Scanners aound 200?

Hi all, this is my first post here. I started up this thread on APUG and was pointed in this direction, so here I am


Ok well as the title says, i'm after a scanner around 200.

Now I have to start by saying that I cannot at all go above that. So no High Nikons or Minolta 5400 recomendations please

I can find the Plustek 7500i SE for 200 and change. However while I appreciate resolution I appreciate dynamic range a lot more as I won't consider this purchase to be my last scanner for archival purposes and for smaller say A4 prints I would probably appreciate dmax more I imagine.

So I was wondering are there any better scanners around that price? Second Hand Minolta Dual Scan IIIs tend to be around 160, anyone know how they compare. Maybe its better, maybe worse but then again no warranty

I've not been able to really find any flatbeds that provide comparable quality in sharpness or other areas, but if i'm wrong please give me your suggestions.

Oh and that 200 top end give or take a couple of pounds really is a maximum. I'm unemployed right now and I would otherwise wait till I had a rather larger sum to get a top end scanner.

edit: I thought I would add a little more info from my original post. Basically I will only be scanning 35mm film for the foreseeable future. I will be uploading and doing some prints. A lot of my files will end up on CDs or in emails off to people who want prints of certain pics so that's the main use it will get along with online galleries and me experimenting.
I do appreciate all opinions and personal experience, but I know how often people can get into a defend and revere particular brands at the expense of others. I've seen reviews for the plustek that go both ways. Though usually the really negative reviews often seem a little imbalanced and are often followed with get a 5x more expensive this or that instead . All I care about personally is image quality within my price range.

Thanks all in advance

I have a friend who had a Dual Scan III and liked it very much. As another option consider a Microtek 4000tf. I have seen a few on ebay recently, one of which went for 70. This is a 4000dpi scanner and I think it has a 4.3DMax so should get good results. I have also been told that it has some sort of hardware interpolation up to 8000dpi which is very good. I haven't used one of these myself but if I was in the market for a new 35mm scanner for under 200 I would give it a try. If you don't like it you can always sell it again.

Hi Jack,

Can I ask a question back.

How many negs have you got?

& are they negs like strips of negs or are they mounted 35mm slides (positive trannies)?

I've seen a few microteks go but ill keep a look out for it. Thanks for the feedback on the Minolta.

Negatives...well loads really. Trannies nowhere near as many. I'd say a 50/50 split between mounted and strips.

Speed of scanning and automatic feeders though should be considered as a 0% contributing factor to the choice though. I've no intention to digitise every photo ever taken, just a selection of them. And of those i'm happy to spend time on each one. I'd preffer ICE but I know i'd probably turn it off and manually clean things myself. But i've read that an IR channel helps with detail on Kodachromes for one. Time is something I have plenty of right now, cash flow for a scanner with time saving options is something I currently lack

Sry for the late reply, I was away for a week or so and couldnt reply sooner.

Jack Xavier said:

Ok well as the title says, i'm after a scanner around 200.

I've not been able to really find any flatbeds that provide comparable quality in sharpness or other areas, but if i'm wrong please give me your suggestions.

Oh and that 200 top end give or take a couple of pounds really is a maximum. I'm unemployed right now and I would otherwise wait till I had a rather larger sum to get a top end scanner.
Basically I will only be scanning 35mm film for the foreseeable future. I will be uploading and doing some prints. All I care about personally is image quality within my price range.

Click to expand...

Flatbed scanners in the range of cost you suggest won't deliver quality from 35mm. I wouldn't suggest anyone make a print from a Epson 750 scan of a 35mm, for example; certainly not a 16x20. One needs to use at least a Nikon type scanner, preferably a drum. I can appreciate your financial concerns, but one has to be realistic. I think you need to either use larger film, if your aesthetic allows, or be realistic about the scan you require.

Lenny

I would encourage you to look around for a Nikon or Minolta. I found my LS-4000 for $300, though I think this is the exception to the rule on these scanners.

Hi

having read through the subsequent posts I thought I'd go back to the start to answer.

Jack Xavier said:

Ok well as the title says, i'm after a scanner around 200.

Now I have to start by saying that I cannot at all go above that. So no High Nikons or Minolta 5400 recomendations please

Click to expand...

noted ...

I can find the Plustek 7500i SE for 200 and change.

Click to expand...

there is a common wisdom about beginners paying 3 times more for the right gear by firstly buying junk, then buying better then realising that they really needed the thing which they "could never afford" and buying that.

However while I appreciate resolution

Click to expand...

the one thing that I have never seen from any test of the Plustek is that they have resolution better than my Epson 3200 flatbed. I don't think you'll find anyone with substantial experience saying otherwise about them. You really do get what you pay for.

I appreciate dynamic range a lot more as I won't consider this purchase to be my last scanner for archival purposes and for smaller say A4 prints I would probably appreciate dmax more I imagine.

Click to expand...

I will be posting the comparisons soon, but unless you go to a better Nikon (greater than LS-4000) you'll not get much difference in dynamic range. You will get better results by learning how to get the best out of the gear you can afford (rather than just letting the software ruin the images with agressive clipping).

So I was wondering are there any better scanners around that price? Second Hand Minolta Dual Scan IIIs tend to be around 160, anyone know how they compare.

