What scanner.....

[MiniMoke]

Here's the eternal question: I'm looking (again) for a good, not expensive film scanner (35mm mainly).

Possible choices are the Plustek 7400/7600/8100 series (No need for Silverfast
software, I hate it with a passion!), Epson Perfection V600 or Canon Cancan 9000F MkII.

Bad points for the Plusteks are of course the time consuming feeding of negatives or slides. The flatbeds eat up to 12 negs in one helping - much faster.

Bad points for flatbeds are perhaps less quality (I don't look for absolute sharpness, that would mean buying a horribly expensive Nikon or Hasselblad scanner), and they are fairly large....

Please no digital-camera-with-macro-lens solutions, got none of those.

I'd love if anyone could chime in with some advice here.

Thanks and enjoy the summer (or winter for those Down Under)

 

[Merlijn53]

Do not use "good" and "not expensive" in the same sentence when you talk about scanners. It can be "good enough" for your purpose, but never good. Try any Epson flatbed if it's only for viewing your negatives or use on the internet.
If you want more and are prepared to pay between €350 and €500 look for a Minolta Elite 5400 on Ebay.
Frank

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Some Bad inSinuations are floating above. 🙄

I have printed from v330 and v550 scans of 135 and 220 film. Great results.
I could see every hair at full body portrait taken with old Leitz lens on Leica and it shows me on print every detail I need. The print is something larger than 8x10.
Not to mention MF scans.
Epson's 330, 550 and 600 (I think) are with the same kind of the sensor, but different size of the scanning window.
I like Epson native software, very simple, but great TIFFs to work and convert to screen or print files.
Those scanners real max resolution on 135 film is 1800 dpi.
Scanning in more DPI works like kind of sharpening on scaling down in LR.
Epsons are great with horizontal scratches, filtering out many.
I have dedicated PI 7200 for 135 as well. Very small, did better job on scanning of damaged color negatives for me. But this one will pickup every single horizontal scratch on the film, emultion or even at the back of the negative.
Cheers, Ko.

 

[Dwig]

"Good" is a value judgement. One person's "good" is not the same an any other person's "good".

The bulk of my personal film, as opposed to reflective print, scanning experience, measured in number of film images scanned, is with EPSON v700 and Imacon 828 scanners, the latter is very similar to the current Hasselblad Imacon X1. Both are "good". I've also used an EPSON v330, but only a few times. The v700 and v330 are my personal scanners and the Imacon is the one I use at work.

Within the limits of "not expensive", again everybody's definition is different, I would say that one of the mid-line EPSON flatbeds would be a good choice. The bundled EPSONSCAN software if quite competent, though as with all scanning software you will need to process the scanner's files in a good image editor afterwards if you want the best image quality. The ability to batch scan has been a big plus for the family history images as that collection totals over a thousand images.

My v700 scans are mostly old "family history" images. I build a library of images from the late 19th century onward, most from film negs of a wide variety of formats. The images are for screen display and small (13x19" and smaller) prints. The v700 has been excellent for that purpose. Even the rare 13x19 print from a 35mm transparency will match the resolution of a typical color "wet" print from 35mm.

The Imacon is a much different beast, which with a selling price equal to that of a new car you would expect. I use it for scans that will be printed at typical sizes in the 20x30" to 40x60" range with the occasional print even larger. These scans are noticeably crisper than those of the v700 though the difference only shows at larger print sizes. Also, the Imacon scans require significantly more post processing cleanup as the scanners lighting accentuates any and all surface irregularities. The EPSON's more diffuse lighting doesn't do this.

 

[Godfrey]

Get yourself a used Nikon Coolscan IV or V with SA-21 auto-feed unit. Drive it with VueScan. Best bang for the buck for 35mm negatives, and a durable scanner that will last for many years.

Buying "inexpensive" on this kind of gear generally ends up costing more in the long run. It's similar to buying inexpensive tripods...

G

 

[Merlijn53]

Well, don't know what you mean by "bad insinuations" but what I wrote is based on my own experience for the last 15 years. At the moment I'm using an Epson 700, a Minolta 5400 and an Imacon Flextight II.
Differences are huge. I use the Epson to make kind of contact prints of all my negatives, the Minolta for 35mm, because it's a lot faster than the Imacon which I use for the rest. Scans from the Epson look ok and are usable but viewed next to scans from the other scanners it's not good.
Why using the best lenses on your camera and than scanning your negatives on a flatbed? You can't even see the difference between the best Leitz lenses and a cheap zoomlens.
As I said, it depends on what you want to do with the scans. Often a flatbed is good enough, often it's not.
Frank

 

[mfogiel]

If you decided to go MF only, then a flatbed could be "sufficient", providing you learn how to fiddle with adjustable height holders, keep the film flat, etc, and do not enlarge beyond 8x. For B&W I would even say the results were more pleasing for certain subjects than from Nikon CS9000, given that with the flatbeds you cannot resolve (fine) grain.
For 35mm, wishing to print bigger than 8x10, I would say the better route would be one of the dedicated scanners, as indicated above.
The observation, that using Leica lenses and cheap scanners does not seem sensible is very accurate. Before you invest in USD 1000+ lenses, invest in a good scanner.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Well, don't know what you mean by "bad insinuations" but what I wrote is based on my own experience for the last 15 years. At the moment I'm using an Epson 700, a Minolta 5400 and an Imacon Flextight II.
Differences are huge. I use the Epson to make kind of contact prints of all my negatives, the Minolta for 35mm, because it's a lot faster than the Imacon which I use for the rest. Scans from the Epson look ok and are usable but viewed next to scans from the other scanners it's not good.
Why using the best lenses on your camera and than scanning your negatives on a flatbed? You can't even see the difference between the best Leitz lenses and a cheap zoomlens.
As I said, it depends on what you want to do with the scans. Often a flatbed is good enough, often it's not.
Frank

I also print under enlarger, BTW.
Yea, I have years of experience with Epson flatbeds.
Perhaps, I'm visually advanced. I could often see differences in lenses even at 640x480 internet sized images. But only if those are not test crap-shots at f16 and tripod 😀.
Cheers, Ko.

 

[ChrisLivsey]

Do some research first, start here:

https://luminous-landscape.com/epson-v850-pro-scanner-context/

Epson V750/850, Plustek OF120, Nikon 5000, Nikon 9000, Imacon, Minolta 5400

This shows the expected massive increase in cost for an incremental quality gain, that gain is essential for some though and more visible to some observers, as said above value judgements are just that, some people want to squeeze 6x6 quality from a 35mm frame :angel: same argument.

 

[Merlijn53]

"Perhaps, I'm visually advanced. I could often see differences in lenses even at 640x480 internet sized images. But only if those are not test crap-shots at f16 and tripod ."
Cheers, Ko.

Sure 🙂
Frank

 

[lewis44]

Very Good Advise. Both are much better than the Plustek and easier to use. The IV (LS40) is 2900 dpi and the V (LS50) is 4000 dpi. Quality is about the same.

Get yourself a used Nikon Coolscan IV or V with SA-21 auto-feed unit. Drive it with VueScan. Best bang for the buck for 35mm negatives, and a durable scanner that will last for many years.

Buying "inexpensive" on this kind of gear generally ends up costing more in the long run. It's similar to buying inexpensive tripods...

G

 

[astro8]

I have a Canon FS4000 (usb1.1&scsi), Nikon 2000(scsi), Nikon 4000(firewire), Pakon 135+ (usb2), Minolta Multi II (for 6x6, scsi) and a Scanmate drum (scsi).

For scanning negs to print up to A4 size it's hard to go past the Pakon or the Nikon 2000. If printing at A3+ I'll probably use the Canon FS4000 or the Nikon 4000 (which also has the accessory slide feeder and full roll capability). Both produce excellent scans but I will just as likely use the Pakon or Nikon 2000.

