edward_morgan2 Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 <p>I've been using an Epson V700 to scan my medium format negatives for the last two years. I have a budget of around $1000 and I'm thinking about upgrading to a more professional scanner. Would it be worth buying a V850 instead the 700?<br> I also read some good things online about betterscanning film holders. I want to get the entire border/edge of the film in the scan and have better sharpness - would that be the solution for me?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondC Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 <p>Most of the relatively affordable medium format scanners are no longer made, even in their days they are outside your $1,000US pricetag. Plustek sells one new today still but it's $2,000 I think. One option might be outsourcing the job or the better holders but I don't have experience with them. If the holders hold the film I would think they would cover the edges and prevent you scanning them.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thirteenthumbs Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 <p>This is more a Digital Darkroom question than a Film and Processing one.<br> The Epson V7xx scanners use a cold cathode fluorescent light source and the V8xx use a LED light source.<br> Epson no longer lists the D max for the V7xx, the V8xx is 4.0.<br> The Better Scanning Variable Height Mounting Station http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/mstation.html will allow you to do what you want. <br> The Epson V750 or V850 are set up to do wet scanning. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randrew1 Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 <p>My option was to purchase a Kodak RFS3570 scanner. It handles up to 2.25x3.25 inch film image. These scanners are about 20 years old. I keep a similar vintage Mac working to use this and another film scanner. If you find one of these scanners, there is one major caution. Make sure you get the negative holders you need in the deal. These are very difficult to purchase separately. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossb Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 <p> My son gave me a medium format camera earlier this year and I just gave it back to him because I did not want to buy a scanner. But I have always been happy with 35mm. The pictures are great and I am happy with that. I have been using a Plustek scanner for about 5 years now and it just keeps on ticking. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug_armstrong Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 <p>Edward, You have not told us much about who you are and what type of photography you do. You haven't even told us much about what your goal is ("better" is not a term with a generally accepted quantitative meaning, even in this narrow context). So, I'll respond as if you were someone like me. I'm an amateur; photography is a hobby which I enjoy a lot but which is not in the top five "important things in my life". I own a V700 which I am very pleased with. Nevertheless, I wish that I had a scanner which would get out a larger fraction of the information in a negative. I have not actually used a better scanner, so my decisions about a possible scanner purchase are based on what I have read on apparently knowledgeable web sites.</p> <p>I'm pretty confident that wet scanning would give me "better" resolution in my scans, but like you I would need to buy an entirely new scanner to do that. My understanding is that in this context "better" means only an incremental improvement, so I would not be willing to pay a lot to get it. An additional "expense" would be the more-than-incremental increase in the scanning time needed to get the better results.</p> <p>From a film scanner, on the other hand, I would expect to get an almost 2x improvement (perhaps 1600+ dpi to 3200+ dpi). I bought my V700 because film scanners were beyond my budget. Since then their prices have increased well beyond the general rate of inflation and they are now *well* beyond my budget.</p> <p>If I were a professional .... Well, if I were a professional, I would probably be using digital for everything that I was being paid for. But if I were a professional with a need to use film, then I would buy a film scanner without worry. Good tools are expensive, but not being able to meet the generally-accepted minimum quality standards of ones craft is more expensive.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wogears Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 <p>You can do wet mounting on any Epson flatbed by purchasing the base from Epson. The V700/750 are slower to warm up than the 800/850, but the resolution is identical, as is the (optimistic) DR spec.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
custom film holders for fl Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 <p>+1 what Les said. You are not going to see an appreciable difference between a V7xx and a V8xx scanner when both are set up and calibrated correctly.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kivivuori Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 <p>Sorry to say but if you really find progress you must use digital cameras instead of scanners or use drum scanners. There is no really significant progress until you`ll step another level...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_henderson Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 <p>Don't agree with the post above unless you're defining "progress" as "very big prints". If I want to make a print of say 16" sq from a MF original, I'd probably be delighted at a good scan from an Imacon or a Coolscan. Not a whole lot of difference at that size to persuade me to pay for a drum scan, unless the original had a lot of critically important detail in the shadows. </p> <p>And, I think there are a lot of people who'd assess "progress " according to whether they like the photographers choice of subject , the composition, the treatment. There can be more to life than ultimate sharpness and every last scrap of detail. </p> <p>Would agree that in the scale of things whether you own a V700 scanner or a V850 scanner isn't going to make a fundamental difference to how people ( or even you) see your work. I'd also agree that the OP's budget isn't going to allow him to take a huge step forward, assuming he's getting at least decent results from the V700 now. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward_morgan2 Posted January 3, 2017 Author Share Posted January 3, 2017 <p>Thank you for all your responses. @Doug: yes, getting out a larger fraction of the information in a negative is exactly the goal. Seeing images scanned with virtual drum scanners is incomparable to what I can get out of my Epson.<br> So I shouldn't focus on buying a new scanner and rather try to make the best of my V700 (e.g. using betterscanning accessories)?<br> Also, would it be worth considering in the long run an older Imacon scanner, like Flextight Precision II?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbuenov Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 Question what is the difference in depht of field between the Epson perfection v7xx that use cathode compared to V8xx that use leds? I want to upgrade from epson perfection 4990 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 Question what is the difference in depht of field between the Epson perfection v7xx that use cathode compared to V8xx that use leds? I want to upgrade from epson perfection 4990 - Have you considered a Canoscan 9000F? Why would the light source used make any difference to depth-of-field? That's purely a function of the lens used, which is probably the same. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
custom film holders for fl Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 cbuenov, as long as your 4990 is in decent working order and you have been opening it up regularly to clean the underside of the glass and optics, I don't think you would find the "upgrade" to a V7xx/v8xx to be a worthy investment IF your main objective is to obtain sharper scans. A 4990 with the film placed flat at the optimum film height for a particular scanner's optics is going to be very similar to the V7xx/v8xx in terms of sharpness. A 4990's lens may have more depth of field than the V7xx/v8xx since the 4990 has just one lens that had to cover both film in holders at approx 1 mm and 8x10 that was laid directly on the glass, where the V7xx/v8xx uses a two lens setup (fixed) to cover both of those scenarios. Don't expect any true optical resolution gain between a V7xx and a v8xx. Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now