Epson V600 vs V700 vs V750

What are the differences in quality between these three scanners.
I plan on scanning 35mm and 120 size B&W negs and some transparencies too.
Is the 700 worth twice the 600? Is there a visible difference between the 750 and 700?
I would like to scan the highest resolution possible for archiving stock images.
Thanks

f64 said:

What are the differences in quality between these three scanners.
I plan on scanning 35mm and 120 size B&W negs and some transparencies too.
Is the 700 worth twice the 600? Is there a visible difference between the 750 and 700?
I would like to scan the highest resolution possible for archiving stock images.
Thanks

Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum!

If you read the specs of all those scanners then you may get something there, first V600 don't scan large formats so i think you don't care about that as you scan only 35mm and 120mm, second the dynamic range or called optical density of V600 is 3.4 Dmax, while on V700/V750 is 4.0 so this give better details on shadows and highlight but really i can't be sure this will be noticeable on different scanning sizes.
Also with V700/V750 you get SilverFast software, V600 i think has only Epson Scan, and i am not sure about V600 or V700 but my V750 came with EZ color calibration CD and colors chart [transparency sheet] as well, still i didn't use it but i think it will increase the accuracy of colors on the scan results i think, not sure about the speed of scanning of those models but i don't care as long i can get highest and better results even it will scan for 1 hour, another thing to keep in mind as from what i hear that V750 coming with fluid mount, from what i read this will make better scanning as well, so significantly V750 is on top then 700 a bit slightly then V600, sure there are others may did comparison between those 3 and can tell you better reviews, i am still new using my V750 and new to film as well.

Good Luck!

f64 said:

What are the differences in quality between these three scanners.
I plan on scanning 35mm and 120 size B&W negs and some transparencies too.
Is the 700 worth twice the 600? Is there a visible difference between the 750 and 700?
I would like to scan the highest resolution possible for archiving stock images.
Thanks

Click to expand...

The specs are all available online. Note that the V600 transparency unit only covers 2.7" x 9.5" while the V7xx covers the full scanning bed. This will be significant if you want to make proof sheets or scan multiple film strips.
I would say that none of these is really appropriate for archiving 35mm images, and probably not medium format, either; for highest possible resolution you will want to use a dedicated film scanner.

There are obvious differences in what you are paying for when comparing the 600, 700 and 750. I will do my best to focus on things others did not mention.

The 700 and 750 both have a dual-lens setup, each tuned for a different resolution. The 750 gets improved optics (coatings) and a fancy "high-reflection" mirror.

While the hardware resolutions report out the same, the 700/750 offer a better motor which likely also improves the reliability. The reliability for the 600 is quoted at 30K cycles, while the 700/750 is 100K cycles.

The light source in the 600 is LED, while the 700/750 use a white cold cathode florescent bulb. People argue about this kind of thing. Ken Rockwell would tell you not to worry about it.

Based on the specs the 750 scans twice as fast as the 600. The measurements are in ms, but faster is faster so I guess it depends on what you need to do with your time.

Finally, the 750 comes with a fluid mount adapter. It doesn't come with any of the tools you use to wet mount, but it is a nice addition if you are so inclined.

One could argue the relative value between the 700 and 750, since not everyone needs all the extra features: upgraded versions of Silverfast, the Monico EZ color kit, the lens coatings, the wet mount adapter etc. I think its safe to say that the 600 is in a different class pulling in less professional features and overall lower reliability. That said, it is cheaper by a lot and if your budget happens to be making the decision then maybe it will do.

I use an Epson V750 for wet scanning large format film. When I am working with 35mm or 120, I wet scan with a Nikon 9000. I agree with Philip, a dedicated film scanner is no match for a flatbed. That said the V750 is a lot cheaper than a Hasselblad or drum scanner and I appreciate the quality I get from my scans. When I look at my own workflow, I could have gotten the 700 and missed out on the nicer optics and the Monico EZ color bits, but I decided to just take the plunge. I do not regret my purchase.

Consider your expectations, since ultimately you know what your time, money and images are worth. Scanning at the highest possible resolution to archive film seems like a one time thing and something you could outsource to a lab. Yes, it is more expensive (really expensive if you need the highest resolution), but it will take up less of your time. If you are pursuing the scanning project for the love of the images then maybe your time will be worth it, but then consider what you plan to do with the images once they are digitized. How much resolution is required - bigger isn't always better. Finally if there is some commercial significance (e.g. you stand to make money from selling the images) then I wouldn't be cheap on the scanner since its the thing besides you and the image that is making you money.

Hope this helps. Good luck!

Thanks for the insight guys..
Put it this way, I cannot afford any kind of Medium format dedicated film scanner like Nikon or Hasselblad etc etc.
So I am stuck with a flatbed, any higher quality scans I need will have to be sent out to a lab.
Was just wondering if I can get away with a V600 or the V700.

I hear you f64, even some of the used stuff is hard to find and is still expensive. It really goes back to understanding your goals and expectations. Some of the language you used is a little loaded in the context of scanning, specifically archiving and stock images. It's not really clear what you plan to do with the scans once they are made and as I mentioned this drives the answer to your question.

There are plenty of people making scans and prints from relatively low-end equipment, but yielding results that surprise us all. I think this is mostly because the images are so striking and the algorithms for enlarging imagery do an incredible job. There is definitely an aspect of the tennis racket not making the tennis pro, but depending on what you are doing it actually does matter.

Hi f64.

I have the V750 and use it on a PC with Vista. That means the bundled software doesn't work. However, I'm pleased with the results so far and I was told that Epson is now giving away the liquid neg carrier to existing users, so that should be a bonus.

I don't know anyone who is disappointed with the V750, so that would be my recommendation.

Regards, Paul.

Thanks Paul

Paul Jenkin said:

Hi f64.

I have the V750 and use it on a PC with Vista. That means the bundled software doesn't work. However, I'm pleased with the results so far and I was told that Epson is now giving away the liquid neg carrier to existing users, so that should be a bonus.

I don't know anyone who is disappointed with the V750, so that would be my recommendation.

Regards, Paul.

Click to expand...

I am disappointed with V750, i want either film scanner as Nikon 9000 or a drum scanner.

Tareq,

You were shooting 6x6 right? 6x6 scanned at 2300dpi real resolution isn't that much bad; it will give you non-interpolated ~ 17x17" / 43.3x43.3cm prints from full frame, at 300ppi print resolution. You can go down to 240ppi w/o perceptible quality loss, depending on subject (portraits for instance), which will end up in a print size around 21.3x21.3" / 54x54cm. With some intelligent / talented post-processing you can go even larger - yes, w/o extra detail but also w/o giving the impression of low quality...

What print sizes you're after? (Huge?) And how many of your images would be printed that large? (All of them?)

Maybe you shouldn't be so harsh against your new equipment...

Regards,
Loris.

Loris Medici said:

Tareq,

You were shooting 6x6 right? 6x6 scanned at 2300dpi real resolution isn't that much bad; it will give you non-interpolated ~ 17x17" / 43.3x43.3cm prints from full frame, at 300ppi print resolution. You can go down to 240ppi w/o perceptible quality loss, depending on subject

Click to expand...

I think the 300 ppi rule is far overrated. I have a 65*85 cm big B&W print (about 25.5" * 33.5") made from a 1200 ppi scan of a 4x5 inch negative (slightly cropped 4031*5266 pixels, +/- 21.2 Mpixel)

That is just 160 ppi for the print... It looks fantastically sharp and detailed, even close up. I can see tiny lines of spider webs in between cast iron work...

The main thing here is that the quality of the image information is very high. Even though the scan is just 1200 ppi, every pixels carries information (not interpolated blur), and that translates in high quality output.

Marco

I would agree with that; large prints don't require 300 ppi, simply because they aren't intended for close viewing/inspection.

65x85cm would be ideally observed from 107cm (diagonal length of print) and a good eye (20-20 vision) can only resolve about 3-4 l/mm at that distance. Double this and you have 8 l/mm. 850mm x 8 = 6800 pixels, 6800 / 4.75" (long dimension of image on 4x5" film, roughly) ~= 1400 spi scan resolution will be plenty enough in that case. (Very much in-line with your 1200spi scanning figure; remember, I doubled the required resolution...)

Intelligent post-processing will definitely increase apparent sharpness (not overdone!) and impression of detail even at lower print resolutions. The result will be satisfactory for all except print-sniffers...

Regards,
Loris.

P.S. It's good practice to struggle for pleasing print-sniffers, wherever it's possible... If you don't go for the best you CAN do, it's simply bad practice / lack of self-respect...

Loris Medici said:

I would agree with that; large prints don't require 300 ppi, simply because they aren't intended for close viewing/inspection.

65x85cm would be ideally observed from 107cm (diagonal length of print) and a good eye (20-20 vision) can only resolve about 3-4 l/mm at that distance. Double this and you have 8 l/mm.

Click to expand...

Loris, I agree with you that most large prints will not be looked upon from close up. Even so, if I do get in close, say 20 cm, detail and sharpness are still way up there, and utterly convincing. Like I said, there are some really tiny spider web lines visible in the scan, probably only a pixel or so wide, that do show up beautifully in the print.

You are right that proper post processing and sharpening helps too, but I do think that the simple fact that a 1200 or 2400 ppi scan of a 4x5 400 ISO negative results in very clean and high detail scans, is an important factor too. If every pixel carries image information instead of just being interpolated blur, it allows for more "scaling up" in the printing process.

Marco B said:

...
If every pixel carries image information instead of just being interpolated blur, it allows for more "scaling up" in the printing process.
...

Click to expand...

Agree, that's a simple / solid fact that I experience in real-life situations; I just quit shooting film "in 35mm format" a couple of years ago, in favour of digital (Sony Alpha 700 + Tamron 17-50/2.8), just because of that. I can get better results (in every aspect) with digital, given the scanning equipment / means I have access to - in practical sense.

The problem is that i read that film medium format is better than digital DSLRs, not sure if that film medium format is better than digital medium format as well, i feel all my scans whether at 6400dpi or 1200dpi or in between never come closer to my digital medium format, i may like the colors very much but not the details or the sharpness, i prefer my DSLR shots in sharpness more even than my scans, and i print in different sizes minimum A4, but i have Epson printer that i print 17" wide with it and in the future i may get 44" printer, so i print large print in average of 24" [more or less].
I know this scanner is good enough, but it seems i don't know how to use it as you all use it to get better results, i couldn't understand a lot of tips or steps i see on the net, and i will keep searching where i can get a video tutor about how to use this scanner, i understand by watching more than by reading, and my English is not that good to understand everything i read and even if i ask it will not help me if i still don't understand some words and statements.

TareqPhoto said:

The problem is that i read that film medium format is better than digital DSLRs, not sure if that film medium format is better than digital medium format as well, i feel all my scans whether at 6400dpi or 1200dpi or in between never come closer to my digital medium format, i may like the colors very much but not the details or the sharpness, i prefer my DSLR shots in sharpness more even than my scans, and i print in different sizes minimum A4, but i have Epson printer that i print 17" wide with it and in the future i may get 44" printer, so i print large print in average of 24" [more or less].

Click to expand...

Medium format film is potentially a lot better than DSLR 20+ mp, especially for B&W, but in order to take advantage of the superiority of MF film you must scan with a dedicated film scanner, high end professional flatbed or a drum scanner. The Epson V700/V750 series is considered about the best consumer flatbed on the market today, but when push comes to shove it has a real effective resolution of about 2300 spi. That is good enough for a 14X20" print from a 6X7cm negative at about 300 dpi but you can do that well with a 22mp camera, right? However, the optics of my Mamiya 7II system are capable of producing more than 5000 ppi of detail on a 6X7 cm negative and the Epson V700 can only capture about 40% of that!!

On the other hand if you don't print larger than 14X20" the Epson V700 does fine for scanning MF negatives so the question becomes primarily whether you prefer a film or digital work flow.

Sandy King

Sandy,

Why 14x20"? 6x7 image height = 5.65cm / 2.54 = 2.22"

2.22" x 2300 spi (scan) / 300 ppi (print) = 17" ???

Should have been 17x20", right? (Compatible with Tareq's current printer...)

Regards,
Loris.

