Epson 4870 vs 4990?

[cooltouch]

I have located both an Epson 4870 and 4990, both claimed to be in "like new" condition, both priced comparably. I've never used either, so I don't have any idea which would be the better one to obtain. I've narrowed my search to these two scanner models for a few reasons:

1) I want a scanner capable of scanning large format slides or negs,

2) I can't afford an Epson V700, and

3) the HP G4050 I bought for this renders unacceptably blurry scans.

I'm not a member of the "newer means better" school. I've seen too many product lines get cheaper and worse as time passes, and as a result, I suspect everyone.

I can pick up the 4870 for somewhat less than the 4990, but the savings is not significant enough to warrant choosing it based on that alone. I would prefer to have the better scanner.

In addition to large format, I will be using it to scan mostly medium formatl slides and negatives. I recently acquired an HP S20 film scanner and have been playing around with it quite a bit lately. It scans at up to 2400ppi, but handles 35mm and prints only. Does a respectable job, though.

For sure, I will try out the Epson with 35mm also and see how it compares to the old HP S20. If favorably, I'll probably opt for using the Epson over the HP. I'm already familiar with the Epson software, and I can scan more than one slide or one neg film strip at a time with the flatbed.

So, if you've had the opportunity to use both the 4870 and 4990, I'd be very interested in your feedback.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

I own both ... can't really tell them apart ... perhaps the 4990 does slightly better on ICE but niether are as good as my Nikon in that way.

Larger scan area on the 4990 ... not much in it really

both are so much better than my S20 (which I also own) that I gave it to my niece and felt guilty about giving her such a poor thing

 

[Graham06]

I have the 4990 and it's ok. I remember looking at comparitive scans between the two before I bought mine and the 4990 was perhaps very slightly better.

You can get close to honest pixels if you always scan at 4800 dpi, then reduce by 50% in software (2400dpi) and then use the best 1-2 pixel radius sharpening you can find. You'll wish it did better, which is why I point this out; you'll probably appreciate the very small improvement in quality.

 

[sanking]

I owned a 4870 and now own a 4990 that I use primarily for proofing. There is very little difference in basic scan ability so you don't gain much in this area with the 4990. In fact, the effecttive resolution of my 4870 was actually a bit better than that of the 4990. You can scan negatives up to 8X10 with the 4990, but are limited to about 6X8 with the 4870.

The larger scanning area of the 4990 is a plus for me since I store MF negatives in 8X10" size print files and contact print by just placing the sheet right on the scanner bed and scanning at about 300-600 spi. I store these as contact print files. In a standard print file you can store 12 6Xccm negatives, 18 6X4.5cm, or 8 6X9cm and with the 4990 I contact the whole sheet with one scan.

I don't use the 4990 for final scans of MF negatives though it might be ok if you don't print larger than about 11X14.

Regardless of the optical resolution at which you scan with the 4870 or 4990 the effective resolution will not be greater than about 2000 spi. As was already suggested, you may gain just a bid by scanning at 4800 spi and then downsizing to 2400 spi. If nothing else you will decreae noise a bit.

Sandy