Scanner for 35mm and 120 for <$200?

I'm shooting more and film, both 35mm (neg) and 120. I develop my own B&W, and have a local mom & pop photo lab for color and enlargements. But I'd like to digitize everything without breaking the bank. The local shop has been scanning my 120, but at an average of $1 per scan, it's not really something I want to keep doing, as it will get expensive quickly. I've been using a (admittedly cheap) Pacific Image Imagebox, which has been just fine for the 35mm, but it doesn't handle 120.

I was going to get the Epson V600, but now I'm considering the V500 or the Canoscan 9000F II. The V600 I can get as a refurb from Adorama for $169, which is the same for a new Canoscan 9000F II. I can get the V500 for less than $100.

What I'm looking to do is digitize the negatives for both online display and inkjet printing, up to (maybe) 13"x19". Although, anything larger then 8"x10" will probably go back to the photo lab for proper enlargements.

This is also for ease in cataloging (LR5 with a cross-reference to the negative storage), as well as editing with LF5 and PS.

I've searched all over looking for a direct comparison between the V600 and the 9000F II, but I can't find any. I also can't figure out the true differences between the V500 and the V600.

I'm open to suggestions as to other scanners, but my budget is set at less than $200US, and preferably in the $150 range.

i have the v600 myself. it's nearly as good as the v700 for a fraction of the price. you should also invest in a betterscanning.com film holder. it'll keep your film flatter for sharper results.

bespoke wrote in post #17280988
i have the v600 myself. it's nearly as good as the v700 for a fraction of the price. you should also invest in a betterscanning.com film holder. it'll keep your film flatter for sharper results.

Using the v600 what's is the maximum size prints from 35mm negatives or slides?

Don't only look at resolution, but how much tonal range you can extract with the scanner. The higher end ones ( V750 etc... ) do much better with extracting better tonal values than the consumer oriented scanners.

Hogloff wrote in post #17281977
Don't only look at resolution, but how much tonal range you can extract with the scanner. The higher end ones ( V750 etc... ) do much better with extracting better tonal values than the consumer oriented scanners.

Very true. I'm looking for an overall best value between the 3, not necessarily resolution, as I've read that after 2000dpi they're all about the same.

I'm starting to think that the Epson V600 has a strong following, but that there really isn't much difference between it and the Canon 9000F II. I've also read some not-so-good reviews of the Epson, more so than the Canon.

I think I'll pass on the V500, as from what I can gather, the number of negatives it can carry at one time is less than the others, so that would add time to the already tedious scan process.

It's also my understanding that the software is key, whether it's VueScan, ICE, or SilverFast. This is almost as confounding as a camera body purchase!

ilikeglass wrote in post #17281661
Using the v600 what's is the maximum size prints from 35mm negatives or slides?

Maximum size is a function of many things, particularly the viewing distance. Personally, I think it's a stretch to expect any flatbed less than a V700 to produce very good 8.5"x11" prints.

KirkS518 wrote in post #17282194
Very true. I'm looking for an overall best value between the 3, not necessarily resolution, as I've read that after 2000dpi they're all about the same.

Imaging Resource reported that that there is more detail in a 4000dpi scan than a 2800dpi scan. Using my 4000 dpi Nikon Super Coolscan 5000ED I agree with their conclusion.

Also, there is a big difference in Dmax going from a V600, to V700 to a professional dedicated film scanner. When you look at Dmax don't worry about small differences (like 0.2) between scanners made by different manufacturers since most are reporting the theoretical Dmax. The V600 Dmax is 3.4, the V700 and V750 is 4.0, and for comparison, the old Nikon Supercoolscan 5000ED dedicated film scanner is 4.8. From that the V700 is definitely better than the V600 and the dedicated scanner is better than the V700 ... although it may or may not be 0.8 better depending on how much each manufacturers "cheat" on reporting the value.

Things I look for in a film scanner (YMMV):

4000 true dpi
Highest Dmax I can afford
Ability to do multi-sampling (although a minor want)
Supports Digital ICE
Ability to preview scans


If you are looking for really high quality scans maybe look to have them done by a scanning service like Scan Cafe instead (something like 25 cents per 4000 dpi TIF). I've scanned thousands of negatives on my 5000ED and frankly it was time I wish I could get back. I figure I spent over 0.5% of the time I've been given to be on this earth on scanning my negative collection It's time I could have spent enjoying life ...

You could also scan using a digital camera:


http://petapixel.com …era-instead-of-a-scanner/
http://petapixel.com …al-camera-and-macro-lens/

Certainly, but how much of that detail is useful? As you go higher than around 2800 dpi, you start to resolve grain. I'm not sure how useful it is to define the shape of every color particle.

Archibald wrote in post #17288090
Certainly, but how much of that detail is useful? As you go higher than around 2800 dpi, you start to resolve grain. I'm not sure how useful it is to define the shape of every color particle.

This statement from Imaging Resource pretty much sums it up:

"Prior to this year (2001), the highest resolution we'd encountered in a film scanner was on the order of 2800 dpi. Since the film grain was fairly evident at that resolution, our feeling was that there was little purpose in going to even higher resolutions, since it seemed all this would do is further emphasize the film grain. We have to say though, that the 8000 ED (and the LS-4000 before it) disabused us of that notion. To be sure, film grain is more evident at a full 4000 dpi, but in examining the resulting image files, it's clear that there's also noticeably more image detail present as well. Combine this with the "Digital GEM" grain-management technology embodied in the 8000 ED, and its 4000 dpi rating constitutes a genuine increase in usable resolution."

Bob_A wrote in post #17289783
This statement from Imaging Resource pretty much sums it up:

"Prior to this year (2001), the highest resolution we'd encountered in a film scanner was on the order of 2800 dpi. Since the film grain was fairly evident at that resolution, our feeling was that there was little purpose in going to even higher resolutions, since it seemed all this would do is further emphasize the film grain. We have to say though, that the 8000 ED (and the LS-4000 before it) disabused us of that notion. To be sure, film grain is more evident at a full 4000 dpi, but in examining the resulting image files, it's clear that there's also noticeably more image detail present as well. Combine this with the "Digital GEM" grain-management technology embodied in the 8000 ED, and its 4000 dpi rating constitutes a genuine increase in usable resolution."

With more and more resolution, you will get better reproduction, but you quickly get to diminishing returns. On-screen pixel peeping will show you are capturing more detail of each grain, but I don't know how one actually determines if picture quality has improved noticeably.

Old film is grainy and has much less resolution than today's digital sensors. Often we are chasing detail that isn't there.

Still, since gigabytes of storage are cheap nowadays, it might make sense to scan everything at the highest possible resolution, just in case.