4870 vs 9950F

[exp.]

Hello,

 

I'll be purchasing a flatbed scanner (with film adapter) pretty soon

and I would need some help from those who have tried different models.

My budget is $400. I do know there are quite a few scanners in that

range, but with all different reviews I have seen it's really hard to

decide. I'm looking for something that will be able to scan my slides

and negatives decently yet not be very slow scanner. What would be the

best combination of the two? I have narrowed it to Epson Perfection

4870 and Canon 9950F, but you feel free to suggest something else. For

its ICE for both film & prints Epson looks like a better choise. What

are your thoughts?

 

Thanks a lot!

Djordje

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

What film formats do you plan to scan? If all 35mm, then you should look for a dedicated film scanner. Else this looks reasonable.

 

Robert

[mag_miksch]

What is ICE on prints?

[john_wire]

The standard Epson 4870 installed easily and has more than adequate supplied software or the new one which I understand is faster. I scan old prints, Kodachromes and LF/MF negatives with my 4870. If your final output is 11x?? or smaller prints or web stuff it should be fine.

 

The 4870 takes alot of "heat" when resolution is discussed but it's depth of field allows easier scans of "less than flat" materials IMHO.<div></div>

[john_wire]

and.... I should add, before downsizing a much more detailed screen or print. Here's another scan with more bits.<div></div>

[custom film holders for fl]

Read the 9950F review at www.photo-i.co.uk. He does a comparison between these two models. If you are just doing 35 mm and prints, you would be better off to buy a Minolta Dual Scan IV and a $100 flatbed from Canon or Epson.

<p> Doug<p>

<a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mainintro.html">Dougs

MF Film Holder for batch scanning of 120/220 medium format film with flatbeds</a>

[digitmstr]

The EPSON 4990 is out already in Europe it seems but, not in the US. In fact, it's not even listed on the same page as the 4870 on the EPSON site. Be that as it may, if you wait until the 4990 is on the streets you should be getting a better deal on the 4870 or you may want to buy the new one (though I think it will be in the $700-800) range.

[exp.]

Thank you guys for your replies. Robert, I plan to scan 35mm. Doug, what you suggested is one of the options I've been thinking about. And I had the exact Minolta scanner in my mind. At the price of $230 it's a bargain. What keeps me away from this scanner is that it employes Minolta's Auto-Dust Brush, which seems not to do such a good job as the 9950F's FARE, or the 4870's ICE. I have read reviews for the 9950F & 4870 at www.photo-i.co.uk. The scan quality seems to be pretty equal, with Canon being quite faster. Giampero, the 4990 will probably be one hell of a scanner, but at the street price of $600, as they say it's going to cost, I'll be fine even with the 9950 of 4870 :)

Unofficially, I think I'll probably go with the 9950F.....

 

Thank you guys for your time...

Cheers,

Djordje

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

You might also watch to see if the Minolta Scan Elite 5400 droops in price - the model 5400 II has been announced. Another option, if you can stetch the budget (maybe wait a few months to build up the account?) is the Nikon Coolscan V. Both are dedicated film scanners with ICE.

 

Robert

[max_robinson]

I recently bought a 9950 to scan 30 rolls of film from an african trip.

I really had no choice in software as silverfast isnt released yet, and vuescan drives me up the wall when scanning a full 30 negs, the canoscan software had to do. A scan at 4800 dpi, grain reduction off, usm off, in high quality mode took 10 mins, 3.5 mins in normal mode (no fare, as new negs shouldnt really, and didnt have, too much marking upon them). Color profiling was applied later in PS. The software tended to treat reala quite well wrt colors, but upped magenta in NPH scans quite a lot, needing color balancing in PS.

The film adapter unit is excellent and easy to use. The unit is quiet , mine is reliable also.

The scans do benefit from unsharp mask( i apply later , as the canon usm can't be altered, being on/off only.

I cant comment on the epson as i've never used one, but the canon does a good job, some people think the fare on canons is too destructive but since i havent used it much yet i cant really comment. I may be posting a few samples in the future in a gallery.

[quirkyalone]

I also have a 9950F, and find it to be a great scanner. As stated before, it does benefit from the unsharp mask in Photoshop, and occasionally needs the colour balance adjusted, but for multi formats, at a reasonable price, it's top notch - would like to try that silverfast software that Theo mentioned - is it supposed to be a better interface, or just give more scanning options? I'll keep posted.

[max_robinson]

wrt silverfast, i dont know If they are going to release, i'm just assuming as most scanners end up being supported, silverfast make individual software for individual scanners, I tried the 9900 silverfast trial and it didnt recognise my scanner at all, ie no install. If anyone is scanning negs, what 400 film do you find works best in this (9950)scanner? Bit off track I know but informative anyway if you plan to scan 400 film.

[jim_simmons]

I do use the 9950's USM sharpening on my 4x5 scans. It's not adjustable, but it's very mild, just enough to help not lose quite so much sharpness during the scan. Then I give it a lot more USM in photoshop or with the FocalBlade sharpening plugin. I use the Minolta DS IV for 35mm.

[suchismit1]

I scanned a 4x5 slide that I shot during a recent trip to Monument Valley ( view from Hunt's Mesa at dawn) using my 9950F and then made a 13x19 print at 480 ppi (2880 dpi) on my epson 1280.

 

I am just bowled over by the amount of detail the scanner captured ( and the printer was able to print)..especially the surface texture of the buttes and mesas. I am sure the Epsons are fine too but this scanner is fantastic! A drum scan may yield still better scans, but the difference is likely to be subtle rather than dramatic.