Scanner on a budget!

irq506

irq506

just curious
Local time
11:57 PM
Joined
Nov 24, 2006
Messages
328
Hello,
I am looking for a scanner at the moment, not sure whether to go strictly with a 35mm dedicated or a flatbed with film capabilities. I am on a strict budget of $200 and have been considering the Canoscan 8600F and Epson Perfection 4490 as possible candidates. I am open to other brands and suggestions.
I would also like to know if anyone here has either of the aformentioned scanners and can tell me anything of note about them.
My main usage will be to produce images for web use but would also like to have the possibility of printing too. I use a 4x6 format printer for 95% of my output, and know that pretty much any scanner will produce reasonable images for that size, however I also would like the option of producing higher quality scans as I am a professional photographer shooting digital and I would like to try and reintroduce film into my work, but for the moment I am on a budget, -I have a Nokton 40 f1.4 to buy, another few 100ft rolls of Neopan, two more Jobo reels, a pressure washer, some more blank film canisters, and a few never ending bills.
Thanks j
 
For $200 you're looking at a flatbed. BTW I've got a Epson 4170 that I paid $175 at B&H earlier this year and used 3-4 times I'll sell for $99 plus $25 shipping. Really nice output for the web or smaller print sizes. I upgraded to the Epson V750-M Pro.

I've got 250+/- trans on bay 100% positive FB. Let me know here if interested.
 
Last edited:
If you need to keep your options open beyond 35mm, I think Epson's 4490 is likely as good as you can do within your budget. Solid results with MF, decent with 35mm for prints up to 8 x 10" (if done with care). You can always set your sights higher later on, but getting started with something is important.


- Barrett
 
If you are a costco member, see
http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=10039838&whse=BC&topnav=&browse=
They also list a much cheaper model for around 140 dollars, but it has no digital ice and uses a flouresent bulb, where the 240 dollar one uses a much longer-lived led array.
The ice thing works great I've heard for normal negative film, but not so great for black and white or kodachrome, which is what I use most.. so I have a minolta dimage dual scan III.
I'd get that 240 dollar one myself from costco in a heartbeat now if I didnt already have the minolta, since costco is so good at taking things back pretty much no matter what.
The drawback of those primefilm scanners looks like they only do one frame at a time, where many other scanners can do a holder full of frames, six on a strip or four mounted slides for example.. But still, for that money, hey, gotta deal with something..
 
Last edited:
4490 is great for 35mm B&W, so-so on C41 color, a bit unsharp with slides, but certainly good for web posting.
 
I have a Polaroid Sprintscan 35+ that I got for around $50 on Ebay. It still beats my Canoscan 8400f for 35 mm. Of course it is scsi not usb, but I got it to work with Windows XP.

If you can find one that is working properly, its a good deal for the money.

Here's a recent scan. Frederic's Church's Olana in upstate NY.
 

Attachments

  • olana_window1000.jpg
    olana_window1000.jpg
    171.9 KB · Views: 0
I've got a Canoscan 4200F (Bought some months ago), it does pretty well, but is limited to 35mm. The newer versions (8600F) are probably improvements over my 4200F. I'm quite satisfied for what I spent.

Regards!
Don
 
Ok thank you to all for your input.
I have narrowed down to either going for a very basic flatbed like that Canoscan 8600F which can be had from newegg for about $150, just so that I have some way of getting my images from negs to net or even prints up to 8x10, or to wait and save (itll take me six months to save up this money), and get an Epson V700.
I dont know which to do because Im terrible with money and if I bought the Canon ill have some money to actually BUY a lens that I have on loan from someone, but I also want a nice scanner that will allow me to output the loves of my life onto actual hard copy paper -I havent even got a printer but dont get me started on that one!
 
35mmdelux said:
For $200 you're looking at a flatbed. BTW I've got a Epson 4170 that I paid $175 at B&H earlier this year and used 3-4 times I'll sell for $99 plus $25 shipping. Really nice output for the web or smaller print sizes. I upgraded to the Epson V750-M Pro.

I've got 250+/- trans on bay 100% positive FB. Let me know here if interested.
Click to expand...

Hi there, thanks for the offer, I can find little or no info on the web about this scanner, which is what Id like to do because I dont know anything about it.
 
amateriat said:
If you need to keep your options open beyond 35mm, I think Epson's 4490 is likely as good as you can do within your budget. Solid results with MF, decent with 35mm for prints up to 8 x 10" (if done with care). You can always set your sights higher later on, but getting started with something is important.


- Barrett
Click to expand...

I agree, something to start with is good. Id like something capable of producing a relatively decent scan (something I can produce a clear 8x10 print with) if needs be.

What Im working towards is shooting film developing itmyself and scanning it instead of having a darkroom because I just dont have the space. I shoot digitally for work and the use of a decent printer is the following priority though Im not really looking too hard at that right now, as I generally give my clients disks rather then hard prints.
 
clintock said:
If you are a costco member, see
http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=10039838&whse=BC&topnav=&browse=
They also list a much cheaper model for around 140 dollars, but it has no digital ice and uses a flouresent bulb, where the 240 dollar one uses a much longer-lived led array.
The ice thing works great I've heard for normal negative film, but not so great for black and white or kodachrome, which is what I use most.. so I have a minolta dimage dual scan III.
I'd get that 240 dollar one myself from costco in a heartbeat now if I didnt already have the minolta, since costco is so good at taking things back pretty much no matter what.
The drawback of those primefilm scanners looks like they only do one frame at a time, where many other scanners can do a holder full of frames, six on a strip or four mounted slides for example.. But still, for that money, hey, gotta deal with something..
Click to expand...
Oooo0o0o0o00o0oooo0o0o0o0o000oo0oo0o0o0ohhhhhhhhhhhh..........

I had a primefilm scanner like this once a few years back, and I think I scanned about 20 images with it and nearly lost my mind in the process. I got to the conclusion that for small (like, really small 3x5 or less) scans this machine works, for anything else I got heneous macreling (scan lines), and terrible picture noise. I cant go back there, i cant deal with that again!!!!!

I would love to see mid sized scans (8x10 or less) from either of the two scanners I mentioned above without manipulation just to see how they do. The Canon one is $150 on newegg.com and that price is extremely atractive to me, but would jusp to the Epson in a flash if their scans were better under the same conditions.
j
 
jon_flanders said:
I have a Polaroid Sprintscan 35+ that I got for around $50 on Ebay. It still beats my Canoscan 8400f for 35 mm. Of course it is scsi not usb, but I got it to work with Windows XP.

If you can find one that is working properly, its a good deal for the money.

Here's a recent scan. Frederic's Church's Olana in upstate NY.
Click to expand...

Hey John, MUCH apreciate your example upload, it means a lot to actually SEE something.
 
Most of what's in my gallery and on Flickr - http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidbivins - was scanned with the Epson 4180 Photo. It does a decent job. I got sick of the film adapters and splurged on a Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED, which is pretty great. The Epson flatbeds with film adapters will get you to a certain point. I recommend them if you're on a budget and trying to get some sense of your work without using an enlarger or paying a lab to print contact sheets for you. When you're serious about stepping up your game, you'll buy something better, or better yet, you'll find/make/rent room for a darkroom.
 
davidbivins said:
Most of what's in my gallery and on Flickr - http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidbivins - was scanned with the Epson 4180 Photo. It does a decent job. I got sick of the film adapters and splurged on a Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED, which is pretty great. The Epson flatbeds with film adapters will get you to a certain point. I recommend them if you're on a budget and trying to get some sense of your work without using an enlarger or paying a lab to print contact sheets for you. When you're serious about stepping up your game, you'll buy something better, or better yet, you'll find/make/rent room for a darkroom.
Click to expand...


Y'know I used to have a nice darkroom a long time ago, but i moved to teh US and am starting over, I can buy a Focomat 1c for a fraction of what just about anyone else can but, its not the money its everything else. Its frustrating because i was awarded a master printers award in 1996 from both Kodak and Ilford for the images I produced for my clients, and now, I have an aging 15" Powerbook, Eos 1D and a Bessa R3a, which have pretty much taken over all else in my photographic world.

You are dead right, as time goes by and as things happen for me I will continue to invest in the tools to help me achieve my aims, however because this is a new beginning for me, I want to be sure to buy things that are quality or atleast things which will help me not hinder me in the future. Id love a Nikon scanner but that is something which is entirely outside of my budget currently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom