Scanner Recommendations Anyone?

T

Theo-Prof

Established
Local time
8:05 AM
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
130
Location
Fort Worth, TX
View My Gallery
I am fairly new to the forum and want to post some images. However, I do not have a scanner. I am wondering if anyone has any recommendations.

If I only had 35mm images the decision would be pretty simple. I would probably go with one of the Nikon film scanners. However, I have images on 4x5, 6x9, 6x7, 6x6, and 35mm. So, for me it might make more sense to buy one of the flatbed scanners that will also scan film, many of which willl do up to 4x5, some even larger. The only problem is that I know so little about this type of scanner and how well they do scanning film. There was a review on the Canon 9950 in a recent Shutterbug. This looked like it might be a good choice, and at $399, it is priced right.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Kevin
 
Sorry can't help you, because I'm in a similar situation. I'm also awaiting answers to this thread keenly. Don't want to mention my own thoughts on it before Kevin gets some answers though.
 
The flatbed scanners can do an excellent job with 4x5, and a pretty decent job with medium-format films, but if you are really wanting to get the maximum quality from your 35mm RFDR negatives and slides, then you must consider a dedicated "film" scanner. To extract the most from what 35mm can offer, you really need a film scanner that has 4000dpi native resolution.
Not interpolated. You might consider an inexpensive flatbed and an economy priced film scanner just for 35mm.
 
"To extract the most from what 35mm can offer, you really need a film scanner that has 4000dpi native resolution. Not interpolated."

________________________

The Canon scanner 9950 I mentioned has 4800dpi optical resolution. However, I cannot find anywhere that lists the DMax. Not even Canon's web site lists DMax. I can only conclude that it is not very good if they do not list it.

Kevin
 
Last edited:
I decided some time ago that I could get by with a flatbed (Epson 2450) for MF work but that I needed a dedicated film scanner for 35mm. So far it's been working out ...

Gene
 
Exactly, I worked with a dedicated 35mm scanner and an Epson 2450 for the bigger formats.
Nowadays I have a Minolta Multi Pro for all the formats.
When I compare the MultiPro MF scans with the Epson 2450, I can say that the Epson 2450 does a good job. With carefull USM'ing you can have great scans form the 2450.
For 35mm you need a dedicated scanner, I then would choose the Konica Minolta 5400.
With that scanner, your little cheap RF will compete with the most expesive DSLR's.
 
I decided to try scanning at a minimal investment. I bought at Pacific Imaging Electronics p1800u. (about $100 at COSTCO) The "1800" refers to the maximum resolution. The learning curve is not steep and the output (I use .TIF files) is quite satisfatory for Photoshop 6, as long as you keep the final image size at or under 5" X 7".

The downside of any scanner is the huge amount of dust and stuff on your negatives. It is a real problem UNLESS you scanner has digital ICE, which removes the dust, etc. But, the p1800u does not have ICE. I tried everything -- compressed air, Edwal's film cleaner, rewashing and drying -- to no avail. Then I tried my micro-fiber rag and that dit it!.

Bottom line: if you dont mind fussing with the negative strip (the p1800u does not have a carrier) and if you don't mind wiping the negatives down with the cloth, then the results are pretty good for a $100 scanner.

But plan to spend a lot of time and scanning and processing.

Hope this helps.
 
best scanner for all formats

best scanner for all formats

The Canon CanoSCAN 9950F USB Interface Flatbed Scanner is easily the best of the best. I also rant about the Epson 4870 and higher. I say Canon because it is about 100 bucks cheaper and seems just as good. It scans all formats up to 4x5 large format.

I am going to buy one instead of the Epson equivalent because of its great bang for the buck. Also because if you scan large format, you have very few choices, and the specs on this thing are very very good.
 
I'm pretty familiar with the Nikon scanners. I know virtually nothing about the Minolta scanners. Does Minolta make a film scanner that will do MF also? The Nikon 9000 that does 35 and MF runs about $2k, which is far more than I would want to spend. Has anyone had a good experience with the Minolta scanners?

Maybe I should just buy a film scanner for 35 and wait to buy a flatbed for MF and 4x5 later since I have far more 35mm images than MF and 4x5 put together.

Kevin
 
For web uploads a decent flatbed should be OK -- I use an Epson 1680 Pro -- but for quality you need a 35mm scanner as well: I use the new Minolta 5400 and am VERY impressed (it replaced an 8-year-old Coolscan II). From what I can see, flatbed + 35mm is still cheaper than high-end multi-format -- but I could well be wrong.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)
 
Last edited:
Same dilemma here as Kevin. Ideally I'd want something to cover 35mm, 6x4.5 and 6x6. Most people say flatbed is no good for 35, and not quality enough for MF. Now I can't buy MF (or multi format) scanners. My requirements aren't great in this department. With MF, I shoot slides or BW. Same with 35. For slides I've been using projectors (35 & 6x6). Very pleased with these. Haven't felt the need to print. With BW, I have access to a darkroom and can print though I'm not experienced. So I'm only looking for a scanner to digitize for web use. Of course I don't want something crappy.

The budget is low but looking at my requirement, I think it's ok. I'll get myself a dedicated 35mm scanner, something old that costs me within 250 bucks. Will wait on the flatbed. MF sees really little use and if I feel the urge to digitize I have access to a friend's Epson. From your collective experience do you think the 2700dpi 35mm scanners are fine for me? Do they do justice to tonal range and so on? Would someone suggest the good ones?
 
I just checked out the specs for the Minolta 5400. They are pretty impressive: 5400dpi, 3 line CCD, 4.8 DMAX. These specs are as good as or better than the Nikon Coolscan 5000 for the price of a Nikon Coolscan V. Now I just have to convince my wife that I should buy one. That's the rub.

Kevin
 
Dear Anand,

Resolution is far from the be-all and end-all. With low-light pics (big grain, maybe a tiny bit of camera shake) it can be hard to tell upsampled 1800 dpi from true 5400 dpi. Only with really first-class 35mm (eg 75/2 Summicron on fine grain film) does 5400 dpi make any sense at all -- and even then, I'm not sure if there's more useful information than from 4000 dpi. Unfortunately 'quality' (undefined) is almost impossible to discover from published tests.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Theo-Prof said:
I'm pretty familiar with the Nikon scanners. I know virtually nothing about the Minolta scanners. Does Minolta make a film scanner that will do MF also? The Nikon 9000 that does 35 and MF runs about $2k, which is far more than I would want to spend. Has anyone had a good experience with the Minolta scanners?

Maybe I should just buy a film scanner for 35 and wait to buy a flatbed for MF and 4x5 later since I have far more 35mm images than MF and 4x5 put together.

Kevin
Click to expand...


I have the predecessor to the LS 9000, the LS 8000. I am VERY happy with the output. Used LS 8000's go for half the price of a new LS 9000 and produce professional quality output.

Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
How did you scan the film ?
2 3
Replies
43
Views
3K
boojum
boojum
J
Epson v800 banding/staircase effect
Replies
0
Views
42
Jan makowski
J
K
Pentax 6x7 Repairs
Replies
2
Views
454
Disappointed_Horse
Disappointed_Horse
ped
Batch scanner in 2025 - PrimeFilm 3600pro
2
Replies
20
Views
549
Godfrey
Godfrey
Rogier
Does software make the difference?
Replies
6
Views
278
Jan makowski
J
Back
Top Bottom