For the past ten years I've been using a Epson V500 to scan slides. It scans Kodachrome well but Fujichrome scans soft and muddy. Most of my images from 1999-2005 are Fujichromes.

Last year I upgraded to a Plustek 8200i AI. The Silverfast software that it comes with proved difficult to use, so at the recommendation of a friend I purchased VueScan software, which has proven simpler to use and gives consistent results. If I had to do it all again I would purchase the Plustek 8200i SE (same hardware, different software) and put the other $100 towards VueScan.

The Plustek does an outstanding job scanning Fujichrome. Better yet, the infrared dust and dirt removal actually works! I spend much less time digitally cleaning slides after I've scanned them.

Jeff Terry

I use a Canon CanoScan 5600F and highly recommend it. It can scan 35mm slides and negatives up to 4800 DPI and is very easy to use. It can also scan documents, photo prints, etc. with ease. My only complaint is that it can't handle larger types of film, but most slides are 35mm anyway.

Thomas

Another advantage is that, while film scanner technology seems to have largely stagnated, digital cameras continue to advance.

One of our Library's volunteer scanners has been bedeviled with "dust removal" programs randomly removing a letter or three from nameboards and locomotive/tender sides, the usual victim being "PENNS LV NIA" or the like............

Just my two cents here: Film scanners stopped evolving because they reached a point where optical resolution is much larger than the achievable analog resolution of the film media itself. Scanners get 4800 ppi typically and in many cases 9600, native optical resolution. You'd only get that number with the very high end DSLRs. A 35mm slide is about an inch and a half in the long dimension, so close to 15000 pixels that way if you scan it at 9600. Not too many cameras right now that will give you 15000 pixels in the long dimension optically, and hold on to your wallet when you see the price tag.

Another issue is the lens system in the DSLR adapter which will introduce some distortion. FIlm scanners are optimized for scanning planar media and usually do not show distortion between the center and the edges of the image.

All this may be moot for the vast majority of railfan snapshots, where the goal is just trying to make them accessible digitally.

I don't think there is any commercially available digital camera that will give 15k pixels on the long side of a 24x36mm image size. The Sony A7IV (technically not a DSLR, which are near end of life as far as new sales) is ~9500 on the long side. It does have a high res option via shifting the sensor - I don't know if that would be applicable to this. Or even if the A7IV has a slide imaging kit available.

Agree it's kind of a moot point anyway - that kind of resolution isn't needed for 35mm film which generally maxed out at around 16 mp or so. You can't do a 1:1 comparison with digital resolution due to the randomness of the film grain but any of the 45 mp cameras should be just fine. I imagine 24 would probably also be OK in most cases.

The V700 has not been made in a few years. The 800 and 850 are even better, but pricey. Same negative/transparency adapters work on all.

Curious to hear what mount you used for 616 format negatives?[/quote]

I'm retired from a place that does laser cutting. I had them cut me some masks for 2-1/4 x 3-1/4, 616 and PC (122) that are the same thickness as the Epson carriers. Very simple. Take two of them, line them up and tape along the long edge with Scotch clear packing tape which acts as a hinge. Put the neg in, close it and align the neg and put it on the scanner. Used them for years.
I think someone makes 3D printed masks for the Epsons for different sizes.

I am just finishing ~3700 616 negatives on an Epson V600 which has produced very satisifying results. I used a guide made by a company called Negative Solutions. Reasonable price and worked wonderfully.

Blessings!

Allen Stanley