Epson v600 vs Canon 9000F

<p>I'm considering these scanners for MF film. Wondering if anyone has had experience with both. For the past few years I've been shooting mostly b&w and printing in a wet darkroom. This is great and I'm happy with it, but I would like to try scanning and printing digitally color slides and b & w say up to A4 size. I don't often print bigger than that, and if I do I think it's better to pay for a pro scan than consider more expensive flatbeds.</p>

<p>Anyone compared these two scanners, or their older cousins the V500 or 8800?</p>

<p>I ended up with CS8800F altough at first I wanted V500 or V600. Wouldn't want it other way now, 8800F is great scanner, it's not that much about sharpness (sharpness attributes to film holders mostly), it's about pixel peeping at 300% crops from 3200dpi scans and enjoying much more realistic grain than the one I saw with Epson.<br>

but I shoot MF almost exclusively, sometimes 35mm, so if I start shooting LF tomorrow I'd be better looking for a new scanner because of the scanning area 8800 gives. with 9000F however I wouldn't be that much concerned about changing format.</p>

<p>there are 2 important things besides scanner - scanning software and film holders. If 9000F comes with bundled SilverFast SE like 8800F did, I say go for that one.</p>

<p>Well here are some samples from the V500. I am quite happy with 8x10 prints and test crops I have made for 12x16 inch prints from 645 med format negs.</p><div></div>

<p>LOL I was thinking about the exact same choice yesterday. So is there a definite answer for this?</p>

<p>Sorry, buy the way do you want to scan the negative film or prints?</p>

<p>Hello Rob --</p>

<p>I don't know about the Canon, but I have a V500, probably similar to the V600. I think my V500 produces scans sufficient for excellent resolution prints up to 12x18 from 6x9 film. By this I mean prints that can stand close inspection. A V750 would be somewhat better. Higher-end scans could be a lot better, for good negatives.</p>

<p>Be aware that the flatbeds' scanner resolution is well below the manufacturer's quoted figure. In my tests, I get 1300 ppi on one axis and 2000 ppi on the other. It's better at resolving lines that run parallel to the scan track. See test target scan in this thread: <a href="../digital-darkroom-forum/00UZJA">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00UZJA</a></p>

<p>I recently posted V500 scans of a 6x9 shot on color negative film. I included links to files I prepared that produce prints at 8x12 and 12x18 that I think are sharp enough for close inspection. You are welcome to take a look and draw your own conclusions.</p>

<p>Thread: <a href="../film-and-processing-forum/00W7Rk">http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00W7Rk</a></p>

<p>Large sample file 3600x5400 pixels ready for print at 12x18, shot on 6x9 film and scanned with my V500: <a href="http://2under.net/images/100201-Mamiya-100-f28-Cheers-Img6-v500-12x18.jpg">http://2under.net/images/100201-Mamiya-100-f28-Cheers-Img6-v500-12x18.jpg</a></p>

 

<p>Leon I scan the negatives.</p>

<p>Thanks for the reply.</p>

<p>I am still wondering is there any immediate conclusion for the comparison between Epson V600 and Canon 9000F? They fall into my short list so any comment is appreciated. :)</p>

<p>If you check out this site, which is a German site I think, but with mostly English translations, they review the V600 and 9900F. I think at the end of the V600 review they basically say they are the same, so you might as well buy the Canon.</p>

<p>http://www.filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html</p>

<p>Sorry, meant to say that you should buy the Canon because it is <em>less expensive</em> than the Epson.</p>

<p>I am wondering the same thing<br>

That german side says that Epson V600 has 1560ppi,<br>

http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV600Photo.html</p>

<p>while the new Canon 9000F 1770 ppi<br>

http://www.filmscanner.info/en/CanonCanoScan9000F.html<br>

it is equivalent to 4 megapixel camera (which would compare to digital from about 7 years ago)</p>

<p>Canon also will accept for 4x5. So overall the Canon appears to be a better choice -- although too bad the technology in this area is stagnant.</p>

<p>I wish Fuji and Kodak think of a way to make money on film by producing well designed capable scanners under 400 $US...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm resurrecting this thread as I have the same question.<br>

Of particular interest is in the robustness of the slide holder.<br>

Elsewhere a number of people have said that the holder on the Epson V600 is flimsy and can be easily broken (no spares available). I have seen no such comments about the Canon 9000F</p>

<p>I'm not gentle with holders on my CS-8800F (fell on floor from my hands quite few times) and haven't felt they're flimsy but they are not perfect, too. Getting any of these 2 scanners and buying dedicated holders from betterscanning.com would be better option.</p>

<p>also, Plustek announced 120/35 scanner for september this year, my suggestion is to wait for that one, I bet it'd leave these 2 in dust.</p>

<p>Thanks for response.<br>

I have a Dimage Scan Dual II for serious work. I need a new flatbed and was contemplating one with slide scanning potential to give some flexibilty and as a back up to the venerable Minolta.</p>