• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Real world comparison between Epson 4990 and v700?

Usagi

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
362
Location
Turku, Finla
Format
Multi Format
Hi,

It is finally time to say good bye to my old Epson 3200 flatbed scanner.

But which scanner to buy now? Epson 4990 is quite cheap but old. Epson v700 is expensive but really good. v750 is out of budget.

I have done quick test between my 3200 and v700 that I had access.

The result is clear. v700 is way better than my old scanner. In both, sharpness and dense areas.

My main need for scanner is to get MF and LF negatives to web, which can be done perfectly with old 3200.
I also have to scan all my MF color work for printing. This does not happen very often but this is where my 3200 really sucks. Actually I think that reason why I haven't done much color MF photography for couple of years is simple because I cannot get good scans from them.

Now I am asking have anyone done similar test between 4990 and v700/v750 that I have done between 3200 and v700.
Especially the difference in dense areas of slide are crucial.

If such test exist, it would show clearly how much difference there is between 4990 and v700.

Thanks!

Jukka
 
Jukka


I know only of this one.

From what I understand the money may well be better spent on the 4990. I have the 4870 and 3200. I think that the 4870 is clearly better than the 3200 (well, in Colour materials). The advantage of the 700 may be that it comes with warranty and newness of parts is an issue in my opinion. There are some things like gassing of plastics which fog the internal mirrors as well as reliability of the mechanisms which re-locate optics between document and transparency scans.

I once posted this scan of 35mm 200ISO negative from my Epson 4870 and a friends scan using his Nikon 8000

Dead Link Removed

the discussion topic was Dead Link Removed.
 
Hi

just had another thought .... as you say

Usagi said:
My main need for scanner is to get MF and LF negatives to web, which can be done perfectly with old 3200.
Click to expand...

definitely ...


I'm just getting an acquaintance in Australia to scan some 120 6x9 from my cameras (which admittedly may not match the optics of your equipment) and was astonished at how close they were. Please feel free to email me if you would like segments and overview.
 
Hi, there is a good V700 test here:

http://www.fotoavventure.it/freecontent/FC_ProvaV700/index.htm

that also puts it up against a professional Kodak-Creo IQSmart3 scanner and two dedicated filmscanners, the Minolta Scanelite 5400 and the Microtek 120TF, the last one goes up to MF, don't know about the Minolta.

Unfortunately the test is in Italian, but I think the pictures and graphs speak for themselves to some extent... maybe with Google Translate or something you may read some of it (I can read Italian, though I am Dutch, but it's to much work to translate it for you all)

They concentrate on shadow performance and dynamic range, especially in the last pictures down the page (scans there based on fluid mounting) Seems like the Microtek might be a better option if that is your main concern.
 
I own a V750, but unfortunately have never been very impressed with it -- especially for the price paid. Maybe it's because I owned a 1680, which was really well built; the V750 seems quite flimsy and picky in comparison.

I was recently traveling abroad and was able to use a 4990 for a few weeks. I was extremely impressed, especially for its price (about $150). The 4990 image quality seemed at least as good as my V750 (although as I didn't have them side by side, I couldn't do a real comparison). The medium-format film holder on the 4990 is notably better, although it's limited to only one strip, rather than the two on the V750.

Note that my usage may be different than yours: I have an Imacon Photo which I use for final scans; the flatbeds are basically "proofing" scanners, which do a good job reasonably quickly.
 
pellicle said:
I feel that the Epson has not really made big changes since 4870. I have not tested D-Max on my 4870 yet but my tests with the 3200 are here, I expect to see nothing major different.
Click to expand...

That is quite interesting.
I have also used 3200 as an densitometer (before got real one).
My approach was similar, I used vuescan's densitometer tool and checked values that it gave against real values of Stouffer step wedge.

From that information I plotted a correction chart where X axis has real density and Y axis has density given by Vuescan (I also created similar for rgb).




For 35mm I have Minolta Scan Dual IV. I haven't measured it's Dmax, but when comparing aside with 3200 it seems that Scan Dual IV has Dmax around 3.1 or 3.2 which is too less for some color slides.
 
Usagi said:
For 35mm I have Minolta Scan Dual IV. I haven't measured it's Dmax, but when comparing aside with 3200 it seems that Scan Dual IV has Dmax around 3.1 or 3.2 which is too less for some color slides.
Click to expand...

to perhaps change the subject a little
I would like to see some more written about the Minolta Multi Pro than there is. I wonder if it is equal to the Nikon 9000 or if the Nikon has won the market by its good name in the 35mm scanners?

I feel I will be doing more 6x12 soon rather than 4x5 (in colour at least) and in this area a better scanner will be nicer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register