Top critical review
Good concept, inexpensive, but want a higher-quality one.
March 22, 2018
BACKGROUND: I'm a pro photographer and also own a small side business that does photo scanning and restoration. To this point, I have not been able to find any 35mm slide/negative scanners that were affordable and did quick high-quality scans. The ones that you can still find that do high-quality scans are expensive ($6500 for a Nikon 8000), have sucky software, and more importantly, take several minutes per scan. It's nearly impossible to scan hundreds (or more) slides that way, especially when you have to feed them individually by hand.
This Kodak Scanza is similar to a few others on the market (particularly the Wolverine F2D), but since I already have a high-speed Kodak/Alaris print scanner, I thought I'd try this one. It's really just a cheap digital camera configured for scanning, but it's the concept I've been waiting for.. Now, if they would make a higher quality unit like this at a reasonable price, I'd be all over it. For now, this one may suffice for producing mediocre consumer-grade images, but I'd love to see a better one with a sharper lens and at least a slightly higher resolution. Even better would be one with an automatic feed that will scan a bunch of slides while you work on other things. (The SlideSnap can do that, but uses vintage, used Kodak projectors, and can cost over $4,000 for a complete setup.)
- Does an okay job of scanning slides and negs, but is far from pro-quality.
- Quick scans (digital capture) in 1-2 seconds.
- Cheap plastic construction. Some of the adapters feel like they're going to break when you try to open them, so I don't know how long they'll last.
- Although quick per scan, you still may not want to scan hundreds or thousands of slides since you have to feed them manually.
- Not overly sharp images, but should work to print up to about 8x10 size from a sharp original slide or negative.
- They don't say how many dpi/ppi this is, but at 14mb, it's about 3000 in my estimation. Not bad, but just keep in mind that these pixels are not overly sharp. I'd skip using the built-in interpolation to the 22mb size, as the quality and sharpness degrades quite a bit. I recommend doing your own up-sizing if necessary.