Need help/input re choosing a scanner...

A street portrait

A
A street portrait

  • 0
  • 0
  • 61
A street portrait

A
A street portrait

  • 1
  • 1
  • 59
img746.jpg

img746.jpg

  • 4
  • 0
  • 61
No Hall

No Hall

  • 1
  • 2
  • 64
Brentwood Kebab!

A
Brentwood Kebab!

  • 1
  • 1
  • 119

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,791
Messages
2,780,898
Members
99,705
Latest member
Hey_You
Recent bookmarks
0

PeterAM

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
87
Location
Scarsdale, N
Format
Multi Format
I am thinking about getting a scanner for working with 645, 6X6 and 6X7 film;no intention to use for 35mm, unless contact sheets are doable. I would like to be able to print (mostly B&W) up to A3 size. I can print up to 17X25, but do that very infrequently;if I have something that requires a larger print, I'll get a drum scan done. I've been looking at the Epson 700 and 750 flatbeds; the Nikons are too pricey.

As far as I can tell, the difference between the two Epsons appears to be the fact that the 750 has fluid mounting capability and higher level software. A 700, with the addition of a Betterscanning height mounting unit (wet/dry) and either Vuescan or an upgrade to a higher version of Silverfast, puts it at about the same price as the 750. That said, I'm wondering if I've missed anything in terms of comparing the two scanners and what the better approach would be.

I realize that there are a few variables involved and it gets pretty subjective, but I would appreciate some input from people that have experience with this type of equipment, as to which way to go.
 

pellicle

Member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
1,175
Location
Finland
Format
4x5 Format
Pete

I am thinking about getting a scanner
...no intention to use for 35mm, unless contact sheets are doable.
...
I can print up to 17X25, but do that very infrequently
...
if I have something that requires a larger print, I'll get a drum scan done
...
As far as I can tell, the difference between the two Epsons appears to be the fact that the 750 has fluid mounting capability and higher level software.
...
puts it at about the same price as the 750
....
I realize that there are a few variables involved and it gets pretty subjective,
...

I think you've encapsulated all the points. How much would you save by buying a used 4870 and the mounting gear?

compare that to the convenience of picking up the 750 and there is your answer
 

cooltouch

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
1,677
Location
Houston, Tex
Format
Multi Format
Or a used 4990 . . .

When I was in the market for a scanner upgrade a few months back, I couldn't afford the V700, and found that 4870s and 4990s were going for roughly the same price -- about $200, which is what I paid for my 4990.

I have been very happy with the scans I've done of my medium format slides and negatives. For 35mm, I think it does a reasonably good job. And I'm just using the film holders that came with the scanner, and Epson Scan software.
 

mrred

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
1,251
Location
Montreal, Ca
Format
Multi Format
Or a used 4990 . . .

When I was in the market for a scanner upgrade a few months back, I couldn't afford the V700, and found that 4870s and 4990s were going for roughly the same price -- about $200, which is what I paid for my 4990.

I bought a new 4490 and a betterscanning MF ANR tray. My MF scans are good and likely fit into your quality range. I usually scan at 1200-2400, but the real dpi of the scanner seems to be around 1800-2000 which is surprisingly close to the 700/750 real dpi. The DMAX is slightly higher on the 700/750. If that is truly an issue, drum scans are your only real choice.

Vuescan can create contact(ish) sheets for you. You can create a bmp file that get's every scan appended to it. I would not trust an epson flatbed to 35mm, as the focus issues are too varied. Anything that takes that much work to do deserves better hardware. Dedicated 35mm scnning is the way to go for that.

I have tried a fluid scan (mineral oil with an anr plate) on the 4490 as a proof-of-concept and it did scan (35mm) without focus issues. But my Plustek still scans better, without the mess. You can do fluid scans on any flatbed capable of doing neg scans with http://aztek.com/consumables.html (mylar sheets). Their stuff is supposed to be easier to clean. The fluid does all the work, thus getting better software is not an increased benefit for a 750.

If choosing an epson, you need to replace the holders for MF. The engineers must get bonuses for bad design. The one supplied with my 4490 potentially can scratch the neg, if not cut to one frame lengths. Betterscanning has a mutch better design.
 

Matus Kalisky

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
630
Location
Aalen, Germa
Format
Multi Format
You do not mention what kind of photos you want to print, so I will assume this will be landscapes with nice detail in them. With the format mentioned you are looking at about 6 - 8x enlargement factor.

I guess you will get acceptable (well, that only you can define) prints from the flatbeds in this size. But to be on the safe side I would propose to you to kindly ask some of the (in scanning) more experienced members here around to scan for you one 645 and 6x7 slide/negative (depending on what you shoot) and then print it yourself. Then send the same two slides to a lab that uses Coolscan 9000 (or some of the Imacon scanners - my experience was that the C9000 scan at 3000 dpi was very comparable to Imacon X5 scan) and print those as well.

So - for not too much money you will find out where you stand and whether a flatbed scanner will deliver for you acceptable results or not. This will delay the arrival of your new scanner but I think it is worth it.

I myself have just got a Microtek F1 (I shoot 35mm, 6x6 and 4x5"), but I know that for larger enlargements I will keep sending my slides to a lab.

In a few days I may be able to post a small comparison of Coolscan 9000 and Imacon X5 scans to the Microtek - to get an idea, but only with printed image you can tell the true difference.

One more small point: scanning yourself gives you the scans much faster after you got your slides, but do not forget about the work involved and the learning curve. Also - I do not know how noisy the Epsons are, but the Microtek is loud enough to disturb you from watching a movie or having a dinner in the same room. Also - if you want to process more film - think about the time involved.

Just my 0.02
 

cooltouch

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
1,677
Location
Houston, Tex
Format
Multi Format
About Epson noise levels -- My 4990 is located just above my desk, and I have a TV that I often watch just across the room. I can hear the 4990 when it's doing its chores if I listen for it, but it's in no way disturbing. I also have a somewhat older Epson 3170 that is actually a little bit quieter than the 4990. My guess, without having used one, is that a 4490's noise level is on par with the 4990's.

I look forward to your scan comparisons between the Coolscan, Imacon and Microtek, by the way.
 

Doug Fisher

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
126
>>I also have a somewhat older Epson 3170 that is actually a little bit quieter than the 4990.<<

I am guessing this is because the 4990 has an additional motor in the light lid to move the light source while the 3170 just uses a static light.

Doug
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom