What scanner to buy for 35mm and 120 film?

[jlw]

Since one of my New Year not-quite-resolutions is to get more of my old negatives scanned, I'm going to need a scanner that can handle both 35mm and 120 negatives (6x6cm from the folding Mamiya Six I used to have) in uncut strips.

(I've got an old Canon 4000 35mm film scanner that still gets the job done for high quality scans -- when I've got a whole evening to scan and prep one negative, that is -- but for this project I'm going to need to be able to scan in batches.)

After reading the reviews on Photo-i and other places, it looked as if the top contenders were the Epson V700 (the 750 is out of my price range) and the Canon 9950. Of the two, the Canon seemed preferable -- it has better film holders, and its results in the Photo-i samples looked comparable to those of the Epson.

But-- this scanner seems to have disappeared suddenly from the market! It was on the B&W website a couple of weeks ago when I checked, but now it's not. It's not on Adorama either. And while there's still info about it on the Canon USA website, it's not available from their online store.

Does anybody know why? Has Canon announced a replacement model? Or have they gotten out of the higher-end scanner market entirely, the way they did with 35mm film/slide scanners?

Assuming Canon has bailed, is the V700 the best choice? Are the Microtek i800/i900 models realistic alternatives? (These seem to have impressive specs but crummy film holders.) Microtek has announced a new high-end model, the M1, for (maybe) February 2007... maybe I should wait and have a look at that?

Thoughts from those in the know appreciated!

 

[Nachkebia]

Nikon Coolscan 9000

 

[jlw]

Nikon Coolscan 9000

Too expensive for me, and I need to be able to scan in batches.

 

[stevew]

Scanners

Scanners

Unfortunately, you can't have it all! I have a Epson 4990 and a Nikon Coolscan V. The Epson I use for making 35mm film scan contact sheets and 120 and 4x5. If you expect quality results with 35mm you will need a dedicated film scanner. As a reference, 120 film scans roughly compare with a 6mp digital camera image.

 

[JoeFriday]

I gotta agree with stevew.. I've got an Epson 4490 and a Nikon Coolscan V, and I've come to the same conclusions

 

[colyn]

Unfortunately, you can't have it all! I have a Epson 4990 and a Nikon Coolscan V. The Epson I use for making 35mm film scan contact sheets and 120 and 4x5. If you expect quality results with 35mm you will need a dedicated film scanner. As a reference, 120 film scans roughly compare with a 6mp digital camera image.

I scanned the negative with the Epson Perfection 4490 Photo for this shot. See attached photo.. The only manipulation was to convert to B&W in Photoshop.



I would say this scanner does an excellent job.

Dedicated scanners tend to be overpriced for what they really are.

 

[BerndReini]

Epson V750

Epson V750

I own an Epson V750 and a Canaon FS4000 dedicated 35mm scanner, and I was shocked to discover with a recent negative that the Epson 750 gave me better detail in the highlights. This could be a result of different software, but it was surprising nevertheless. Further, I tend to not sharpen my negs too much because I shoot 400 B&W and I prefer some creaminess over too much grain.
I can't speak for the V700 but the 750 is excellent in all regards.
It is so convienient to load up 24 negs and have a cup of coffe while the scanner does all the work.

And yes I agree, the negative holders are a pain and I am waiting for an aftermarket solution.

 

[venchka]

...

As a reference, 120 film scans roughly compare with a 6mp digital camera image.

Why is that? Can't you scan at higher ppi or dpi?

 

[ffttklackdedeng]

I've been using an Epson 3170 a while ago and went for the Coolscan V later. Comparing the same negative, the 3170 provided comparable results (for my eyes!) up to an 5x enlargement, i.e. 12x18cm for 35mm film.

Based on the test results of the 3170 vs. V700 of a magazine I happen to trust more than the photo-i site (which used to claim that the then-newest Epson is always almost as good as the 4000dpi dedicated film scanners) I guess that the V700 would be as good as ever necessary for up to 8x enlargment for _me_. So I would not hesitate to try it if 8x would be the max and MF scans would be required, too.

You need different post processing for flatbed vs. dedicated (à la CS V) - the first needs a lot of sharpening while the last will need care for grain aliasing (at least with some b&w films).

 

[lynn]

I would say this scanner does an excellent job.

Dedicated scanners tend to be overpriced for what they really are.

Thank you! I have a Minolta Dualscan IV for 35mm, but I really need to be able to scan all the MF I shoot, and the 4490 is very reasonably priced in the Netherlands right now...
How big a step UP is the 4990? Quality-wise? Anyone?

 

[stevew]

Flatbed scanners!

Flatbed scanners!

All the "consumer" flatbeds top out at about 5X enlargement ability (your standards may differ on quality). So 35mm goes to about 5x7in, 6x4.5cm goes to about 9x12in and 4x5in up about 16x20 inches. Some peoples standards will allow them to tolerate bigger enlargements than these, but some won't accept even 5x enlargement. It depends if you are trying a museum show or not.

High end Creo flatbed scanners, drum scanners, and Imigon scanners are a different matter.

Dedicated film scanners have much better optical systems and are able to handle enlargements as large as you want (depending on how much grain you accept in your images).

 

[MikeL]

As always, take with a grain of salt. I spent a week of nightime scanning with the Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED and Epson v750. I could not get equivalent results on 35mm film scans printed to 8x10s so I took the hit of a restocking fee and returned the Epson. The results were close, but after working to get the best scan on both, the Epson scans had less detail and contrast in textures like clothing, wood, etc. To get them close required a lot more post processing in my experience (sharpening, color). I used Nikonscan and Silverfast. If I hadn't used the Coolscan for the past 6 months I would have been happy with the Epson. I've been selling some old computers and some lenses to get the Coolscan 9000. With enough effort I would guess someone could get very similar files, but I like not having to sharpen and tweak a lot and I'm willing to trade money for time. Just my limited experience.

 

[eon]

All scanners have enouth resolution, regardless of scanner type. You don't need 4000 DPI.

The difference is focus!
Film scanners can focus precisely on the grains and the flatbed scanners cannot. This is due to the technical difference in hardware, due to the fact that flatbed scanners are not intended for film.

Therefore flatbed scanning gives a softer look. If you like that it's no problem, but don't look for sharp modern lenses for your camera then.

Epson has a film scanner for medium format called something like F3200. This scanner uses flatbed technics and is therefore not as good as expected.


/Erik

 

[achi4]

scanner for 35mm and 120 film

scanner for 35mm and 120 film

After spending money on the then best Epson flatbed scanner, I ended up buying the Nikon 8000, which was then the current model. The difference was worth every cent.

regards,

maurice

 

[sejanus]

Does anyone know of any scanners which can batch an entire roll of 35mm? I'd really like to find something that I can just feed a roll into and leave it to get on with the job. I've hunted high and low but the only one that looked interesting was a cheap Epson flatbed with a motorised TPU, which now seems to be defunct. I'm not looking for high quality, If I want a print, I'll put the neg in my enlarger. All I want is to be able to catalogue stuff.

 

[lZr]

I go with Epson 4990. This scanner is top quality 120 scanner.

 

[Terao]

Does anyone know of any scanners which can batch an entire roll of 35mm? I'd really like to find something that I can just feed a roll into and leave it to get on with the job. I've hunted high and low but the only one that looked interesting was a cheap Epson flatbed with a motorised TPU, which now seems to be defunct. I'm not looking for high quality, If I want a print, I'll put the neg in my enlarger. All I want is to be able to catalogue stuff.

The Nikon Super Coolscans (4000 and 5000 ED models) have an optional roll-film adapter - will take up to 50 shots I believe....

Adapter is pretty pricey unless you can find one secondhand...

 

[Terao]

Epson has a film scanner for medium format called something like F3200. This scanner uses flatbed technics and is therefore not as good as expected.


/Erik

Yep, been there, done that. It does a pretty good job (certainly better than a flatbed, but that's more down to film handling than technology) but isn't a patch on a dedicated film scanner. Of course, its also a third of the price...
I sold mine for more or less what I paid for it when I sold my MF gear...

 

[RObert Budding]

Too expensive for me, and I need to be able to scan in batches.

Nikon scanners hold their value well. You could buy one (or 2) for your project and then sell them when you've finished.

The biggest cost of scanning is time. I'd rather use very good equipment and only scan once.

The Nikon Coolscan 5000 has a roll film adapter. But I would expect that your old negs have already been cut so it will be of limited use.

 

[LeicaM3]

Coolscan

Coolscan

The Nikon Super Coolscans (4000 and 5000 ED models) have an optional roll-film adapter - will take up to 50 shots I believe....

Adapter is pretty pricey unless you can find one secondhand...

There is no need for the roll-film adapter.
Put the Coolscan at enough elevation above the ground and feed the roll. Since the film will hang down vertically dust is not a problem during scanning.

I have scanned hundred of rolls that way and it works perfect.

I can not imagine popping half the scanner price for a roll film adapter.


Greets,
Andreas