Epson V-750

[paul_sharratt]

Anyone purchase and use the V-750 yet. Epson USA lists it as in stock at $799.

Please someone be the first to review it for all the rest of us . . . .

[mr._smith]

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V750/page_1.htm

[mark_k3]

You must have ignored this excellent review. In fact, a continuous review from older models like 4990 as well as Canon 9950f

[jtk]

Had the reviewer properly adjusted focus I suspect he'd have written about the exercise, and that he'd have gotten significantly better results.

 

Based on my own experience with my old 3200 and Doug Fisher's focusing negative carrier, I suspect careful adjustment of focus with that 750 would be rewarding (it's also worth noting that Fisher's carriers hold film strips VERY flat).

 

It's odd that in this hardware review, the alleged differences between Silverfast and Epson's application were pondered, while the focusing ability of the 750's negative carrier was nearly totally ignored.

[agardner58]

John,

 

Take a look at the V-700 review on the same site. I believe that he goes into quite a fair amount of detail on the height adjustment and the effect it has on sharpness on page 13.

[bobmichaels]

This may be the flatbed scanner that finally lives up to the initial hype "as good as a film scanner".

 

Or this may be just the most recent entry in the long list of flatbeds that while improved, everyone eventually realizes still won't match the results of a film scanner.

 

I have no idea which the V-750 will be. But I remember the pre sales hype and initial tests results of the 4XXX, and the 3XXX before that, and the 2XXX before that. Maybe that's why Epson decided not to call this a 5990.

[jtk]

Andrew, you're right...he did discuss the height adjustors in the 700 review...he should have linked to that in the 750 review because as he demonstrates with the 700, that adjustment can be critical.

 

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V700/page_13.htm

 

The Doug Fisher carrier, which is continuously adjustable and therefore more precise in focus, makes a HUGE difference in sharpness to my 3200 and presumably would to the 4990 et al as well...I'd strongly advise anyone who owns an older/lesser scanner, like my 3200, to first look into Doug's carrier before leaping to the 700/750. I think (confirm with Doug) at least some the carriers are usable across Epson models. While my 3200 isn't as good as my Nikon by a country mile, with the Fisher carrier it's plenty for my MF requirements.

 

PhotoI ALSO reviews (properly IMO) the older non-focusing Doug Fisher carrier, which I used before getting the focusing version...the original is much better than Epson OEM, the focusing carrier is better still.

[jtk]

...as to "matching the results of a film scanner," we're left with only ONE non-flatbed alternative to Epson/Canon in the sub-$2500 range (assuming medium format, which means Nikon 9000 with very expensive optional filmholder).

 

In 35mm the only alternative, assuming you don't want an orphan and do want new, is the Nikon V or Nikon 5000 (I strongly recommend the V over the 5000 unless you MUST have that stack loader).

 

One of the virtues of the flatbed is its superior convenience when scanning strips for proofing purposes, and its superior reliability

when auto-scanning quantities of slides.

[michel_moreaux2]

I just ordered the V-700 after I read the review for the V-700 and V-750 scanners compared to 4990 in the french magazine "Chasseurs d'images". They concluded that the V-700 and V-750 are just a "tiny tiny tiny bit" better than the already very good 4990. They did not really notice differences between the V-700 and V-750 unlike what is claimed by Epson (better lens coating improves contrast for the V-750). Flatbed scanners also cannot compete with film scanners. The Epson 4990, V-700 and V-750 are especially good for medium and large format scanning but are merely so so for small format (35mm). For small format scanning, it is far better to buy film scanners. I personally already own a Minolta 5400 but I need a scanner for medium and large format negatives. A dedicated film scanner would cost 7-10 times the price of the V-700. That's the reason why I bought this scanner.

 

According to "Chasseurs d'images", the main difference between the V-700 and the V-750 is the software bundle. You also got a ITF-8 chart with the V-750. Personnally, I will mainly scan B/W negatives so I the V-700 is definitely a better choice for me.

[james_symington1]

Although I don't have either the V700 or the V750 I do have the 4990 and recently acquired the Nikon 9000. I would say that the Nikon, when used with the expensive -extra - glass holder, does perform better better than the 4990; and so it should too at the dreadful price you have to pay for it in the UK. But my Epson 4990, if used correctly and the film kept flat, gets very close to the 9000 and particularly with b&w negs where the grain seems to level the playing field somewhat. For colour transparencies the gap is wider though and the colour fidelity of the Nikon is superior and the clarity and sharpness of the scan is a fair bit finer.

 

If you are printing at no bigger than A3 and you work mainly in b&w I think the 4990 is already good enough. Any improvement from the V700/V750 is a bonus of course.

[rich815]

James, it's nice to finally hear from someone who has the 9000 that it is not exactly "light years" ahead of a well-scanned, properly workflow'd neg done with a 4990.

[james_symington1]

Thanks Richard. You do hear overly inflated praise of the 9000. As much as I wanted it to be a quantum leap ahead of the 4990 it isn't. As I said earlier, the difference with b&w is not great at all. I recently re-scanned on the 9000 a series of 6x6 shots from Yosemite taken on APX 100. On the final A3 print I couldn't really see an improvement over my 4990 versions although at 100% on the screen you could see a bit more detail. I also re-scanned some 6X6 Velvia where the detail was noticeably better and the colours too - thank heavens too!

 

I am glad I bought the 9000 because it is much easier to get consistent film flatness using the glass holder whereas it was more of a fight with the Epson. But the actual scanned result once that flatness is attained only shows modest improvement over the 4990 for b&w which is the bulk of what I do in 6X6.

 

It's early days yet with the 9000 and my technique may well not be as good as it could be so I may revise my opinion in due course. I hope I will...but I don't think it is likely.

[van_camper]

James, you must be doing smaller prints, and so the advantages between the Epson 4990 and Nikon 9000 are less noticeable. Everyone else that has commented on the 9000 performance has agreed that for bigger prints there is a substantial difference. I did a 42 inch print from 6x7 using the 9000, and no way would my Epson 4990 even come close.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I own an Epson 4990. It's not bad for a cheap scanner. But I find that that dedicated film scanners are far better in digging out shasow detail.

 

See this comparison (No V-700 or V-700 in this test):

 

http://shutterflower.com/scanner%20comparison.htm

 

I made the Epson 4990 scans for the comparison.

[james_symington1]

Van,

 

You're right in that the biggest prints I have done so far with 9000-scanned 6X6 is 13X19. But even so I stand by my opinion that viewed at 100% on the screen b&w scans show little improvement. I also did say that the 9000 is considerably better for tranparencies though even printed at 13X19.

[nick_sieb1]

I"m wondering which would create a superior image at A3 size or larger, a 4x5 scan on the Epson V-750 or a 6x7 scan on the Nikon 9000?

[jeremy_reiskin2]

For anyone who's familiar with both the Epson V-750 and the Nikon 9000, how would you compare the ease of use of the software?