The drum is a PITA, the Canon and Nikons although they produce excellent scans are slow. The Pakon is a dream...

The Canon FS4000 and Nikon 2000 are pretty cheap ($200-$300) when you find them. The FS4000 can batch scan a strip of 6 negs at a time can be run off USB, although it's slower than using its SCSI mode, but not all that much if you have a fast computer. The Pakon scans full rolls (it has climbed in price lately, but still under $1000, maybe less) is USB and super fast although you need to setup a Windows XP environment.

There is a Pakon 135's non-Plus model that is available more cheaply. I'm almost certain ( I'd have to brush up) that the non-Plus model can attain the full 2000x3000dpi (ppi) of the Plus model going the long way around in the software. One of these models might be worth investigating.

I run all the above (except the drum) off a Windows7 machine.

If I could have only one, it would be the Pakon. It has even made scanning fun, in a way...YMMV.

 

[Addy101]

Everybody seems to have their favourite scanning solution. It seem to depend on what people have used, what they consider good and what they consider affordable.

Look at the reviews over at filmscanner.info for serious reviews of scanners. Basically it goes like this:
Drum scans are the best but very expensive.
Minolta (e.g. 5400), Nikon (e.g. LS50) and Canon (FS4000) scanners are next up.
Plustek and Reflecta scanners are good, cheap and close to the Minolta/Nikon/Canon scanners.
High end flatbed scanners like the Epson V700/750/850 and Canon 9000F are close to the Plusteks.
Mid-range flatbed scanners like the Epson V550/600 are good enough for a lot of people.

Now you decide 😀

 

[f16sunshine]

I like what I consider to be "grain level" scanning. The Nikons are capable of this. Anything else below them is not (drums are of course but lets talk about consumer things).
Unfortunately I let my Nikon go. It actually was broken by the USPS in transit to the new owner.

Presently I use a Pakon Scanner.
For fine grain B+W films and color film it's great.
I don't like it for grainy B+W film (which I love!).

It makes the grain look like digital noise. The Epson V700 does the same.

If you prefer a smooth grainfree negative and shoot for that in your workflow (Acros for example), a Pakon or Epson V700 will work well for you.
The Pakon is wonderful for c41 color as well, The Epson much less so.
If you like to push Tri-X and HP5 to 1600 in Warm Rodinal for a gritty grainy look.... better keep your eyes out for a nikon or better.

Cheers!

 

[Daan]

To me the real winner in this category is the minolta dual scan IV; it's not expensive and good.

I have a minolta 5400 now and also like it, but the dual scan is not far behind. I compared my old dual scan with the 5400 and could see only the slightest difference.

 

[MiniMoke]

Thanks for all the advice ! I appreciate.

As I'm a bit tight in the budget department I guess I'll have to stay around 200€ new. Won't get a Coolscan IV at that price I guess....

 

[V-12]

You should go back to your first idea and get a Plustek 8100 and a copy of Vuescan. It is a terrific scanner that comes under your budget and frankly I don't know why there is an 'attitude' about it, if it had 'Nikon' on the front we'd hear radically different views of it. The scans are as good as my Minolta Multi Pro could do (Nikon 9000 equivalent).

But you will have to suffer hand feeding the scanner until you can afford a cheap flatbed for your digital contact sheets. But for thumbnails the scanner will be very fast, so perhaps not the chore you think it might be. You then choose the best negatives for high resolution scanning.

V

 

[MiniMoke]

But you will have to suffer hand feeding the scanner until you can afford a cheap flatbed for your digital contact sheets. But for thumbnails the scanner will be very fast, so perhaps not the chore you think it might be. You then choose the best negatives for high resolution scanning.

V

Thanks, great advice! That makes sense to me.

 

[ForestCap]

You should go back to your first idea and get a Plustek 8100 and a copy of Vuescan. It is a terrific scanner that comes under your budget and frankly I don't know why there is an 'attitude' about it, if it had 'Nikon' on the front we'd hear radically different views of it. The scans are as good as my Minolta Multi Pro could do (Nikon 9000 equivalent).

