Epson v700 with adjustable wet mounting kit?

[xuan_zheng1]

<p>Originally planned to purchase a nikon 9000 ed scanner but the price got skyrocketted.<br>

Thus I now think about a used Epson v700 + wet mounting adjustable kit http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/mstation.html For which someone claim with careful technique, one can get identical details as the Nikon 9000ed scanner (here: http://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/imacon-343-vs-nikon-9000-vs-nikon-8000-vs-epson-v750)</p>

<p>As in its comparison, the details looked identical, or even better with v750. Although I don't have much 1st hand experience with it, does it mean if you wet mount v700 carefully, you should at least get a picture as good as 9000ed?<br>

btw, most of my films are 35mm negatives.</p>

<p>Can someone confirm that? for $500 a used v700 sounds very attractive to me and I don't want to bother with 9000 ed for over $4000 used.</p>

[aaron_dohrn]

<p>Mine new cost 525 on amazon 6 months ago. Waited for the deal though normally around 575 to 600. Epson sells refurb units as well if they are not there just keep checking.<br /> Flatbeds work well enough for medium format, but as for 35mm that would be a no go unless your desparate. Really Really slow and the quality is not there. Flatbeds are also really painful to use in comparison to a film scanner. <br /> For 35mm I would suggest one of the older Nikon 35mm scanners. For 35mm you don't need a 9000 a 5000, 4000 or older would give much better results. Realize that no matter what Epson says that the unit is really only achieving around 2200 to 2400 ppi. There are a number of older units by different manufactures that still spec well and shouldn't break the bank. Do a little research and check ebay before you go with the epson.</p>

<p> </p>

[david_henderson]

<p>There must be a couple of threads at least each week on here from people hoping to hear that a cheap flatbed scanner is as good as an expensive film scanner. But its just not true and no matter what you do to it or with it the fact is that a flatbed scan is going to give you worse resolution overall and worse dmax- so that its ability to dig detail out of dark areas is less. People who say that a consumer flatbed gives as good a result as a film scanner are either so desperate to believe it that they're fooling themselves; have undemanding applications; or just have very low standards or ability to discern. The V700 has maybe half the real resolution of the Coolscan 9000. The Betterscan holders and/or wet mounting ( must admit I thought this was only available on the similar V750) will surely help you get the most from these flatbeds- flatter film, better focussing and so on. But they can't invent resolution or dmax that isn't there. They can give you a big file , but thats different.</p>

<p>Look at the history here on photo.net, and see what others say</p>

<p>The Epson V700 and Betterscan holder make a good scanner- but not if your objective is to make high quality prints that drag all information from the original. I use it, always with medium format, for all screen-based applications, and for things like Blurb books. It does these jobs well. I do not expect to use V700 scans to make large prints or prints for sale. What I do recognise though is that the vast majority of my scan needs can be met by the V700 and that its cheaper for me to have the small quantity of scans I need to make prints made externally at a lab rather than hold an asset worth several thousand $- so I sold the Coolscan </p>

<p>I should also say that I don't find the V700 slower or more difficult to use than a Coolscan </p>

[sfcole]

<p>I would take the single comparison on the Lightstalkers link with a grain of salt. I have done numerous comparisons with similar scanners-V500 vs Nikon 8000. Not exactly the same scanners, but a useful analog. Over 250 so far since January, both 35mm and 120, using a wide variety of films from different camera systems. I have not used a wet-mount system.<br>

In general, the detail and tonality of the Nikon is ALWAYS better, even before sharpening. The files from the Epson can be tweaked for sharpness, but then you start losing tonality, and gaining blotchy grain and other artifacts. This may not be visible until a good size, though, just as a file from a digital camera will look nice and sharp till a certain size till the image falls apart. The better the lens, technique, and film, the easier it is to see the difference. There seems to be less difference with certain faster films, such as Ilford XP-2 or Portra 400, than with Tmax 100 or 400. Under ideal circumstances, the Nikon capture subtle surface detail that the Epson can't. I'll gladly post example comparisons.<br>

Any pronouncements on which scanner is better ultimately depend on what size print is needed.</p>

[xuan_zheng1]

<p>most of my 35mm old films were done on cheap point&shoot camera, such as the Olympus series or even worse, I GUESS v700 should be enough (IS IT??!?!) not to speaking that I have tons of MF and prints(without original film) to scan. I will leave my kodachrome series to a professional drum scanner if possible in the future, Like I said, v700 is ONLY used for some of my really really old films captured on cheap chinese camera.</p>

<p>btw, how did someone in the link I provided did a test showing that v700 is almost identical to 9000 ed? I meant based on his scanning results speaks NO difference. I wonder I wonder.</p>

 

[david_henderson]

<p>The point I'm trying to get across is that it is important to match the scanning to what you want the scan for. If what you want is to keep copies on your computer for viewing and maybe some 6" x 4" prints from 35mm then the V700 will be good enough. If you want to make a 16" x 12" from 35mm to hang on a wall then it won't be. </p>

