About to buy a V700

[mark]

is there any reason I should NOT?

 

[donbga]

is there any reason I should NOT?

Probably not a bad choice all things considered. Why pay extra for the v750?

Good luck with your scanner.

Don Bryant

 

[Pinholemaster]

Well the SilverFast software bundle on the V750 is better, but if you don't need that level of software, get the V700.

 

[keithwms]

Check epson's website... every great now and then you see even the newer scanners going as certified refurbs, in which case you get a fair discount and free shipping.

 

[lenny]

is there any reason I should NOT?

depends on what you expect out of it...

 

[donbga]

Check epson's website... every great now and then you see even the newer scanners going as certified refurbs, in which case you get a fair discount and free shipping.

Right now, there are no V700, v750s or 4990s listed on the Epson USA Clearance Store.

The price of reffurbed 3800 printers has dropeed another $50. I take this as a signal that Epson may be coming out with a replacement for this printer this year. They have already released the R1900 and I think the new 2880.

I do wonder how much longer Microtek and Epson will manufacture desktop scanners large enough for sheet film.


Don Bryant

 

[lenny]

is there any reason I should NOT?

I reiterate - it depends what you want out of it. There are a lot of folks who say that the idea is a great one, suggest where to buy this, etc.

However, the question is very incomplete. I've used this device - or the 750 - and to say I was unimpressed is being kind (very kind). The question gives us no info about the quality that is expected from this device, the size of prints to be made, what format film he is starting with, the level of experience, etc.

These scanners are not professional tools, in my opinion. I know some would certainly disagree, and they are welcome to, but the issue is how to advise someone when we don't know what the question is. I don't think we can.

Lenny

 

[keithwms]

I think the flatbeds do fine for negs enlarged up to ~5x; after that I have my concerns. Don't get me wrong, I think the epsons are very good and useful, and serve many good purposes. But I have yet to go beyond about ~5x print enlargement from an epson scan, honestly.

For slides, with possible exception of astia, I don't have any fondness for the results from my 4990. I use vuescan, which is substantially better than the epson software for slides, but... the gap between flatbed and drum is nowhere more apparent than smaller format slides.

Just for amusement, here is a crop of a drum scan from 6x7 velvia.

http://keithwilliamsphoto.net/mothdrumcrop.jpg

What you see represents a wingtip width of about 2.5 cm on the slide. This is not sharpened or PSed in any way, it's straight from the aztek, scanned to about 40mp. Now, the aztek could probably go quite a bit further with this slide, but I don't think any flatbed could get anywhere close to this. If you want to see my attempts, look here:

http://www.lightcafe.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11546

Again, I wouldn't conclude from this example that the epson is worthless because it can't do this- it can give you a lot of bang for your buck, particularly for larger format neg film.

 

[Shawn Rahman]

I reiterate - it depends what you want out of it. There are a lot of folks who say that the idea is a great one, suggest where to buy this, etc.

However, the question is very incomplete. I've used this device - or the 750 - and to say I was unimpressed is being kind (very kind). The question gives us no info about the quality that is expected from this device, the size of prints to be made, what format film he is starting with, the level of experience, etc.

These scanners are not professional tools, in my opinion. I know some would certainly disagree, and they are welcome to, but the issue is how to advise someone when we don't know what the question is. I don't think we can.

Lenny

Lenny,

Agreed that Mark should ask the question or state what his expectations or needs are. But when you say "these scanners are not professional tools", can you elaborate by telling us as compared to what? Dedicated film scanners? Expensive drum scanners? I am thinking of buying a V700 also because I'd like to buy something that will scan 35mm and 120 slides & negatives, and my choices seem pretty limited.

Can you tell us what you don't like about the V700? I haven't seen any thumbs down reviews of this scanner, so your input would be valuable to me. Thanks!

 

[keithwms]

Shawn, if you look at the example I just gave, I think you will see one of the big issue with flatbeds: their lens and glass necessarily degrades sharpness and also can introduce something like flare. Look at the leading edge of the wing of the moth, in the flatbed scan you see a kind of whitish glow. In the drum, the edges are much crisper. Having said that, again, the flatbed result is credible to modest enlargement, which I estimate to be ~5x. Again, the drum example I gave is totally unsharpened. The flatbed example was sharpened quite strongly.

Now if this shot had been on a smaller format, like 35mm, then the flatbed would get me a postcard print, nothing more than that IMHO.

 

[lenny]

Can you tell us what you don't like about the V700? I haven't seen any thumbs down reviews of this scanner, so your input would be valuable to me. Thanks!

Shawn,
I am a quality nut. Uncompromising. I am also a tool junkie. I am a professional printer and scanner. I say this not to toot my own horn, but to let you know of my bias. I have an Aztek Premier, which is top of the line in my opinion, altho' I understand ICG's at the 380 level or above are pretty good also (I haven't seen one). The reason I upgraded from my Howtek 4500 was to go into the service bureau business. I felt I needed the extra spi to scan for folks who shoot with smaller cameras.

My focus is museum quality, and I take that seriously. I used to be a platinum printer and wanted to get the same or better results from inkjet printing. I feel that I have achieved this, with considerable effort. I am nuts enough to mix my own inks (actually reformulated from a base of Cone ink these days).

I have to be sensitive to the fact that not everyone is going for ultimate quality. For many, an 8x10 or 11x14 is what they are looking for, some are hobbyists, just having fun, and so on.

With all of this as a backdrop, I have used the "Perfection 750" and been very unhappy. The hubris of using a word like "perfection" is a bit over the top, to say the least. I don't want to insult anyone that has one, or suggest they are not doing good work. There are lots of kinds of photography, and they don't all rely on a tight scan, or a great print. I found the scans from the Epson to be quite blurry, needing sharpening at a radius of .8-1.2. By contrast, I sharpen my scans from the Premier with a radius of .2. It's a real professional tool. Most drum scanners are quite good, and even a couple of the top flatbeds. I'd rather have a drum, for a variety of reasons. The high end scanners will suck the marrow out of a piece of film, and get everything the film has captured. So much so that you end up focusing on the deficiencies of the film.

It's unfortunate that most drums are 2500-10K, the Premier is even more. There are a number of used Howtek 8000's out there, some of which can be upgraded to rival a Premier. They run 6-8K. It isn't good news. I would like to say you can get Leica-level results from a scanner costing less than 1K, but the truth (or my belief about the truth) is that you can't.

Great cameras and lenses aren't cheap anymore either. They are all part of the capture step, getting the image into the computer. Its important.

Sorry for the long post, but I am opinionated - from experience - and I don't want to come off like I know everything - I don't. I will say that it has been a joy to work with a great tool.

Lenny

 

[Pinholemaster]

Do not buy a V700 or V750 for scanning 35 mm film.

Get a dedicated film scanner specialized for 35 mm film.

I use my V750 for 4x5 and 8x10 negatives and transparencies only.

 

[paladin1420]

I bought a v700 about 2 months ago and I have been very happy with it. It is not as good as a dedicated film scanner for 35mm but it does what I need, which is to get decent scans (not the absolute best possible scans) of my 35mm negatives. These scans are good enough for monitor or web display or even printing upto about 8x10, and they also allow me to have a really good idea of what's in the photos to help me select the ones I want to attempt to print traditionally.

The best thing about this scanner is that I have been able to easily get decent scans of old family photos from negatives and slides of all sizes. It also can scan medium and large format negatives pretty well.

It is certainly not the best scanner available, but it is pretty darn versatile for the price and good enough for most needs - at least most of my needs.

Regards,

Louis

 

[lenny]

I bought a v700 about 2 months ago and I have been very happy with it. It is not as good as a dedicated film scanner for 35mm but it does what I need, which is to get decent scans (not the absolute best possible scans) of my 35mm negatives. These scans are good enough for monitor or web display or even printing upto about 8x10, and they also allow me to have a really good idea of what's in the photos to help me select the ones I want to attempt to print traditionally.

The best thing about this scanner is that I have been able to easily get decent scans of old family photos from negatives and slides of all sizes. It also can scan medium and large format negatives pretty well.

It is certainly not the best scanner available, but it is pretty darn versatile for the price and good enough for most needs - at least most of my needs.

Regards,

Louis

Despite my diatribe against this device, you are using it for just the things it is good for. Like every level of tool, there is an appropriate use, and you have found it.

The only time a problem arises is when you want to exceed the capabilities of any tool, be it camera, printer, scanner, etc. I think then its important to be aware of the limits of any device, and not to imagine it can do what it can't.