Click to expand...

since you don't mind second hand and it seems that you are willing to loose proper hardare based ICE (as the Minolta III doesn't have that) then I suggest you look at an older Nikon LS-20. The scan quality will match the Minolta and it also does not have ice. Optics may need a clean, but you should be able to pick one up for around $50. The issue is that they are SCSI and you will have a very tight selection of SCSI cards to choose from. They'll work on Win 2000 and XP but not Vista. (Happy to help you get it running if you go that way.)

I have at present:

• Nikon LS-20E (bought in 2001 for $50 used)
• Epson 3200
• Epson 4870 (in Australia while I'm suck in Finland)
• Epson 4990 (bought to see just how much better than the 3200 it really is)
• Nikon LS-IV ED (got it as a bargain to compare to the Epson)
• Nikon LS-4000 (also bought as a eBay bargain to see)

My experience with using these scanners is that there is little significant difference except ICE (and man is that significant for colour films) between the LS-20 and the LS IV ED. Dynamic range is a tweak better and the resolution difference between 2700 dpi and 2900dpi is about what you'd expect as a percentage. After I bought my Epson 4870 (which I anguished over for some time) I discovered to my surprise that it was exactly equal to the Nikon LS-20 and only the ICE of the LS IV ED made it worth while. What you might gain in terms of clarity you loose in terms of grain build up (especially with negatives). If you are interested you may wish to read my blog page here about this. As well I've put up a comparison between my 20D and 35mm film scanned with an Epson 4870 here. This may give you some idea on what can be done with this scanner. In terms of getting more optimal scans, search on those key words on my blog or email me directly and we can chat about it if you wish.


My conculsion on this is that I'll be scanning my stuff and selling the Nikons soon but I'll be keeping the Epsons as I mainly do 120 roll and 4x5 sheet (making the Nikon's less useful). Personally for Black and White I don't see the advantage of the Nikon over the Epson for 35mm black and white and my DSLR's more or less equate to the 35mm colour film so again there is little benefit for me there. I still keep the film 35mm bodies and lenses so IF I happen to use colour 35mm film and get something so good I want it made bigger I'll just send it out for scanning (but I'm not holding my breath on that one).

I've not been able to really find any flatbeds that provide comparable quality in sharpness or other areas, but if i'm wrong please give me your suggestions.

Click to expand...

for colour I 100% agree with you, but personally when handled well I really just do not see the difference between (even) the 3200 and the 2900 DPI Nikons (note: that is not the 4000 dpi models)

edit: I thought I would add a little more info from my original post. Basically I will only be scanning 35mm film for the foreseeable future. I will be uploading and doing some prints. A lot of my files will end up on CDs or in emails off to people who want prints of certain pics so that's the main use it will get along with online galleries and me experimenting.

...

I've seen reviews for the plustek that go both ways. Though usually the really negative reviews often seem a little imbalanced and are often followed with get a 5x more expensive this or that instead . All I care about personally is image quality within my price range.

Click to expand...

understood ... as I have no idea on your personal skill levels / technical prowess / ability to work with machines / sense of quality / experience with identifying the difference between quality VS mush scans, and so its hard to make a fixed recommendation, but for me I know that the Epson Flatbeds have a singular advantage. I can put 4 strips of 6 onto my 4990 and go do something else while it scans.

you can't do that with any dedicated 35mm for the price. If you want EVERYTHING scanned to the highest standards (and your willing to put in the effort to prefocus every single image) then the Nikon will outperform the Epson, but if you're scanning at 2400 dpi or less for emails then frankly you'll be kidding yourself to see the differences.

Go borrow or rent time on a LS 5000 for the "wow" negatives.

I was starting to think the thread was maybe dead and then I get a very thorough response

I said before that it's not the last scanner I plan to buy. Merely a stop gap, which I would then either put back on eBay or give to a friend. I myself won't be making high quality prints from the scans. I'll mainly be using it for web work and for sending files to people they want copies off so they can print, the type of people who are happy with 1 hour photo prints.

My personal skill level with film scanners is near the zero mark, but technically i'm pretty advanced and with photoshop i'd say i'm moderately advanced.

The plustek one i've seen that it's true resolution is somewhere between 3500-4000 obviously not the box stated 7200, but still quite good when you compare a lot of flatbeds that state 4800 on the box and are well below that.

So i'm more than aware that i'll later be paying a lot for a scanner. I looked at drum scanners as they're going incredibly cheap these days but then without the training, support there anymore and the need for mounting fluids and cleaners etc theyre not something I can look at now. Ideally i'd get a Minolta 5400 Elite II for example but they're around 550-600 second hand here. Which is a lot for something without warranty and again I wonder if Minolta even service/repair them anymore or if they sold that part of their company off too.

I was looking at a few LS-20s but they snuck past, i'm fine using a scsi card if need be. I shall read through your blog and your post again to absorb it all, but thanks for the reply, I appreciate the effort

Oh and any particular photos I want really well scanned I would send off individually for a pro drum scan.

Oh and I forgot to state any prints I would make from these scanners would be no bigger than A4. The higher res more than anything is to give me more info to play with in Photoshop if a particular image needs it or i've decided to try and experiment a bit with an image.

Cheers to the other 2 replies. Though I think getting an LS-4000 in the UK for under 200/$300 would be quite optimistic
But one happens to have shown up so i'll keep an eye on it.