Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Microtek Filmscan 35  
User currently offlineEddgge From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 123 posts, RR: 4
Posted (14 years 1 month 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1945 times:


I would like to know if anyone have tried the Microtek Filmscan 35. This is a really cheap one, about 190-200 USD.
Is it worth buying this one? Any examples at a.net where this scanner has been used?

URL to this scanner´s homepage:


Best regards,

4 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineSkyliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 205 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (14 years 1 month 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1864 times:

This appears to be the same product marketed in the U.S. as the "Prime Film 1800". I have had one for approximately 9 months, and have uploaded a number of shots to a.net with it. It is inexpensive, and I have no idea what it's longevity will be. On the other hand, as an inexpensive way to digitize photos from film, particularly for the net, where resolution is low, I don't think that it is a bad way to start.

User currently offlineEddgge From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (14 years 1 month 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1837 times:

Thanx for Your response George!

No one else who use this scanner? Embarrassment


User currently offlineFUAirliner From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 538 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (14 years 1 month 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1814 times:


as George said it is a good slide scanner to start, but after a few months you might want a better one. Most airliners.net users use either a Minolta Scan Dual II or a Hewlett-Packard S20 which are slightly more expensive but produce a far superior quality. I was in the same situation about two years ago and I decided to save a little more money in order to get a Minolta Scan Dual II instead of a cheaper one like the Microtek Filmscan 35.

This is just my advice and I'm sure other forum members think differently.


Frank Unterspann - Hamburg, Germany
User currently offlineFly-K From Germany, joined May 2000, 3204 posts, RR: 48
Reply 4, posted (14 years 1 month 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1805 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have the Microtek 35t plus - is it the same?
It was around 400USD 2.5 yrs ago.
By now it's a bit worn out (more than 5,000 scans), and it's hard to compete against digital SLRs. But it was OK in the beginning.


Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been...
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Microtek FilmScan 35 USB PC posted Sun Oct 28 2001 01:09:26 by OH-LZA
Microtek FilmScan 35 Slide Scanner posted Sat Aug 25 2001 19:06:25 by Scanning
Scanner Microtek Filmscan 35 PC posted Tue Mar 6 2001 20:01:30 by Scanning
Microtek Film Scan 35 posted Sun Nov 25 2001 12:48:31 by G-CIVP
Canon 20-35 2.8 L posted Sun Sep 14 2008 02:00:02 by Maverick55
Nikon 18-35 Mm F/3.5-4.5 Lens posted Mon Feb 28 2005 22:33:24 by Codeshare
Canon 17-40 Vs. Sigma 17-35 posted Mon Dec 27 2004 23:50:31 by WorldspotterPL
Canon 17-40L F/4 Vs. Tamron 17-35 F/2.8-4 posted Sun Dec 19 2004 20:29:50 by Mfz
Your Thoughts On The Canon 35/350 F/3.5-5.6L USM? posted Sun Sep 12 2004 18:17:12 by UTA_flyingHIGH
Canon 70-200 F/2.8L Vs. F/2.8L Is Vs. 35-350... posted Thu Aug 26 2004 01:19:56 by QantasA332