[conniption]

... too many choices. Any suggestions?
I'll want high resolution for under $400.
Mostly b&w but some color. My first step towards developing on my own.

[ctrout]

I have settled on the Conoscan 9000f mkii, just haven't dropped the cash on it yet. I spent a lot of time on Flickr studying medium format scans in order to arrive at this decision. It was a close race between this and the Epson Perfection V600 so I recommend looking at both of them. They are both available for less than $200. The Epson is listed as the #1 best seller on Amazon by the way.

[wombat2go]

In my experience the Epson V600 did very good b/w negs.
Just OK on 6x7 C41 color negs and not good enough on 35mm C41 color negs.

The strong feature of the V600m is that, if you have an enlarger and the space to make b/w 8 x 10 inch wet prints,
the V600 can make beautiful scans of the paper prints. It is worth having a V600 just for that.

[gofour3]

I've got a Pacific Image scanner which is pretty good and there are various models to choose from at different price levels. Best thing about the one I have (model 7250u) is it's very small.

Pacific Image Film Scanners

Phil.

[stevebrot]

I'll want high resolution for under $400.

Define high resolution

Here are a few bullet points to help:

• The best scanner reviews I have located are provided by ScanDig, a German site. They provide real world resolution figures based on actual scans as well as information important for actual day-to-day usage...

  ScanDig: Film Scanner Test Reports
  

• Very few consumer flatbed scanners provide adequate real world resolution for 35mm negatives/slides...
  • My Epson V700 will manage about 2300 dpi, best case, with the stock negative carriers and maybe a smidgen better with aftermarket carriers. The same is true for current model high-end Epson flatbed film scanners.
  • The Epson V600 will manage about 1600 dpi, real world
  • The Canoscan 9000F mkII will do about 1700 dpi
• There are several dedicated 35mm film scanners in the $250-$500 range. Of those, my choice would be the Pacific Image PrimeFilm XA (same as Reflecta RPS 10M). It is capable of 4300 real world dpi from a 5000 dpi scan and is able to batch scan film strips. Very cool and less than $400 USD. (ScanDig Review HERE)

FWIW, in addition to the V700 I use for medium format, I also have a Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED that I use for 35mm. It is a very fine scanner and is capable of 4000 dpi and cost me about $1200. If the Nikon were to die today, I would seriously consider the PrimeFilm XA.


Steve

[stevebrot]

If the Nikon were to die today, I would seriously consider the PrimeFilm XA.

For a few example scans, user @Bonner04 is a PrimeFilm XA owner. With any luck, they may check in with their opinion as a user...

:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots - Page 1051 - PentaxForums.com

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/8-pentax-film-slr-discussion/159796-post...ml#post4074317


Steve

[BigMackCam]

Moved to appropriate forum

[Bophoto]

I recommend using the camera instead. A copy stand are good or a cheaper used enlarger for film (some have 1/4" thread).
Copystands & Copylights | B&H Photo Video
A macro lens works, but is a little worse at short distances. A good lens for enlargement like Schneider, Rodenstock or Nikon works better.
SMC Pentax 100mm F4 Bellows Reviews - K Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database also works, but is certainly hard to find.
A light table or a magnification head can be used for the film.
A film duplicator is easy to use. Pentax 645 Film Duplicator - Photokina 2014 | PentaxForums.com
And some are cheap.
And pixel shift. ....

[stevebrot]

I recommend using the camera instead. A copy stand are good or a cheaper used enlarger for film (some have 1/4" thread).
Copystands & Copylights | B&H Photo Video
A macro lens works, but is a little worse at short distances. A good lens for enlargement like Schneider, Rodenstock or Nikon works better.
SMC Pentax 100mm F4 Bellows Reviews - K Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database also works, but is certainly hard to find.
A light table or a magnification head can be used for the film.
A film duplicator is easy to use. Pentax 645 Film Duplicator - Photokina 2014 | PentaxForums.com
And some are cheap.
And pixel shift. ....

Is this is something that you do? There are several users on this site who use a dSLR for slide/negative copy tasks and who are happy with the results. I have seriously considered doing so and may yet give a try. Considerations are as follows:

• DSLR capture is an attractive option due primarily to potential high resolution and quick capture. Scanners can be very slow.
• Most 35mm negative/slide copy rigs are intended to be paired with a 50mm lens using same-brand bellows with capture to 24x36mm FF. Things go funky fast when using those setups with an APS-C camera with 1:1.5 reproduction rather than 1:1.
• Flatness of field is important for the capture lens, so a dedicated macro or bellows lens is preferred. A regular lens, reversed, may also be adequate as might an enlarger lens.
• A macro lens capable of 1:1 (for a FF body) or 1:1.5 (for APS-C) may work nicely, though
• If not using a dedicated bellows/copier setup, negative/slide flatness and alignment to lens axis can be a pain
• An acceptable light source is important. Traditionally, electronic flash aimed at a white diffusion glass provided a proper daylight balanced, bright light. Some users here have used a light table, but white balance can be tricky when doing copy work. If the spectra are not there for capture, tonality and ability to manage color in PP suffer.
• The software in a dedicated scanner provides a high level of control not available with a dSLR capture. With copy reproduction, it is all about the capture. PP is difficult.
• Good scanners will provide dust/scratch management features
• Doing a dSLR copy of a color negative is not as simple as reversing the colors and adjusting WB and a few curves

All of the above points as well as many others are covered in other threads on this forum and discussion of them here is mildly off-topic, though not out of place.

BTW...copy stands and enlargers are great for copying documents, but not so great for slides and negatives.


Steve

[Murfy]

I just did all my old negatives from college with the Epson V600. It was good enough to do an 8x10 print in black and white, but i did not try anything larger. I also did about 800 family slides with it, and some color negatives. for the price, the quality wasn't bad. It was good, but I just think there is a limit to how well flatbed scanners can do. I would have preferred a film scanner but it was outside my price range. Depending on what you want to do with final scan (print 8x10 or large prints, digital only, etc), it may be good enough for your needs.

[stevebrot]

I just did all my old negatives from college with the Epson V600. It was good enough to do an 8x10 print in black and white, but i did not try anything larger. I also did about 800 family slides with it, and some color negatives. for the price, the quality wasn't bad. It was good, but I just think there is a limit to how well flatbed scanners can do. I would have preferred a film scanner but it was outside my price range. Depending on what you want to do with final scan (print 8x10 or large prints, digital only, etc), it may be good enough for your needs.

Yep...the V600 will provide about 200 dpi towards an 8x10 print, which is pretty good and speaks to the value proposition of that scanner. At the same 200 dpi, my V700 will print 10x16" and the Nikon 5000 ED will go 18x28", which reflects the additional money for those models (FWIW, I had more cash back when I bought them and needed to support both a 35mm and large format habit.)

I will add that most of the negatives and slides in my archive are not worth scanning to more than 1500 dpi


Steve

[wombat2go]

I will add that most of the negatives and slides in my archive are not worth scanning to more than 1500 dpi

I agree, I am currently scanning a batch of 6x7 C41 on the PrimeFilm120 Pro. The standard setting of 1600 dpi gives a scan roughly
3000+ H by 4000+ W. With 16 bit tiffs, the files are about 46 MB.
If I use 2400 dpi, the file size goes up by the square.
The images are downsampled anyway for the 2560 by 1440 monitor.

[micromacro]

After asking the same question here I bought Pacific Image Prime Film XA. I believe that cheaper Pacific Image model will also do a good job.

[stevebrot]

After asking the same question here I bought Pacific Image Prime Film XA. I believe that cheaper Pacific Image model will also do a good job.

How are you getting on with the XA?


Steve

[micromacro]

How are you getting on with the XA?

Steve, I'm very happy with it, easy to use. The only problem is rolled film, it's hard to scan the roll. I had no problem with strips, and so far I've not scanned any of rolls I have.
I don't know it's either me, or the scanner, but when film is not flat (in roll) the sharpness is not that perfect as with flat cuts.