But you will have to suffer hand feeding the scanner until you can afford a cheap flatbed for your digital contact sheets. But for thumbnails the scanner will be very fast, so perhaps not the chore you think it might be. You then choose the best negatives for high resolution scanning.

V

I'm also happy with my PlusTek, together with VueScan.

With VueScan you can fiddle with the film base colour (if you scan colour negatives) which is "full manual, I control it!" if you pursue it. Or you can do auto or semi-manual adjustment just for the white balance, high/low curves and colour balance.

PlusTek is not that slow unless I scan it at max dpi., which I almost never do.

 

[Scrambler]

I have a Canon FS4000 (usb1.1&scsi), Nikon 2000(scsi), Nikon 4000(firewire), Pakon 135+ (usb2), Minolta Multi II (for 6x6, scsi) and a Scanmate drum (scsi).

For scanning negs to print up to A4 size it's hard to go past the Pakon or the Nikon 2000. If printing at A3+ I'll probably use the Canon FS4000 or the Nikon 4000 (which also has the accessory slide feeder and full roll capability). Both produce excellent scans but I will just as likely use the Pakon or Nikon 2000.

The drum is a PITA, the Canon and Nikons although they produce excellent scans are slow. The Pakon is a dream...

The Canon FS4000 and Nikon 2000 are pretty cheap ($200-$300) when you find them. The FS4000 can batch scan a strip of 6 negs at a time can be run off USB, although it's slower than using its SCSI mode, but not all that much if you have a fast computer. The Pakon scans full rolls (it has climbed in price lately, but still under $1000, maybe less) is USB and super fast although you need to setup a Windows XP environment.

There is a Pakon 135's non-Plus model that is available more cheaply. I'm almost certain ( I'd have to brush up) that the non-Plus model can attain the full 2000x3000dpi (ppi) of the Plus model going the long way around in the software. One of these models might be worth investigating.

I run all the above (except the drum) off a Windows7 machine.

If I could have only one, it would be the Pakon. It has even made scanning fun, in a way...YMMV.

Thanks for all the advice ! I appreciate.

As I'm a bit tight in the budget department I guess I'll have to stay around 200€ new. Won't get a Coolscan IV at that price I guess....

You should go back to your first idea and get a Plustek 8100 and a copy of Vuescan. It is a terrific scanner that comes under your budget and frankly I don't know why there is an 'attitude' about it, if it had 'Nikon' on the front we'd hear radically different views of it. The scans are as good as my Minolta Multi Pro could do (Nikon 9000 equivalent).

But you will have to suffer hand feeding the scanner until you can afford a cheap flatbed for your digital contact sheets. But for thumbnails the scanner will be very fast, so perhaps not the chore you think it might be. You then choose the best negatives for high resolution scanning.

V

I would highly recommend rereading and considering astro8's comments.

Vuescan is, I think, a no-brainer. It works with everything for one sensible fee.

Working with budget and availability I have used a Canon 8800f (precurser to the 9000f), an older PlusTek and a Canoscan FS4000 personally. Of these I still use the 8800 and the FS4000. The frame-by-frame Plustek was really annoying. The flatbed gets good resolution and a surprising level of detail but smooths the grain (so loss of REALLY fine detail). I might try to dig up my head-to-head scans. Images look quite different between the flatbed and the dedicated film scanners. I'm not convinced that the flatbed is "inferior" - it's mostly a different way of seeing rather than "wrong." It's more like a print - smoother tones, invisible (or subtle) grain.

I photograph with MF and have even scanned LF (cropped) on the flatbed - impossible with the 35mm scanners. The 35mm scanners, though, show up grain nicely and in the modern world that does at least give the images a signature "film" look.

If I had to have one affordable scanner for 35mm, I'd look at the Canonscan fs4000. For the money, my second choice would be a film-capable, competent flatbed.