScan (having PhotoShop engine in its core) is great. But if you post-process the scanner outputs with a good photo editing software you don't get meh results if the scanner itself works well, even in B&W.

I love my Dual Scan II and its ergonomics so much that I just bought a spare one for $60. I have a Coolscan V too but almost never use it : I don't need the 4000 dpi res. and its ergonomics isn't as friendly as the Minolta one.

 

[johnamazement]

I've got an old Minolta Scan Elite II. It has a Firewire connection so it's much quicker than USB, and using Vuescan means no driver issues.

As I see it, the main problem with these old scanners is the availability of parts and accessories. The film holder on mine is getting brittle and has already lost some of its clips. If it becomes unusable at some point in the future I can see the hunt for a new one being difficult and probably expensive.

 

[Godfrey]

I've got an old Minolta Scan Elite II. It has a Firewire connection so it's much quicker than USB, and using Vuescan means no driver issues.

As I see it, the main problem with these old scanners is the availability of parts and accessories. The film holder on mine is getting brittle and has already lost some of its clips. If it becomes unusable at some point in the future I can see the hunt for a new one being difficult and probably expensive.

I'd recommend you start looking for a second film carrier now rather than waiting. There are some outfits making these things with 3D printers now ...

G

 

[k__43]

I bought a FS4000US a couple of weeks ago and just upgraded to a Nikon LS-8000.
Both scanners are better than my Plustek 8200 in terms of resolution, dynamic range and color. I don't know why but the color from the 8200 sucks and is no better than what the V500 flatbed gave me. My guess is that Plustek uses white LED while the Canon has a Cold Cathode lamp and the Nikon discrete R G B leds (just guessing)
The biggest advantage is that the "vintage" scanner can batch scan, but the actual scan time is quite long compared to the newer models.
Also the FS4000US' results are quite noisy (and smears a bit) with thin negs (as flatbeds are too).


If I'd only do 35mm I'd get the Minolta 5400 II

 

[CliveC]

What a timely thread. I was looking into how much of an improvement getting something like a Minolta Scan Dual III would be compared to my Canoscan 9000F. Even using Vuescan (although admittedly I'm not an expert) gets me only mediocre results and the scanner simply won't do more than one pass without looking worse. Colours take a while to fix as well.

 

[biomed]

I have two - Coolscan V and a 4000 ED. They work well with my Windows 7 computers. Contrary too many posts I preferred the Nikon software. I have switched to Vuescan to run with my current version of windows. If you want to scan film I recommend a dedicated scanner.

Mike