Which scanner?

[f/16]

Back in the mid 2000's I had a couple of scanners for 35mm. One was a cheap flatbed and had poor dynamic range and the other was a Nikon(don't remember the model #) and it was awesome. Are good scanners less expensive than they were 10 years ago? Can I get a nice one with good dynamic range and dust/scratch removal for under 350usd?

 

[480sparky]

I use a PlusTek 8200i that's well within your budget.

Plustek OpticFilm 8200i SE (783064365345) up to 7200 dpi USB Film and slide Scanner - Newegg.com

 

[I.G.I.]

Back in the mid 2000's I had a couple of scanners for 35mm. One was a cheap flatbed and had poor dynamic range and the other was a Nikon(don't remember the model #) and it was awesome. Are good scanners less expensive than they were 10 years ago? Can I get a nice one with good dynamic range and dust/scratch removal for under 350usd?

New or 2nd hand?

 

[alanrockwood]

Consider a used Canon fs4000us. They come up periodically on ebay and usually sell for prices within your price range. A lot of people also buy Vuescan as their scanner software to use with this scanner.

The main disadvantage is relatively slow scanning because it uses a usb1 interface. It also has a faster SCSI interface, but SCSI is pretty much obsolete.

Quality of the scans is usually considered to be very close to Nikon scans, though possibly very slightly less in quality. Here I am referring to Nikon models that scan at 4000 dpi. Nikon is said to produce higher true resolution, though Canon is very close, and Nikon is said to produce slightly better shadow detail when scanning slides, but Canon is also quite good.

 

[lenny]

Back in the mid 2000's I had a couple of scanners for 35mm. One was a cheap flatbed and had poor dynamic range and the other was a Nikon(don't remember the model #) and it was awesome. Are good scanners less expensive than they were 10 years ago? Can I get a nice one with good dynamic range and dust/scratch removal for under 350usd?

We looked at a solar roof this week. The first thing the guy said to us is that you get more return on your money from insulation and other things than solar. (At least so far). The same is true in film./ You will get far more from moving up to medium format, or 4x5, than from trying to do anything with 35mm.

Depending on what you mean by "nice one" the answer hasn't really changed. With 35mm you are starting so far back that the only thing that produces "excellent" results is a drum scanner. Pretty much all of them... Good results can be gotten from dedicated film scanners with fluid mount attachments. I don't want to say what I think of results from consumer flatbeds for this size of film.. it's not nice, and I don't want to not be nice.

I would suggest you look that the 35mm film you have to scan, consider sending it out, and then move up in film size. There are reasons to shoot 35mm, street shooting, etc. If you don't have a great reason, then drop it like a hot potato....

 

[artobest]

With 35mm you are starting so far back that the only thing that produces "excellent" results is a drum scanner... There are reasons to shoot 35mm, street shooting, etc. If you don't have a great reason, then drop it like a hot potato....

This would be true if the overriding concern of all photographers was resolution, resolution, resolution. However, many people like the impressionistic look of 35mm, especially with fast black and white film. From experience, I would agree that flatbed scanners aren't ideal for the format, but almost any decent dedicated film scanner will give good results.

 

[lenny]

This would be true if the overriding concern of all photographers was resolution, resolution, resolution. However, many people like the impressionistic look of 35mm, especially with fast black and white film. From experience, I would agree that flatbed scanners aren't ideal for the format, but almost any decent dedicated film scanner will give good results.

I actually care little for resolution. I agree that the it isn't really the issue. I do like depth of field and I like my images to appear sharp. However, for me its all about sensitivity, and PMT's are far more sensitive than consumer flatbeds. Larger film has much more richness to deliver. Anyone who has moved up even to medium format, is thrilled in the darkroom and with the results from a scanner vs tiny film.

I wouldn't say that small, fast film is "impressionistic". I would say its simply beyond its capability to hold itself together. It's exceeding the capability of the medium to perform. But that's just my opinion...

 

[Jager]

I agree with you, Lenny. I love, love, love my film Leica's. But after experiencing the tonality and richness of medium format, it's hard to be satisfied with that tiny 35mm negative.

If I want the ergonomics and convenience of 35mm... I find myself reaching for one of the excellent digital cameras in that format.