<p>Similarly with your kodachromes, what matters isn't that they are better. What matters is what you want to do with the scans, and I'd guess that you are unlikely to want to make prints of more than small sizes from all of them. I would not pay anyone for a drum scan or even an Imacon scan unless I was certain that I needed that big scan for a print, a photo library or whatever. Till then I'll scan on a V700 and buy superior scans as I need them.</p>

<p>People come up with strange research conclusions. In particular when they start with an idea of the results they'd like to see, and particularly when they don't make the best use iof the superior scanner . It may be that the tester din't focus the Nikon well; or didn't use max. resolution, or didn't use originals where trying to maximise detail in dark areas was important. However let me out your mind at rest on one thing. He didn't get his result by getting a real 4000ppi out of the flatbed, which is what the Nikon can deliver. If he did get matching results he's done it by making the Coolscan worse. </p>

[xuan_zheng1]

<p>Thanks David,</p>

<p>As the price of nikon 9000ed hiked so much, I don't and won't get that, and it thus leaves me no choice but the v700, I wonder if there's anything better than the v700 but costs less than 9000ed and handles MF well.</p>

<p>I still don't get your point regarding the scanning media, as I understand, if the films weren't captured with high quality camera (such as in my case, mostly done on cheap point&shoot with kodak 200 negatives), a v700 should be enough getting out of all the details. right?</p>

<p>My purpose isn't to make any prints out of it, but rather archive them to the best, since most of my films ain't getting out of shape and I have to digitize them before they degrade further.</p>

[sfcole]

<p>Well, there is a choice between a V700 and a 9000, and that is the 8000. The current market price seems to be about $1500, which is a fraction of the 9000 price.<br>

"I still don't get your point regarding the scanning media, as I understand, if the films weren't captured with high quality camera (such as in my case, mostly done on cheap point&shoot with kodak 200 negatives), a v700 should be enough getting out of all the details. right?"<br>

It depends. There are too many variables. For 35mm, you are likely to see MORE of a difference with a Nikon, with the V700 introducing much more in the way of artifacts and blotchy grain. If your negatives have dust and scratches, the Nikon will do a better job of eliminating them (it seems to see less to begin with than the Epson). I can't believe you'd want to mess with fluid mounting.<br>

If you're not printing, but just making digital archives and don't need the best quality, you've already answered the question: you don't need a Nikon. One other detail: should you decide to buy a Nikon, you'll get your money out of it. You cannot say that with an Epson. If I wanted to today, I could sell my 8000 at wholesale to a major camera broker for what I paid, and I've already made about $2000 worth of scans. Except for buying Vuescan, that's what I call a lot of free scans.</p>

 

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>I wonder if there's anything better than the v700 but costs less than 9000ed and handles MF well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In a film scanner, no. The real question is whether the price premium on a new V700 gets you noticeably higher digitization quality over a refurbished $100 V500. I have my suspicions; the quality/price sweet spot is probably a used 4990.</p>

<p>I don't have a V700/V750/4990 so I can't speak to those scanners. I have used a V500 extensively, and it's good for around 2000dpi. This is yields around a real 5MP from 135 (and 20MP from 6x7.) So, if the negatives were 80's Kodak MAX 400 from a disposable camera, then the flatbed would be more than sufficient. However, if the negatives came from 100ISO pick-a-film and nice optics, then the flatbed won't do the film justice.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... mostly done on cheap point&shoot with kodak 200 negatives</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You mentioned Olympus P&S earlier. The older, non-zoom Stylus series actually had quite good optics. Also, the Kodak Gold 200, and specifically Gold 100 were extremely high resolving films. Here's a test shot with Gold 100, Canon 50mm lens at f5.6, digitized with a Nikon 5000 at 4000dpi; this film could actually benefit from an 8000dpi drum scan.<br>

<img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00H/00HFY0-31106684.jpg" alt="" width="611" height="397" /><br>

Crops of the circled areas:<br>

<img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00H/00HFYC-31106884.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="500" /><br>

and<br>

<img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00H/00HFYD-31106984.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="400" /></p>

[xuan_zheng1]

<p>the entire nikon coolscan series all got jacked up price recently, the coolscan 8000 ed is now selling for $1900 used. and 5000 is sell $3500. I am so regretted now coz back in 2007 I was planning to buy a 9000ed but procrastinated in hope of the price might drop further, which is completely the opposite.</p>

[xuan_zheng1]

<p>btw, also here: http://photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V700/page_8.htm</p>

<p>v700 clearly surpasses the dedicated Nikon coolscan 4000ed film scanner... I got two separated web sources that pointed out with proper hieght-adjustable wet-mounting kit, the v700 should deliver as good sample as those dedicated film scanner... Lol, am I convincing myself for a v700?</p>

[xuan_zheng1]

