35mm Scanner

[KirkT]

I'm in the market for a dedicated 35mm film scanner.  Not flatbed; I have an Epson 3170 and I'm tired of losing the film scanning adapters (rather, kids losing it).

What should I be looking for?  I know very little about these.  I'm probably going to be going used to get more for the money but where should I start?  I can't spend a ton.

Thanks, as usual, for your help.

Kirk

[Mike Kovacs]

I've been running a Nikon film scanner since 2001 - its 1999 vintage bought 2nd hand.

I would steer away from the SCSI models like mine.  Coolscan IV is USB.

[Philip]

One person's experience:

Kirk, about three years ago I bought the Plustek OpticFilm 7200 because it was cheap;  at about $250, it was half the price of other 35mm film scanners I saw.  Its biggest problem, I thought at the time, was its lack of "ICE" -- the automatic dust and noise reduction system.  But a lot of what I have scanned is my collection of old b&w negatives and the ICE would not have done anything for them, so I don't miss it as much as I thought I would.  And over time I've become pretty good at manually cleaning up (cloning out) dust and scratches.

You manually slide the film into the Plustek 7200 and it's catch as catch can with regard to focus.  I understand more expensive ones will let you focus the scan more than that.  I also understand that the more expensive scanners will automatically feed negatives through -- I have to push them through after each scan.  That means I don't go away for a cup of coffee and come back finding my negative strip all scanned.

My 7200 has been a good learning experience and one that has not been a write-off. I'm not sure I would have had better scans over the past couple of years with a substantially more expensive scanner. I probably would have farmed out important scans anyway.

[jake]

Watch Rangefinderforum. Recently there have been quite a few showing up there. They all seem pretty good. The Nikon film scanners are great & seem widely accepted as the best (though no scanner is perfect,) but I have heard good things about the Konica/Minolta and the Canon. There is a Canon scanner over at Rangefinderforum right now. All of them use film strip holders though. Your kids can still sabotage the works.

Edit: Here is another one for less.

[KirkT]

Thanks, Jorn. Yeah, the kids can still get it but they are generally smaller and I can put them up and away.

[LarryD]

I see Nikon is getting out of the scanner business. the 9000 is sold as to build order only now. as in you order you pay then after they build it they send it to you. at that price it may be time to start looking for used drum scanners.

[Jim Evans]

I used a Nikon Coolscan V for several years and really liked it.   As with any film scanner, it takes a little trial and error to "dial it in", but once you get a good workflow in place,  it's pretty easy to get excellent results.

They are getting harder and harder to find.  I sold mine about 2 years ago for about $250 more than I paid for it new.

Jim

[jmi]

It's really unfortunate that 35mm scanners seem to be vanishing rapidly.  One of my biggest regrets is I nearly bought a Minolta Elite 5400 quite some number of years back - now sorely wish I had.

My best b&w scans all came from my now dead Minolta Dual III, I think it's got something to do with the light source used in that versus the Nikons, a bit like enlarger light sources and condenser systems make a difference when doing conventional printing.  Now using just a flatbed Epson v700, and while I find it's great for MF and larger, it's definitely not up to the standard of the Minolta dedicated scanner on the 35mm.

I would love to get the minolta fixed (and would gladly pay provided it's reasonable), but I never tried because I assumed they don't repair them any more.  Your post inspired me to google and I'm going to give sony repair a call tomorrow... would be great to get the thing working.  I know it's not really worth spending money on but I like it!

Reliability wise, I hear rumours the minoltas tend to go wrong more than the others, so I am guessing that combined with how long they've been out of production make the others a better choice.

[Glenn Thoreson]

For the money, I think the Minolta Scan Dual(?) provides as high quality scans as you can get. I was very impressed with mine but I traded it off because I don't like all these digital monstrosities. They seem to be out to get me.

[LarryD]

Glenn

Did you get that Flat bed scanner a few years back that was on sale for about $30.00? I remember someone getting one that would do up to 8X10.

[Glenn Thoreson]

Nope. I do have a flatbed scanner, though. It isn't compatible with Windows Vista, however. It will scan, but I have no control over anything. It just scans and you take what you get. 

[Kin Lau]

For the money, I think the Minolta Scan Dual(?) provides as high quality scans as you can get. I was very impressed with mine but I traded it off because I don't like all these digital monstrosities. They seem to be out to get me.

That's what I have as well. It's SCSI, and it works very well. I keep an older PC around just for scanning duties. Considering that a used P3 or P4 are practically given away, it's cheaper for me to go this route than to get a USB model.

[Mike Kovacs]

I have a SCSI to firewire adapter I use with my Coolscan III.  It works flawlessly in Snow Leopard on my iMac but it was over $100.

[melek]

Are you on a Mac or PC? HP made a PhotoSmart scanner that handle snapshots, slides or negatives. It was a really nice little machine.

Like most things, I wish I hadn't gotten rid of mine. Gave it to a friend.

There were two versions: SCSI and USB.

[KirkT]

I'm PC.  I'll keep an eye out for the USB.  Thanks!