MF scanner comparision

[scottl]

I wonder how many of those critical of the Epson flatbed scanners actually owned one? I have a model lower than the 4990, I think the 3490, that I bought refurbished for around $70, and I am very satisfied. It does an excellent job scanning 35mm and 6x4.5, both positive, negative, and B&W. So far the largest prints I have done are 8x10, which look great. I was surprised when my Epson flatbed did a better job scanning a slide than the 'pro scanning' I paid for from my mail-order lab. Why? Because I cared enough to make the adjustments for a good scan.

 

Sure, a high-end film scanner will probably do a slightly better job, but you WILL pay for it. And for those of us scanning 35mm AND medium format, a film scanner that will do both is in the $5000 range, and I just can't afford that.

 

Scott

[mikeseb]

<p>

<i>for those of us scanning 35mm AND medium format, a film scanner that will do both is in the $5000 range, and I just can't afford that.

</i>

</p>

 

<p>

If you are talking about a drum scanner, yes...but a Nikon 8000 or 9000 should cost you $1-2k tops.

</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

I've compared scans from the 4990 with an Imacon and basically anything bigger than 5x7 print size the difference was too big for me to consider keeping the Epson. I don't know how you people get good scans from the flatbeds and print them at A3 without seeing a difference to a good scanner ... I really wonder.

[berg_na]

The Epson 4990 is an excellent machine for MF format scanning. Granted its 4800 dpi capability is overstated, but scans at 2400 dpi of 2 1/4 slides yield high quality 20" x 20" prints, with basic scanning skills. For a full-feature scanner that costs little more than the mandatory, but optional, glass carrier for the Nikon 9000, I'd say that the 4990 is hard to beat.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I have a 4990 and, in my opinion, it is very much over-reated. Yes, it's about the best that you can do in the price range. But I should have skipped the Epson and just saved up for the Nikon 9000 as I will end up buying one anyway.

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

"I don't know how you people get good scans from the flatbeds and print them at A3 without seeing a difference to a good scanner"

 

There may be extremely large sample-to-sample differences in the Epson scanners. I had the 2450, and it was mush whatever I did. But some people with the 2450 found that there was an optimal height off the glass that produced sharp images. But not on mine.

 

Here in Tokyo, Epson demos their A3 printers with scans they claim to have made with their scanners and 6x7, and they look amazing, even with your nose on the print.

 

FWIW, here are a couple of comparisons between my LS8000 and someone else's Epson 4870.

 

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325/original

 

While there is a world of difference at 100% on the screen, I'm not sure how much of a difference there would be at 13x19, since from 6x7, that'd 680 ppi from the Epson scan...

 

By the way, I doubt that the V750 will differ from the V700 in anything internal to the scanner; just better film holders and software. At least that was my reading of the fine print.

[james_symington1]

"I don't know how you people get good scans from the flatbeds and print them at A3 without seeing a difference to a good scanner"

 

I can only agree that there must be quite wide variation in the quality of Epson flatbeds as I can't fathom why you would have trouble already at 5x7. The two Epsons I have owned have both been very good. I would have to say that I can see a slight difference at A3 between my 4990 and my 9000 but I think it would only be noticeable to the likes of me and the other nitpickers that hang around on these forums :-)