Lenny

 

[risk]

V500

I have the V500, which is somewhat similar to the v700. Medium format, at least to my eye, looks pretty good and great for my uses. 35mm has a lot to be desired.

risk

 

[mark]

Well excuse the F**k out of me. I shoot film from 6x6 up to 8x10 I am planning to make enlarged negs from all of these and to scan and prep color transparency and negative film for lightjet printing.

drum scanners are out of my league

 

[donbga]

Well excuse the F**k out of me. I shoot film from 6x6 up to 8x10 I am planning to make enlarged negs from all of these and to scan and prep color transparency and negative film for lightjet printing.

drum scanners are out of my league

Mark,

If you look around there are drum scanners to be found for not a whole lot more than a V700/V750. I think you mis-interpret Lenny's comments.

Don Bryant

 

[ann]

so what scanner would be of use for 35mm negatives?

 

[keithwms]

Well excuse the F**k out of me. I shoot film from 6x6 up to 8x10 I am planning to make enlarged negs from all of these and to scan and prep color transparency and negative film for lightjet printing.

drum scanners are out of my league

Oh, I think you can get very good results flatbed scanning negs that size. Also my feeling is that astia flatbed scans quite well. What I have had rather limited success with, in medium format and smaller, is any of the velvias... unless they are overxposed, for my taste.

Owning a drum would be out of my league too, but I get things drummed when they are destined for lightjet because the lab I use does it as a sort of package deal. If I go home with my prints and a CD with a drum scan big enough for more prints of the same size or smaller, then I consider it a good investment.

Anyway a lightjet requires 300 dpi, right? So it's not like you're having an LVT made or doing an archival scan. The level of interpolation for getting modest enlargements from MF and LF to lightjet may be totally negligible.

so what scanner would be of use for 35mm negatives?

I think that the dedicated film scanners can do quite well for 35mm print film destined for ~5-10x enlargement, but for slide, I have serious doubts. I had a Minolta that did fine with astia but sucked for velvia, the dmax just wasn't there. A really big issue with 35mm scans in general is the damn film holder. There is so much detail per film area that the smallest ripple screws you. That may actually be one of the very biggest advantages of drum for smaller formats, since that factor is removed.

 

[ann]

thanks for the input. some one gave me a minolta film scanner and i tried it once (which is probably not a good test) and i wasn't very pleased with the results. Of course that could be user error.

with 120 film i haven't been displeased with my epson 3200, but i haven't made a print larger than 8x11 or smaller. I wasn't happy when i tried 6x7 at say 11x14 for the print exchange. However, whether this is user "lack of experience" or the scanner , i don't know.

i was tracking an epson 8000 on ebay but even now they are getting up near 1000 used seems a bit much.

 

[keithwms]

thanks for the input. some one gave me a minolta film scanner and i tried it once (which is probably not a good test) and i wasn't very pleased with the results. Of course that could be user error.

My experience:

Minolta + Minolta software = :confused:
Minolta + vuescan =

 

[donbga]

thanks for the input. some one gave me a minolta film scanner and i tried it once (which is probably not a good test) and i wasn't very pleased with the results. Of course that could be user error.

with 120 film i haven't been displeased with my epson 3200, but i haven't made a print larger than 8x11 or smaller. I wasn't happy when i tried 6x7 at say 11x14 for the print exchange. However, whether this is user "lack of experience" or the scanner , i don't know.

i was tracking an epson 8000 on ebay but even now they are getting up near 1000 used seems a bit much.

Ann,

The Minolta 5400 is an excellent scanner for 35 mm. I purchashed a Polaroid Sprintscan 120 a few weeks back for $400 in pristine shape. It will scan at 4000 spi. If you can find one of those in good condition at the right price it will do what you need. Most of the time they go for around $700 to $800 on eBay. I use Vuescan since Silverfast costs more than the scanner.

The Minolta MF scanner is also a great dedicated MF and 35 mm scanner but they aren't made any longer and are usually pricey at about $1400 - $1600.

Don

 

[ann]

i saw a polaroid sprintscan on ebay the other day, but wasn't sure about it and didn't want to rush into something, altho, i had read something in the past that they were pretty decent.

i don't remember which of the minolta scanner i was using, and i have lent it to a friend , but i don't think it was a 5400.

thanks for the tips gentlemen.
ann