What film scanners do you like now?

N

nightfly

Well-known
Local time
12:31 AM
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
1,986
I've been shooting more film lately and was thinking of picking up a new scanner to replace my old Epson 4990. It's pretty tedious to use and was thinking of picking up more of a dedicated film scanner.

I shoot mostly 35 and occasionally 120. Was thinking of something like the Plustek OpticFilm 8100 and either keeping the 4990 for 120 or just paying to have 120 scanned on the rare occasions when I shoot it and ditching the 4990.

I'm on Mac running Sierra and tend to shy away from latest updates unless some critical software no longer works.

Any thoughts? Is something like the Plustek easier/better than the old Epson to justify? I also like the idea of something taking up less space. Shooting mostly color, if that matters.
 
If you were to go the route of paying for 120 scans, I'd go with something like the Nikon 4000. The quality is great and it's far more efficient than any flatbed
 
I'm using my Nikon 9000 ED exclusively and it's just great. I realize it's getting older, but so far so good, so fingers crossed for a few more years left in it.
 
Epson V600

Epson V600

For my money, the Epson V600 does a great job on 35mm and 120; great job on slides too.
 
I only shoot 35mm, so a Coolscan 5000 works very well for me. If you're just an occasional 120 shooter, just send that out and get the Coolscan 5000 for all your 35mm scans. If you shoot enough 120 to warrant the purchase, then I would go with the Coolscan 9000.
 
scanners

scanners

It very much depends on what you want to do with the scanned images. If you are just posting them to social media, it doesn't make much difference what you do, as the image requirements are less than what even you flatbed Epson will produce. If you are planning inkjet prints up 11x14 inches, an alternative might be one of the old used dedicated 35mm scanners for the 1990s with a real working resolution of around 2750. You can probably find something like that on ebay for less that $50. The issue with running those scanners today is that they were designed to run on Windows XP and whatever Apple was pushing back then. Solutions might be an old XP dedicated computer, or better, Vuescan on a current system. The old high-end Nikons and Minoltas, if they work, are great and software workarounds are out there. The simple fact is that there are no good quality consumer scanners being made for sale today in the US. In Europe there are items like the Reflecta, which is middle of the road and new.
 
If you want to do only 35mm, the old Minolta Dimage IV is pretty amazing. Be sure to get one with the film and slide holders as they seem impossible to find on their own. True resolution and simple to use.
 
i agree, it matters on what you plan to do with the scanned images. if its just social media, any flatbed will work for any film size. on the other extreme, if you want to do high quality, large size prints, than you will need an expensive scanner. keep an eye on Craigslist as there are sometimes some great bargains. I was looking for a used flatbed as i just got into 4x5. lo and behold, there was a imicon flextight from the wife of a now deceased photographer. I got it for cheaper than a used epson v700. dug out my old computer with a scsi card and off i went. also, there is now a nikon 5000 scanner for sale at less than $500, so deals can be found
 
I make prints up to about 16 x 20 and I'm primarily concerned with 35mm although 120 would be nice. However this usually adds about $1000 to the price and that's a lot of drum scans.

I don't really want anything with an outdated connector like SCSI or something where I have to worry every time a new OS X update comes out. I stay a little behind the bleeding edge as far as OS's go but I use my computer for work as a web developer so I need to keep it relatively up to date and don't have the time, space or patience for keeping an older machine around just for scanning.
 
The Minolta Dimage Elite 5400 is a good scanner if you can get it in good condition second hand for a good price. The quality of the scans is close to the drum scans I get from professional places. It does take quite long to scan an image at high res and you have to manually focus each frame.
 
I have a Nikon CS 9000 which I use for 35mm every now and then but for medium format and 4x5 I mostly use an Epson V850. The Nikon is better but I don't like Vuescan so I have to use an old MacBook to run NikonScan and it has it's own problems due to age (the Macbook). I guess sooner or later I'll have to spring for Silverfast but it costs about half of what I paid for the scanner back in the day (I got it cheap).

Recently I've been eyeing a Noritsu scanner which would be nice for 35mm but then again, I think I'd rather just print my negs in the darkroom and scan the prints. With scans I can never get the colors right anyway and they also come out more grainy than a darkroom print.
However, this brings me to the next problem: I need to print rather small so the print can be scanned on an A4 scanner. A3 scanners exist but they cost a small fortune.
 
I scan 35mm, 6 x 4.5, 6 x 7, and 6 x 9 negatives using my Plustek OpticFilm 120. If you can handle the god awful SilverFast software, it's an excellent scanner.
 
Ted Striker said:
I scan 35mm, 6 x 4.5, 6 x 7, and 6 x 9 negatives using my Plustek OpticFilm 120. If you can handle the god awful SilverFast software, it's an excellent scanner.
Click to expand...


This. For larger than 35 mm, the OpticFilm 120 is still the best current offer. For 35 mm only, I think the smaller OpticFilm scanners are hard to beat in terms of price and performance.


- N.
 
I have been very happy with my Minolta MultiPro to scan 35mm and 120 film for the last 13-14 years always using VueScan.
 
Bob Michaels said:
I have been very happy with my Minolta MultiPro to scan 35mm and 120 film for the last 13-14 years always using VueScan.
Click to expand...
Good to hear, Bob... I too have a Minolta MultiPro but it's never been used. I've thought "maybe one day" but it's not looking likely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom