Best/Cheapest 35mm Scanner

[Sully75]

Hi there,

I have an Epson 4870, still working out the kinks for 35mm, but wondering if there are any older scanners that might be available used that would be better for dedicated 35mm scanning? I'm getting pretty good MF results with the Epson so far and hope to get better as my technique improves. But 35mm scans of quality seem like they may be a stretch.

Are there older Minoltas or Nikons that would be good to watch out for? There seems to be a million models, so I'm not sure what to look for.

By cheap, I'm talking <$250.

 

[pellicle]

Sully

I started with a Nikon LS-20, which is 2700dpi and has no ICE, these are SCSI only and IF you can get one in good condition then perhaps.

But to be totally frank I just don't use it anymore because I can get better results with the Epson 4870 than the Coolscan LS-20

now, lets make some assumptions here: Lets assume that the Nikon is 100% 2700 samples per inch scanning and that the Epson is only a 2000 spi real world scanner (I think this is a reasonable assumption, scanning at 2400dpi setting and down sampling to 2000 look quite clean).

will moving from 2000 samples per inch to 2700 make a real significant difference ... it is in fact only about a 30% increase.

you need to double the figure (4000 samples per inch) to make a significant difference at capturing more details.

It remains to be seen if the scanners like the Plustec which claim 7200dpi actually do more than subdividing a blurry image into more pixels of the same blur.

Optics play an enormous role here (its not just numbers) and a crappy lens will make higher resolutions impossible. Try using a $50 x200 microscope vs a high quality Olympus or Zeiss one in a lab ... there is a reason they cost thousands.

Good flatbed scanners have good optics ... it makes a huge difference

The next problem you'll face is age. Things are getting dirtier inside with foggy buildup on mirror surfaces, this will degrade your image. Go read this guys site:

http://www.sebsgarage.com/2005/11/cleaning-nikon-coolscan-iv-ed-ls-40-film-scanner

check out the buildup he found on the mirrors

I live in Finland, we have double glass inside windows with a third pane on the outside. No matter what after 15 years the insides of the double pane set are foggy ... even though they are sealed.

This means that any older scanner you buy will need cleaning internally. Fog makes a huge difference to contrast if nothing else.

I have owned
Nikon LS-20
Nikon LS-40
Nikon LS-4000
Epson 3200
Epson 4870
Epson 4990

I can say that for 90% of what I do with 35mm I use my Epson. If I'm after a big print of a specific neg then I pull out my LS-4000, but otherwise the 4870 will get as much detail as I get from the LS-40 (which is rated at 2900dpi, a smidge over the 2700dpi of the LS-20). I don't even use the LS-20 anymore as my Epson betters it in every way (especially scanning multiple strips of film in unattended operation... I don't particularly enjoy sitting there for hours watching it all happen)

What I really notice with the Nikons is you really really need to nail focus. You see as the optics get more precise, so too does the requirement of focus accuracy.

I recommend you read this page of mine
http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2009/03/nikon-iv-ed-vs-epson-flatbed.html

I think that unless you go and spend money on a scanner like the Imacon/Hassleblad V-5 then you will only be tinkering around the edges.

I expect that there is much you can do with learning to use your 4870 to better effect. I believe that its as good a tool as you'll get for the money.

Don't dismiss 'sharpening' as fudgery ... software fixes for your images can add a lot of value ... NASA seemed to have thought so when they applied processing to the hubble before they could get up to fix the optics[1].

The error was well characterized and stable, enabling astronomers to optimize the results obtained using sophisticated image processing techniques

I've made prints from 35mm film to 40cm wide scanned with my 4870 ... noone has said anything more than they are great photographs. At 8x15 in size or even WWW sizes I'm sure you'll need careful analysis to tell the difference.

so, no in the < $250 area I think you'll be on a wild goose chase to improve over your Epson (unless its filthy an needs a clean)

 

[L Gebhardt]

If you can find an older Canon CanoScan FS4000 they are very good scanners and I think they should be in your budget. Search Ebay for both Canon FS4000 and FS4000US. VueScan supports this scanner and it's needed to run on a modern Mac.

The older 4000dpi Nikons are also good, but more expensive. I would skip the 2700dpi versions from what I have seen.

 

[F80p]

how about the canoscan LIDE 700f?
9600DPI!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'm going to revive this thread, but ask what 35mm scanners are best, money is no object up to about $3k.

I have seen some VERY impressive neg scans and subsequent prints from the Konica Minolta 5400 Elite Scan. I have seen some 35mm scans from Imacon Flextight (3200dpi version) scanners that are almost as good.

I need something that I can put on my desk that isn't the size of an Epson 3800 printer.

- Thomas

 

[pellicle]

the minolta is good, but I think the Nikon LS-5000 is better constructed / equipped ... how much is an X-5?

In that light either of the Minolta/Nikon look good value for money

 

[SilverGlow]

I love my Nikon Super CoolScan 5000 ED....excellent quality...for 35mm scanning stear clear of any and all flatbed scanners...they all suck unless you're scanning medium format or larger.

 

[Donsta]

I've owned a bunch of dedicated film scanners and flatbeds, and currently have a Minolta Scan Multi Pro, Dimage Scan 5400II, Dimage Scan 5400, Nikon 5000 ,an Epson 4990 and a Howtek 4500 drum scanner. You may be able to pick up a Minolta Dimage Scan 5400 for around $600, and for that money, it's an excellent scanner; although not particularly fast. The Nikon 5000 is an excellent tool, but prices have gone through the roof since they were discontinued. I'd stay away from a consumer flatbed for 35mm, unless you are very "unfussy" about what your scans look like.

 

[pekoni]

Reflecta Proscan 7200.
Optical 3600 dpi; eff 3200dpi

 

[tgphoto]

X-5 is pretty pricey at around $17-20K.

There's also Scitex/Creo/Leaf/Kodak iQSmart flatbeds for $8-12K.

 

[epatsellis]

Don't forget the Polaroid SprintScan 4000, decent scanner that comes up at a reasonable price from time to time, SCSI connection on the early ones, USB on the later

 

[donbga]

USB on the later

Firewire, not USB.

Don Bryant

 

[epatsellis]

I stand corrected, having only the first version, I was going from memory (a shaky proposition)

in fact, decent hardly does the scanner justice. It's surprisingly good, and for the money (typically under $200) will out perform most of the inexpensive options, but be sure to get the negative and slide carrier with it, availability from Microtek was iffy at one time, and now likely NLA.