<p>If I am not mistaken, the main reason for v700 not being as sharp as the film scanner is the height of one's film, since v700 has NO auto-focusing mechanism. Of coz the tonality isn't as par as dedicated film scanner such as 9000ed or so.</p>

<p>by those tests, if one can be patiently enough to wet-mount and height adjust on v700, one should get the same resolution as a 9000ed.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>You are not listening to the fact that the resolution of the Epson is half that of the Coolscan and the Dmax is also not as good. No matter how much you try to convince yourself that the flatbed is as good you'll be wrong. Just because you seem to need the Epson to be as good as a Coolscan doesn't mean that its going to be. </p>

<p>Your real question here is whether you need a Coolscan to do what you intend. If you don't ( and I'm not convinced you do) then all this stuff about who's rating each scanner how is irrelevent. All the stuff about the originals not being so good is also irrelevent. You need to realise also that you do not need to replicate in order to archive- as ever it depends what you want to do with the archive file if you ever need it. </p>

<p>OTOH the argument above that you could recover your investment in a Coolscan is an interesting and possibly powerful one, whether you actually need a Coolscan or not. A few months ago used Coolscan 9000s sold in the USA for under $2000. Then Nikon discontinued them leaving a slug of unsatisfied demand that turned from new to used so pushing used prices up. Is that a one-off or is it permanent? I don't know and neither does anyone else. You can't realistically assume that any investment in a Coolscan is guaranteed safe, </p>

<p> </p>

[harveysteeves]

<p>if you are only looking to scan 35mm, for not much more than the V700, you can get a Plustek? 7800. The company that makes them will soon be coming out with a medium format model which will drive the 9000 price down.</p>

[sfcole]

<p><<If I am not mistaken, the main reason for v700 not being as sharp as the film scanner is the height of one's film, since v700 has NO auto-focusing mechanism. Of coz the tonality isn't as par as dedicated film scanner such as 9000ed or so.<br>

by those tests, if one can be patiently enough to wet-mount and height adjust on v700, one should get the same resolution as a 9000ed.>><br>

Yes, you're mistaken. The quality of the lens in the Nikons, especially the ED lenses, is much higher to begin with. It would be like comparing a Canon "L" lens to a cheap zoom. That is the real reason the resolution is different.<br>

Frankly, I don't know why you need very high resolution. I think you should skip buying any scanner and farm it out.</p>

 

[adamjohnson]

<p>It was only a year ago that I couldn't justify a $2000 dedicated film scanner so I purchased an Epson V500 instead and decided to use a lab for $25 drum scans of the images I'd sold. A year later and I can now justify a $2000 dedicated film scanner but the Nikon 9000 ED no longer costs $2000 and there's no comparable alternative. I find it a real shame that Nikon stopped producing 9000 ED because it's the scanner that all of us want and would happily buy if it were available at that 2009 price. Too bad for us and too bad for Nikon that they deciced to end production.<br /><br />If you're looking at an 800x600 image on the Internet, there is very little difference between a $100 Epson V500 scan and $20,000 drum scan. When it comes to the print however there is a vey noticeable difference in both detail and sharpness, so why spend an extra $400 on an Epson V700 when the V500 can do just as much in all practicality? If you wants to show your film images on the internet, go cheap. It you want prints however, flatbeds simply do not capture the detail and sharpness that you see on a light table.<br /><br />When I began reading this discussion, I again debated in my head, <em>"should I buy an Epson V700?"</em> But this discussion is nothing new... There is no flatbed that compares to the 9000 ED in terms of sharpness and detail. If you can't do it right, don't do it at all.<br /><br />I'm waiting for a dedicated film scanner that will equal the Nikon 9000 ED. Until that time comes, I will use my V500 for the Internet and drum scans for prints.</p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>I have an epson 3200 that I bought use for 50 euros recently. My problem was I thought I wanted a v700, but it was a bit expensive for me. The v600 price was better. But I did not want to buy the v600 and then feel I still wanted to get a v700 after the purchase. So I bought something used and very cheap, to at least give me a point of comparison, and if I still buy a v700 it will not bother me. I saw some side by side comparisons of a 3200 with the v700 that showed them very close. Also there are comparisons at a large format photography site which shows that there has not been much change in quality of the epson flatbeds over the years. For MF I am happy with my purchase. </p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Well if you can't afford or don't want to spend on the Coolscan then you have to choose something cheaper. Heres some 35mm from a V500, it does what I need it to do so there is no point for me to by a Coolscan.</p><div></div>

[sfcole]

<p>This is a good link to see comparisons:<br>

http://zeux.zlakfoto.ch/scanvergleich/index.html</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>I have an older Epson flatbed pefection 2450, which is ok for copying of prints, and am thinking of upgrading to a V500 or V700 for better control of blemishes on older prints. But for 35mm film, I have a Minolta Dimage Elite 5400, which I have been happy with. Seems well-made and not as costly as Nikon. Discontinued, but perhaps you could locate a good used one. </p>