i'm looking for a film scanner, <$300. i'm in canada, so would rather not buy off of ebay (shipping is ridiculous). the best thing available on my local classifieds is a nikon ls-2000 for $200.
this scanner is from 1999, and i'm unsure if it's worthwhile to spend $200 on such an old piece of equipment. i'd need to get an scsi-to-usb and run an older version of windows in a virtual desktop.
i need a scanner for mostly black and white 35mm negatives; i want decent quality that could work in an online publication or for making small prints.
>>2720237
Any of the film orientad flat bed scanners (Epson Vxxx, Canoscan xxxx, etc) will give you better results than that (with far less work too).
>>2720237
>online publication or for making small prints.
I am a fan of dedicated film scanners but for what you need, a flat bed will be fine.
if you want better quality don't look any older than the Coolscan 8000/4000
>>2720237
For shits and giggles, the US Amazon is offering that thing for about $906 right now.
PLUSTEK
L
U
S
T
E
K
They're more modern. Not exactly the most amazing things ever, but pretty good. Better than a flatbed for 35mm.
I purchased a Canon FS4000US from eBay for $200 which is the same price of the Canoscan 9000F, does less as far as versatility, but the quality is noticeable superior when pixel-peeping or making large prints.
That's the thing, the superior quality is only noticeable different when pixel-peeping or printing large prints. Dedicated film scanners typically a long time to scan, like a pain in the fucking ass long time, but the quality is great. On my Canoscan FS4000US, ONE frame of 35mm at the highest settings possible (4800dpi w/ Dust Removing IR) takes 15 minutes to scan!
