Flatbed film scanner or low-end DSLR?

[Jose Marques]

I'd like to ask your collective advice on a film scanning. I'm thinking
of getting a scanner to scan 35mm film. I don't want to spend too much
time cleaning up the output so I want something with Digital ICE and the
ability to scan batches of frames. However, I also don't want to spend
too much money so would probably want to get a flatbed scanner like the
Epson 4870 rather than a more expensive dedicated film scanner.

I use a 35mm MF camera mostly with Royal Gold 400ASA film and the odd roll
of 100ASA E6 slide film. I mostly use a 50mm lens but also use 24mm,
35mm, 55mm macro and 105mm lenses on the odd occasion. My photography is
mostly social, holiday, landscape and macro. Most pictures are taken hand
held. The scans will be for on-screen display or for sharing with family
and friends via the web, e-mail and DVDs (Apple iDVD slideshows). I may
want to get the odd print done up to a maximum size of 8"x12" (uncropped)
to stick on the wall at home.

My question. Given my usage profile am I'm likely to be disappointed with
the results from a flatbed scanner. The alternatives I'm looking at are:
1) keeping my 35mm gear and using a cheap scanner for digital output or 2)
Selling my 35mm gear and getting a low-end DSLR. I'm not too keen on the
latter option just yet but I also don't want to spend too much cash
keeping my 35mm system going.

Many thanks for your comments.

 

[David J. Littleboy]

Since no one's answering, here's some opinions from _far_ left field.

I'd like to ask your collective advice on a film scanning. I'm thinking
of getting a scanner to scan 35mm film. I don't want to spend too much
time cleaning up the output so I want something with Digital ICE and the
ability to scan batches of frames. However, I also don't want to spend
too much money so would probably want to get a flatbed scanner like the
Epson 4870 rather than a more expensive dedicated film scanner.

I use a 35mm MF camera mostly with Royal Gold 400ASA film and the odd roll
of 100ASA E6 slide film.

If you are shooting ISO 400 film, you'd be _much_ better off with a Canon
300D than film.

The "received wisdom" is that ISO 100 films and a dedicated film scanner
will edge out the 300D, but at an incredible cost in inconvenience and time.
(Scanning's a pain and takes a lot of time: I'm still scanning my January
shots.)

My question. Given my usage profile am I'm likely to be disappointed with
the results from a flatbed scanner.

The 4870 may be a good match for ISO 400 color negative film, but would
probably leave a lot to be desired when scanning ISO 100 film.

(Here's the left field part: My opinion is that scanning _medium format_
makes sense, but scanning 35mm doesn't. If you need better image quality
than the 300D coughs up, you need medium format.)

(Replace 300D with D70 in the above if you prefer.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[Raphael Bustin]

(Here's the left field part: My opinion is that scanning _medium format_
makes sense, but scanning 35mm doesn't. If you need better image quality
than the 300D coughs up, you need medium format.)

(Replace 300D with D70 in the above if you prefer.)

Obviously bigger films make better prints <G>.

I don't agree with you about the "futility" of scanning
35 mm film.

I've recently begun printing 35 mm scans on my
Epson 7000, as well as having some 24 x 36"
Durst Epsilon prints made from 35 mm scans.

Not too bad, if I say so myself, and worth a
decent bit of change to my client.

I made good use of NeatImage to knock down the
grain. At those sizes, I still much prefer the scanned
(35 mm) film to images from the 10D.

I'm still a bit on the fence on the issue of 10D vs
scanned film. The 10D images seem to fall apart
more quickly at very large magnifications.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com