Epson Expression 1680 versus Newer Models

<p>For years, I've used (though infrequently) an Epson Expression 1680, with SilverFast and with VueScan, to scan 4x5 inch color slides and black and white negatives. I've been satisfied with the results but have never used the scans to print anything larger than 8.5 x11 inches. I'm now considering going to large prints and wonder whether it is worthwhile to spend more than $600 to get a newer scanner, presumably an Epson v700. If there will be differences but they will be noticeable only on pixel peeping, then I don't want to spend the money. On the other hand, if I'll notice the differences in viewing an 11 x 13 inch print from normal distance, then I do want to spend the money. Not sure how I'd feel about circumstances between. One note that might be relevant to this is that I believe I'll have to use VueScan if I stick with the older scanner because I don't believe that either SilverFast or Epson itself has scanner software for it that will work with Windows 7 or 8 (and my operating system will be one or the other). Thanks in advance for any advice.</p>

<p>To be sure, I realize that no one owes me a response, but I was hoping that someone would have a word of wisdom. If not, I understand.</p>

<p>I still use my 1680 (with VueScan) on an occasional basis. I believe that it actually achieves 1600 dpi, whereas newer flatbeds that boast higher stated resolutions, do not get much past 2200 dpi. The dynamic range of the 1680 is also high enough for most uses. For 4x5, I would not upgrade to a new Epson. The real upgrade would be a Nikon CoolScan 8000/9000, which are currently insanely overpriced.</p>

<p>Exactly the sort of advice I was looking for, Les, thank you. You mention the Nikon alternative, which, in addition to a price much higher than I could spend, will not scan 4x5 anyway. It does raise the question, though, whether the Nikon 8000 or 9000 would deliver better quality on medium format film than a flatbed would on 4x5. The Nikon would still be expensive, but not as expensive as a medium format digital back (though may be as expensive as drum scans of 4x5 film except at high volume over the lifer of the scanner). In any case, for now, based on what you say, I'm going to stick with the Epson 1680. Thanks again.</p>

<p>The big difference between the older scanners and new ones is the light source used in scanning. Your 1680, my 1640su, and 1650 use a cold cathode fluorescent lamp. The new scanners use RGB led's. The led light source gives an increase in Dmax. I recently bought a V500 to get by with on this Win 8.1 machine. I have not done a lot of negative scanning with the V500, just some test film from cameras I repaired. I am not that technically versed in scanning technology. I disagree with those that state the actual resolution is less than what the manufacture states for their scanner. There are several levels of test targets. A recent poster stated in another thread that he uses a glass USAF1951 test target from Edmunds Scientific. I looked at test targets on a scientific supplier web site a few years ago and found the targets ranged in price from $400 to $1200 depending on how fine the resolution on the test target was. A low to medium resolution target will never produce a high resolution scan.<br>

I never set the scan resolution higher than the manufacturer's stated optical resolution. At high resolutions the film grain becomes more apparent than it is at lower resolutions when the scan is viewed at 100%.</p>

<p><strong>Charles:</strong> There has been exhaustive testing of the Epson scanners by many reputable sites using high-end targets and careful methodology. The 2200 spi figure is accurate.</p>

<p>I apologize for the Nikon references.</p>

<p>Thanks again, Les and Charles, and no need to apologize for the Nikon reference.<br>

Charles: How much difference dynamic range, or otherwise, do you think the LED light source makes?</p>

<p>15% to 20% increase according to my eye, which is very good but starting to weaken.</p>

<p>I have a 1680, I've had it for 10 years or more. It cost £750, today scanners are available with the same or better performance for less, but the 1680 works great with reflective material and also sheet and roll film, provided that this is exposed correctly. You will be familiar with the spec:<br>

<a href="http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?oid=335337">http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?oid=335337</a><br>

The 1680 has been very reliable, so I see no reason not to continue to use it until it breaks. I have not experienced any practical limit on print size - I have frequently gone 16x20" from 4x5 or16x16" from 6x6 cm. Definitely try printing your 1680 scans large and see if you like the result before you spend money on a new scanner.</p>

<p>Thanks, David. A 20% increase in dynamic range may be worth upgrading for, which Charles says the LED light source provides, but that depends on the image. My preference is for high contrast, ordinarily, though I'm not sure which way that cuts. Thanks to all.</p>

<p>Rather than to rely on memory and perception I decided to do a test, scan a 21 step step wedge on two of the three scanners I have. A 4x5 transparency adapter works on the 1640su and 1650 so it was used on the 1650. The 1640 is not currently set up.<br>

The step wedge was scanned at 600 dpi, 48 bit RGB with epson twain 5.1 on the 1650 via photoshop import function. <br>

The posted image was reduced to 8 bit then to 300dpi in photoshop then reduced to 699 pixels wide for posting here.</p><div></div>

<p>The same scan settings on the Epson V500. Professional mode, default settings with unsharp mask turned off.</p><div></div>

<p>The histogram setting in epson twain was adjusted to approximate the 1650 scan. <br>

All scan at the same scan resolution and downsized in photoshop the same.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks so much for doing this, Charles. Not sure, though, how to interpret. The V500 with histogram adjustment looks best among the three scans, but I'm not sure what to make of the 1650 scan, because I'm not sure whether it was adjusted the way the second V500 scan is. Also, do you know if the 1650 and 1680 are essentially the same machines? Thanks again.</p>

<p>Also, Charles, I take it that the target was not 4x5 inches because the Epson V500 can't take slides that large (or so say the specs). If it can, and the image quality is even slightly better than that of the 1680, I'll likely buy the newer model because unlike the V700, which costs almost $600, the V500 is less than $200.</p>

<p>The 1650 scan <strong>Was Not </strong>adjusted from manual default. It has no histogram adjustment. Unsharp mask is on by default but I turned it off so that optical errors were not masked.</p>

<p>Check Epson's web site for the details on both scanners. Just put in the scanner model number in the search box. The difference between a standard and Photo model is the software bundle.</p>

<p>The Stouffer Step Wedge 6cm X 6cm. Each step is .15 density difference from the adjoining one either way you go up or down the wedge. .15 density is equivalent to 1/2 exposure difference. Every 2 steps is 1 stop exposure difference.</p>

<p>The V500 is a get me by until I can afford a better model purchase. It was $20 more than Vuescan Pro to run the older scanners on this Win 8 machine via refurbished in the clearance center. There is a newer model, the V550, and the V600 has a legal size bed and can scan 3 6x6 frames where the V500 only does 2 6x6 frames.<br>

The V500 has an external power module and ships with PS Elements 9 in the Photo version. 4x5 can be scanned on it by scanning half of the negative in one pass, turning the negative around, and scanning the other half then stitching the two together in photo editing software.</p>

<p>Got it, Charles, thanks. So the V500 wouldn't work for me, and it is a question of a $600 upgrade or sticking with the 1680. Very helpful.</p>