[Miguel]

The Canon flatbed is pretty good, not quite as good as the newer Epson models. What's better is finding a Minolta DiMage Scan Dual IV film scanner or a 5400 model. Not a flatbed. You can fit 4 frames in a holder and automate the feeding. The output quality is generally better than a flatbed. The Nikon models are best but their used prices have actually appreciated over the past few years. You may want to ask around in your photographer network and see if you can either borrow one or purchase one. Quite a few folks have these sitting around gathering dust.

M

[Eyewanders]

Pakon F135: 8.6 x 6.7 x 14.9
Epson V700: 12.0 x 6.0 x 20.0
Canoscan 9000F: 18.9 x 4.4 x 10.7

Interestingly enough, the Pakon is the smallest. Sorry about the inches! hehehe

[BigMackCam]

Pakon F135: 8.6 x 6.7 x 14.9
Epson V700: 12.0 x 6.0 x 20.0
Canoscan 9000F: 18.9 x 4.4 x 10.7

Interestingly enough, the Pakon is the smallest. Sorry about the inches! hehehe

Inches work well for me... I grew up with the metric system, but with parents and a society that was still hell-bent on imperial measurements I tend to think of distances in inches, yards, miles etc.

Very interesting on the dimensions - not at all what the pictures of the various models suggest from casual interpretation!

[boriscleto]

Prices of the USB Coolscans seem to be all over the place. Most BiN are around $450 - 500. The sold listings all seem to be $300 or less.

[LesDMess]

Have you seen this review - Canon CanoScan 9000F Mark II test report

They also review others - Film scanner test-reports: complete overview of all the models

[Pentax_family]

I am using the CanoScan 9000F Mark II to scan my films that have been taken years ago. I can only scan 3-4 rolls of films each of 36 frames in a day. It supports USB2 is a limitation and needs reset in some cases, not very often. The output is acceptable but it takes much longer time for the best quality.

[Franky2step]

I just recently purchased an Epson V600 as a refurb from Epson for CDN $145. It's my first time using a scanner and honestly, the results are fantastic and learning how was very easy. I am scanning mostly 120 Fuji PRO400 H and some Tri X & Delta Pro 100. I suggest you look at the Epson site for a refurb. YMMV

---------- Post added 04-14-16 at 11:09 AM ----------

Oh, I just checked Epson store and they have another V600 available for $145 CDN and a V550 for $120 CDN

[jcdoss]

I bought a V550 a year ago... refurb I think from Amazon, and I've been fairly happy with it. I'm always curious about whether the V700-V800 models are that much better, but otherwise I'm happy with mine. I think I paid about $100 for it, and it looks new. I hate the plastic film holders, though, so I bought a couple 8x10 picture frames at the corner store, took the glass out, and sandwich the film between glass. I think I save some time loading strips, and they're held flat which the plastic holder couldn't do very well.

[BigMackCam]

Have you seen this review - Canon CanoScan 9000F Mark II test report

They also review others - Film scanner test-reports: complete overview of all the models

Thanks for this... It makes for *very* interesting reading - really useful info. Much appreciated

[BigMackCam]

All - thanks for your replies. Armed with all this info, and some reviews I've read, I think I'll pass on the 9000F

[LesDMess]

Since you have a DSLR and macro lens, you might consider DSLR scanning especially with b&w and slides as they are much easier to work with in post. Holding the film flat and evenly lighting it would be the only other additions you would need. There are others here who seem to have successfully done good work with color negatives too.

[BigMackCam]

Since you have a DSLR and macro lens, you might consider DSLR scanning especially with b&w and slides as they are much easier to work with in post. Holding the film flat and evenly lighting it would be the only other additions you would need. There are others here who seem to have successfully done good work with color negatives too.

Les - thanks for this. Indeed, it has crossed my mind - I'll read up on it some more.

The more I look into scanners, the more I think I'll be unhappy with quality unless I spend £300+ here in the UK, which is a lot of film rolls considering the amount I expect to be shooting. As it stands, I think I've come full circle to going with development and scanning at a half-way decent processing lab... but digitising with camera and macro lens is an interesting option

[LesDMess]

. . . but digitising with camera and macro lens is an interesting option

I've done it for the purposes of testing. Since I have bellows, DSLR scanning is straightforward enough and post work with slides and b&w is simple. Post work with color C41 is not as simple but I have not done enough of it.

[bigdavephoto]

Sorry for restarting an old thread but I just wanted to add my thoughts.


I was able to get my hands on a 9000f M-II this last December and to be honest, I am pleased with what it does. After figuring out how to work it, I have scanned a little over 2600 slides my father took back in the day (some of them have been mine too). Now, I haven't really tried the bells like the dust and scratch removal software that comes with the scanner yet, but for what I am doing. it works great.


The one thing that I am a little disappointed about the 9000f M-II is a minor inconvenience thanks to what my father did. The 9000f comes with a holder for 120/220 negatives, but my father took photos with 120/220 positive transparency film. Yeah, medium format slides. How often do you see those. The problem is, I am unwilling to unmounts the film just so I can scan it. In another thread, one of the members here talked about a place called Negative Solutions that make 3D printed negative holders for scanners. I am going to contact them and see if he can make a holder for 120/220 mounted transparencies.


That's my 2 cents worth.