Inexpensive scanner for med. format??

[iggers]

Is there an inexpensive scanner out there that I can use to scan 120 negs?

I have started shooting some 120, and so far I've taken the developed negatives to a local photo shop (pikto) where they provide a low resolution scan to disk for C$10. (Actually, they provide three sizes, with the largest file being around 1 meg, I think.)

My local grocery minilab will scan up to 4 35mm rolls to a CD for $5 (plus $2 to develop.)

I have in the basement an HP 3370 (?) with a transparency attachment that can be used for scanning 35mm negs and slides (but was never very good.)

I don't want to spend $400. At that price, I'd prefer to pay the minilab for 35mm scans and $10 a roll for 120 from time to time.

Is there a model of Epson, for example, that can be bought for under $100 used or refurbished (??), that will produce decent scans of (mostly b&w) 120 negs?

[shutterflower]

There isn't one, if you want a dedicated scanner, but look at the Epson flatbeds. I have the 3170 - it works pretty nicely for BW MF, but not so well for slides. I read that hte Epson 4990 is awesome for everything.

If you want to scan slides, I am not sure, but I believe that the dedicated scanners are best - but they are very very expensive. You are best, if looking for value, to buy the Epson scanner that fits your needs best. Look at the 4990 and the 3170, and all the scanners inbetween.

[iggers]

Thanks. To clarify: I was thinking flatbed, and negatives rather than slides.

[Tim]

Hmmmmmmmmm, I have been tentatively looking at the Epson 4990, after nearly fainting seeing the prices wanted for a Nikon Coolscan 9000.

I have a Coolscan IV, which is brilliant for my 35mm trannies and negs, but the 120 just doesn't scan well after I've folded it up enough to get it in the slot...... ;)

Anyone here actually used/got a 4990?

[Roman]

I'm quite happy with the results from MF negs scanned on my Canon 8400F - should not be much above your price limit!

Roman

[Tim]

Roman, what size negs does the Canon go up to?

[Tim]

ah, never mind, i just went to the canon website and answered my own question..... d'oh! :bang:

[Byuphoto]

if you want a bargai get an Epson 4180. It is $200 at office depot. Does 35 negs and slides and 120

[GeneW]

I'm still using an Epson 2450 -- one of Epson's first flatbeds to offer holders up to 4x5". It still works fine and I sometimes see them for sale for very little. If you come across one of these in good condition, it may be the least expensive way to get decent MF scans.

Gene

[jon_flanders]

I'm quite happy with the results from MF negs scanned on my Canon 8400F - should not be much above your price limit!

Roman

I just got a refurbished Canonscan 8400f at Newegg for $75, does a decent job with both 35mm and 120.

Recent 120 shots in my gallery were scanned with the 8400f. Great deal for the $

[dkapp]

I'm quite happy with the results from MF negs scanned on my Canon 8400F - should not be much above your price limit!

Roman

The 8400F I got from CompUSA must have been a lemon. It left lines and grid marks on all the scan. After messing with it for a day I took it back. How are you dealing with the flimsy 120 film holder? That thing just about drove me nuts with slightly curled negs.

Dave

[Roman]

Do you use that black card that came with the holder to keep 120 films flat? It really helps, I don't have any problem at all (but then, I don't use any super-curly films like Forte...)

Roman

[Solinar]

In the $100 US category the Canoscan 8400F does scans of medium format for web postings quite well. As Roman mentioned, you do need to use the black plastic card supplied with the film holder for medium format, especially when scanning 6x9.

The film holder supplied with the Epson 4870 is even flimsier in my opinion.

One other thing, I've only used the 8400F up to 1200 ppi. These under $500 flatbead scanners do not measure up to dedicated film scanners for 35mm. I find that lowering the resolution of the scan produces less noise.

Then again, a 6x9 medium format neg is at leat 6 times larger than a standard 35mm neg, so scanning at a lower resolution isn't that big a deal, unless you want to make large prints.

[Heath]

I just bought the Epson 4490. This is the little brother (or sister) of the 4990. I am still playing with it so I can't tell you that much about it. Comes with PSE3, Digital ICE and a pretty good scanning software.

Hope that helps.

Heath

[Richard Black]

I use an Epson 3170 and am pleased with the MF scans I've made. You can get some really large files if you do a higher resolutions. They are not expensive and has acceptable software to work with. I think I'm looking at buying better software than Photoshop Elements 2.

Byuphoto,
you made it back. Great!!!

[ChrisN]

I just bought the Epson 4490. This is the little brother (or sister) of the 4990. I am still playing with it so I can't tell you that much about it. Comes with PSE3, Digital ICE and a pretty good scanning software.

Hope that helps.

Heath



Hi Heath - where did you get that and what did you pay? I may have a requirement for scanning medium format at some stage. ;)

[JasonC]

Take a look at Microtek 1800f. It has glassless scan up to 8x10. The image quality should be better than the Epson flatbeds. There is a scanner comparison at www.largeformatphotography.info (Go to "A collaborative scanner comparison"). It compares 18 different scanners (flatbeds, drums, and Imacons) including Epson 3200, 4870, 4990. Microtek 1800f is similar to the 2500 which is in the comparison.

Jason

[Heath]

Hi Heath - where did you get that and what did you pay? I may have a requirement for scanning medium format at some stage. ;)

Hi Chris, I paid $550 for it from my local Office National store. I chose them because I walk past the store about 6 times a day when I am working.

Heath

[r-brian]

I have to agree with Gene W. I bought a reconditioned Epson 2450 off of Ebay (thru 47th Street Photo or on of the other more honest NY dealers) about a year ago. Paid $150 after shipping. It came with the Epson 1-year warranty. I can't be happier. I have scanned 35mm thru 4x5 and the results are fine. But then again, I'm not scanning to create a file for printing, but the prints off my Canon i860 look really good. I would definitely look into a factory reconditioned unit.
Brian

[kaiyen]

Is there a model of Epson, for example, that can be bought for under $100 used or refurbished (??), that will produce decent scans of (mostly b&w) 120 negs?

What do you mean by decent scans? What are your goals? Just for posting on the web? Then just about anything will do that has a transparency unit that can handle 120. Do you want to make prints? You'll need higher resolution for that. How big of a print? Who is the target audience? Gallery shows?

I have had very good success with an Epson 3200 here at work. I have printed up to 44x36 and got some amazing prints, but up close it isn't like a drum scan, certainly. The 3170 has, AFAIK, the same guts. The newer models are supposedly much better, and I'll be getting a 4990 soon (next month or so) as I need to be able to scan 5x7 as well at some point.

One thing to consider is that you'll likely want to get better scanning software. I know many say that they get good to great results with EpsonScan, but the lack of control drives me batty, even in Pro mode. I use Vuescan on my Nikon IV for 35mm, and will be doing so with the 4990 as well.

allan

[wdenies]

I am very satisfied with the Epson scanners (from 35mm up to 4x5").
The quality/price ratio is OK.
For results, see my gallery

[Guy Mann]

Old thread here but being in this position myself as my existing Epson 2400 would only do 35mm, I just purchased a Canon 8400F. Thus far it is working out pretty well.

I'm terribly reluctant to get into a scanner upgrade cycle and I just didn't see the value in an Epson V700/750/4990 or Canon 9950F for my purposes. The Canon 8400F is entirely adequate for scanning up to 6x9 in terms of anything you might want to post to the web and as 90% of my color prints are 5x7 or smaller I really questioned whether the ROI in spending an additional $400-$500 for a device that will be surpassed in performance in a year would be justified. By the time I have a need to scan 4x5 or larger I'm sure there will be a whole new crop of scanners that are better and cheaper.

The film holders on the 8400F are not awful...certainly a vast improvement over the ones that I had on the Epson 2400. The Canoscan software is certainly poor but given the price of the scanner you can afford to upgrade the software substantially and still be ahead.

Canon 8400F shipped from newegg.com: $114.00
Silverfast SE Plus(batch scanning+multipass): $74.00
total expenditure: $188.00

If I come up with a handful of images per year that I really, really like I'll have them scanned on a high-end drum scanner. In the meantime the money I saved will be put towards a good enlarger and enlarging lens.

[shutterflower]

Best for B&W in a reasonable cost range : Epson 4990. Best in the higher cost range :Epson V700. Best in the insane cost range : Nikon Coolscan 9000ED. Best in the range that is simply hideous : Imacon.

For under $100, the Epson 3170 is a great scanner for B&W for screen posting. For printing, you're going to want the Epson V700 :
http://www.shutterflower.com/V700.htm.

[rxmd]

You could get yourself one of the old Agfa professional SCSI scanners. Glassless scanning, 1200 to 2500 dpi depending on model and comparatively cheap on eBay, well until I posted this, that is.

[julianphotoart]

How about a "Dimage Scan Multi II". That model is pretty long-in-the-tooth but that just makes it cheap. It's a dedicated film scanner that uses SCSI that does up to 6x9. I was in a camera store 6 weeks ago and they were selling theirs for $249 with all the parts and accessories. They'd used it up to the prior week to scan customers' negatives/transparencies for turning into prints. eBoy ones must be a fair sight cheaper than I paid.

[kaiyen]

I think the multi's are pretty good deals. Resolution is like...1600? But a medium format neg is big enough that a true 1600 is pretty darn good (the Epson 3200, a staple of many MF scanners, has a true rez of about 1600). And the glass holders are nice.

Having said that, I'd probably get a 4490 for the same price, then get Doug Fisher's AN glass holder.

allan

[jan normandale]

thanx to wdenies, Guy Mann, shutterflower, julianphotoart and Kayien

I'm going to do some homework and start looking. I'm shooting 6x6 ; 6x9 and thinking of some cheap entry into 4x5...