Small, compact 135 scanner: Go with the new Reflecta / Plustek or Old Minolta?

[pixelatedscraps]

I'm looking for a small, fairly compact, high-quality 135 negative scanner with a batch scanning mode to fit in my office.

I've been looking at the following models:

Reflecta RPS 7200 Pro
Plustek 7600i
Minolta 5400 I
Minolta Scan Dual IV
Nikon LS-50 V

Obviously, either of the Minoltas or Nikon would be the wiser albeit more expensive choice but then all three are pushing 6 years old now, not to mention being discontinued.

Does the wiser choice then turn to one of the cheaper Reflecta or Plustek models? This is strictly for archival and web purposes - I don't see the images from these going much further than Flickr or Facebook. If I want something printed properly, I'd get the negatives scanned at a lab.

Thoughts?

 

[Liszon]

I would worry about age:
I bought a second hand Canon fs4000us not so long ago, and I guess it was "over 30,000 scans" too, and it went dead quickly!
For more details see: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119235

Just for archiving and web the Plustek 7600i would be fine, and at least it has official manufacturers support, and spare parts for a couple years to come.

 

[Mablo]

I had a Nikon Coolscan 5000ED before. It was a nice scanner, maybe a bit slow and noisy sometimes. Now I'm using a Plustek 7400 with the latest Vuescan software. I'm quite happy with the combo. My Plustek scanner is fast and quiet and I think the image quality is good enough for my purposes.

 

[pixelatedscraps]

Fairly divided opinions: as are mine!

Been reading a lot about the Reflectas and Plusteks. I'd love to see some scanned images from anyone here who uses either the Reflecta or Plustek, particularly at full size.

 

[pixelatedscraps]

I'm currently using a Canoscan 9000F and have been quite disappointed with the 35mm results.

MF is okay when leaving all adjustments off and doing everything in post-process in Lightroom or PS.

Would anyone recommend the Plustek over the Canoscan or would I be expecting fairly similar results?

 

[Rogrund]

I find the Plustek (which I have now) much better than the Canoscan 8600F I had before.

 

[Frank Petronio]

The Plustek has no feed other than your hand! I am not sure about the Reflecta. The feed, even if it is only 5-6 frames, is very nice for leaving it alone for a few minutes while it works. However it can also be a source of mechanical problems.

Each scanner renders film differently, especially B&W, and you may have to experiment to find the one that pleases you. I think the Nikons will be the most reliable and best built. None of the software has been impressive to me, I prefer VueScan and heavy editing in Photoshop.

I use cheap old Minolta Dual Scan IVs but I like the grainy look. I have owned 5-6 and currently use one and have another set aside for back-up. I only buy them when I find them under $150. They are not well built but they make a nice, almost too sharp scan. I just toss them when they jam up, first I let them sit and reset, sometimes I whack them before the trash can ;-p

 

[sandermarijn]

I have both an Epson 4490 flatbed and a Minolta Scan Dual III 35mm scanner. The Minolta has the better resolution, the Epson is better tonality wise.

I've tried Vuescan with the Minolta and don't like it very much. It crashes all the time and the interface is pretty terrible.

Flatbeds are good enough for me (I would like to have a Nikon, but they are just waaaay too expensive for my use). A Plustek-priced Nikon, that would be great!

 

[wblynch]

Buy new scanners when you can so they will keep making them.

If I needed a new 35mm scanner I would buy a Plustek. But I would buy the cheap one with the basic software. I wouldn't pay double just for the software. Use Vuescan instead.

 

[cabbiinc]

Buy new scanners when you can so they will keep making them.

If I needed a new 35mm scanner I would buy a Plustek. But I would buy the cheap one with the basic software. I wouldn't pay double just for the software. Use Vuescan instead.

I would definitely opt for the IR dust removal though. I love that feature on my scanners (non-Plustek but same idea).

 

[Danlo]

Plustek 7400

Plustek 7400

Im gonna go for the Plustek 7400. Its the best bang for the buck if you can still find it new.
The full sized 16-mp scans I have seen are VERY GOOD. No ICE, but who the hell needs it? Yes it could be nice if you only shoot slides, but otherwise? The ICE I have seen just destroys the images and makes it look like youve used "dust and scratches" in photoshop on it. All detail smeared out. So, no thanks to ICE for me. And it takes between 5-15 min per scanned negative to dust it off with the clone stamp in Ps..

Just my 2..

 

[gavinlg]

I have a plustek 8100 and I'm pretty happy with it. It does lack in DR but you can get around it if you make multiple passes and if you know how to 'scan flat'.

On the plus side, it's nearly silent, it's super quick, and it's higher resolution than a high-end flatbed by a fair margin.

I'm pretty happy with it.

 

[wblynch]

Yeah I agree with that. ICE, when you need it - you NEED it.

I would definitely opt for the IR dust removal though. I love that feature on my scanners (non-Plustek but same idea).

 

[DRabbit]

Im gonna go for the Plustek 7400. Its the best bang for the buck if you can still find it new.
The full sized 16-mp scans I have seen are VERY GOOD. No ICE, but who the hell needs it? Yes it could be nice if you only shoot slides, but otherwise? The ICE I have seen just destroys the images and makes it look like youve used "dust and scratches" in photoshop on it. All detail smeared out. So, no thanks to ICE for me. And it takes between 5-15 min per scanned negative to dust it off with the clone stamp in Ps..

Just my 2..

I've got the 7300 and it really is excellent (especially for the money). Agree with Danlo and ICE... I actually use VueScan to do my scanning with it.

No auto-feed though. You have to advance the negatives/slides by hand.

A scan from it: