[Meadowfield]

Any Suggestions?

[climber]

I use the Nikon myself, And they have OSX software. They have 3 models, Their cheapest is about a $1000 and is USB, this is what I use. They also have a firewire verison and even a medium format version.

There are companies that sell similar priced units, but nobody sells one for less that has the same quality.

My personal best results come from scanning Kodak Professional Extachrome. I am not as impressed with the cheaper consumer print films (C41), espessially if they were shot with a point and shoot. My nikon scanner will outscan the cheaper improperly exposed film and show the grain.

Stay away from flatbed scanners, unless you only need medium res for web stuff.

[Meadowfield]

Thanks. That's what I was afraid of. ie: the 1K. Since I'm not a pro and just want to archive some old chrome for use with iPhoto I'm thinking I might be able to get by with less.

I am primarily concerned that the co keep current with drivers as the X evolves.

Minolota maybe?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by climber:
I use the Nikon myself, And they have OSX software. They have 3 models, Their cheapest is about a $1000 and is USB, this is what I use. They also have a firewire verison and even a medium format version.

There are companies that sell similar priced units, but nobody sells one for less that has the same quality.

I'm not sure that's true. The Canon FS4000 is under $1000 and has 4000 d.p.i. resolution. Presumably, you have the 2800 d.p.i. Nikon Coolscan IV.

Meadowfield: If all you are looking for is lower-quality scans, you might be able to get away with the Epson 2450. It sells for under $399. The problem (other than the lower quality) is if you want to archive lots of negatives or slides, a flatbed is going to be very slow.

Maybe you should try to find a used 2800 d.p.i. film scanner like a Nikon LS-2000. B&H have one used for $599. Add Viewscan and you should have no compatibility problems.

[Meadowfield]

Thanks Limey! Helpfull post. That Canon looks mighty spiffy. Minolta not worthy? And, how about firewire? Or, is that only avail on the higher end models?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Meadowfield:
Thanks Limey! Helpfull post. That Canon looks mighty spiffy. Minolta not worthy? And, how about firewire? Or, is that only avail on the higher end models?

I'm not an expert on the Minoltas. The only scanners I have checked into are the Nikon and the Canon and the Canon is the only 4000 d.p.i. film scanner for the price. I do have friends who have bought Minolta and been happy with them. I think you should check out the reviews here. These reviews seem pretty helpful.

As for Firewire, I don't think it is on any but the higher-price ones, but I could be wrong.

Best of luck!

[climber]

The Canon has the edge on resolution, but the Nikon has the edge on both bit depth and scratch removal (ie digital ice). Most reviews I have read show them pretty close matchup and they are about the same price.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by climber:
The Canon has the edge on resolution, but the Nikon has the edge on both bit depth and scratch removal (ie digital ice). Most reviews I have read show them pretty close matchup and they are about the same price.

Digital ICE is nice, but I shoot mainly in black and white. Hardware scratch-reduction systems like Digital ICE only work with dye-based color or chromogenic B/W film, not traditional silver-based black and white film, or Kodachrome. So I guess for a black and white shooter like me that would tip things to the Canon with the higher resolution.

[Eug]

What are my options if I ONLY consider Firewire? I have a SCSI one at work so that's useless for my TiBook, and USB is slow.

[aaanorton]

Minolta makes great scanners. I own a Multi Pro. Here's an interesting review. This is a firewire scanner.