Loris Medici said:

Sandy,

Why 14x20"? 6x7 image height = 5.65cm / 2.54 = 2.22"

2.22" x 2300 spi (scan) / 300 ppi (print) = 17" ???

Should have been 17x20", right? (Compatible with Tareq's current printer...)

Regards,
Loris.

Click to expand...

Loris,

Yes, your numbers are closer than mine. What I would get would be 18" X 22" at 287 dpi, which is a bit larger than 14"X20". I actually meant to write 16"X20" since that is a standard print size in the US but mistakenly wrote 14".

However, I personally like to print at 480 dpi, and my fail-safe minimum is usually 360 dpi. The higher number does make a difference at times.

Sandy

I think i will love my digital medium format over my film scans until i can offer a dedicated film scanner or a drum scanner [i couldn't afford because i spent a lot of money to get a digital medium format (H3DII-39 now and very soon H4D-60 as a trade-in with 39)], but the colors i get from film is something else that i try to replicate with digital and i can't, and i can't wait to see what B&W film can do against digital B&W.
I shoot 6x6[501CM] and 6x7[RZ67pro2] and 6x12/6x9[Holga 120WPC], would like to ask, is it better to print at 300dpi or i can go with 240dpi? i don't know why but i see 2 labs here changing dpi to 150 and print [i think size from 4x6 up to A3], why? because no more details gain for those smaller sizes maybe?

TareqPhoto said:

I think i will love my digital medium format over my film scans until i can offer a dedicated film scanner or a drum scanner [i couldn't afford because i spent a lot of money to get a digital medium format (H3DII-39 now and very soon H4D-60 as a trade-in with 39)]

Click to expand...

Man... If you can afford THAT kind of equipment, than you should stop using film now...

Nothing wrong with using film, I love it, but unless you have a still used darkroom and large format enlarger like I have and can make direct optical enlargements on real B&W photopaper (with all the fun that goes with it, instead of slowly developing RSI behind a computerscreen), there is just no point in scanning film if you have that kind of MF digital equipment... get some "film simulation" filter for Photoshop instead... there seems to be several out there that do a reasonable job.

Tareq, see this. (Alien Skin - Exposure 2.)

You can download a demo version and evaluate to see if it does the job for you...

Marco B said:

Man... If you can afford THAT kind of equipment, than you should stop using film now...

Click to expand...

You may see on the Ebay that the Hasselblad H1 and H2 are now available for cheaper than a 20-year old 503CXi and CW. I had a H2-22 for some time, and sold it to buy a 503CX. These H digital are so heavy. I carried one in a tripod for 2 hours, I got blisters on my shoulder...

maretzo said:

You may see on the Ebay that the Hasselblad H1 and H2 are now available for cheaper than a 20-year old 503CXi and CW.

Click to expand...

Hehe, it will not be for long that that is becoming truth, with the onslaught of high res 35mm digital equipment in increasingly high resolution...

maretzo said:

I had a H2-22 for some time, and sold it to buy a 503CX.

Click to expand...

Would love to have something similar, or one of these Rolleiflexes with twinlens, just because they look so nice. But definitely a waist level viewfinder. Just nice to do and have something different, compared to 35 mm SLR or my 4x5 Tachihara. Still need to get an MF set though....

Marco B said:

Man... If you can afford THAT kind of equipment, than you should stop using film now...

Nothing wrong with using film, I love it, but unless you have a still used darkroom and large format enlarger like I have and can make direct optical enlargements on real B&W photopaper (with all the fun that goes with it, instead of slowly developing RSI behind a computerscreen), there is just no point in scanning film if you have that kind of MF digital equipment... get some "film simulation" filter for Photoshop instead... there seems to be several out there that do a reasonable job.

Click to expand...

Will you do that if you have a digital MF and forget about film or you keep using film even you have the best digital MF?

Loris Medici said:

Tareq, see this. (Alien Skin - Exposure 2.)

You can download a demo version and evaluate to see if it does the job for you...

Click to expand...

I have this plug-in or filter and also Nik Silver Efex Pro, both are great and i am happy with results, but the fun in film is different, even i feel the look of film is different mostly with colors.
I will keep using digital no doubt, but i want to have time for film as i came late and all or most of you did shoot and use film for years, i just started to shoot film 2 months ago.