peter_bongard Posted May 26, 2003 Share Posted May 26, 2003 Hi! I still didn't make a decision on what MF-scanner for around $1000 I should buy. My favourite so far is the epson 3200 perfection. How is the quality of the older Minolta Dimage Multi II in comparison to the Epson 3200? Regards Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brushmeister Posted May 26, 2003 Share Posted May 26, 2003 Several months ago I bought an Epson 2450 for under $400 to scan my MF and can honestly say I did GOOD! Real good. As a test, I scanned a 6x6 Hassy negative to the max but my computer couldn't print that big a file! I hear the replacement 3200 will scan much faster but not appreciately better. Dunno about Dimage. (Didn't he play for the Red Sox?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulrumohr Posted May 26, 2003 Share Posted May 26, 2003 The older Minolta Dimage Multi II will blow the doors off an Epson 3200 scan in terms of quality. But the Epson 3200 will let you scan 4x5s and flat art, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward_c._nemergut Posted May 26, 2003 Share Posted May 26, 2003 Below is a review of the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro (not the II that you've asked about). Nevertheless, there is a comparison with the Epson 1640SU. I know, I know, that you're not looking at the 1640SU, but the comparison is still interesting... http://www.photographical.net/minolta_pro.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian_kennedy Posted May 26, 2003 Share Posted May 26, 2003 I bought a 3200 to scan 4x5 film, and it does a fine job. I can make very good quality prints at home up to my printing limit (12x18). That said, it's *no* replacement for a dedicated film scanner. I took a 35mm slide and compared the 3200 scan to one from my relatively old LS-2000, and the 3200 scan is not nearly as sharp and nowhere close to the same in terms of seeing into the shadows. However, the 3200 scans much much faster -- it uses a USB 2.0 or Firewire connection. The times I am seeing are about 2 minutes to scan a 4x5 (at 1600 DPI, I don't bother scanning at 3200 DPI for 4x5), about 1 minute to scan 35mm (at 3200 DPI). Keep in mind that as you scan larger and larger transparencies, the differences between a high quality scan from a dedicated film scanner and a medium quality scan from the Epson flatbed become less and less important. Comparing equal size prints from a 35mm slide scanned by the LS-2000 to a 4x5 scanned by the 3200, while the 35mm scan is better, the print from the LF scan is far superior, as it should be. In the end, I only need drum scans if I am printing larger than 12x18 (12x15 full frame), and that was my plan all along, anyway. The 3200 is nice for the smaller prints made at home and for the ability to put the images on the web. I think the bottom line is that while the 3200 is worth the price, if you want to do critical work, the Minolta scanner has got to be a much better choice. If on the other hand, you just need small prints and to be able to post to the web, and maybe scan some reflective material every now and then, the 3200 is a nice inexpensive solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_bongard Posted May 26, 2003 Author Share Posted May 26, 2003 Well, I have the Minolta Dimage Dual III now. Because I want to switch to MF, I wonder what would give me best quality in terms of MF-negative-scans. I've heard that the MF-resolution of the multi II is only about 1200 ppi, whereas the 3200 manages around 1600 ppi. So the MF-Quality of the epson should be better (sharper), right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulrumohr Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 Yeah, but are you scanning through glass on your dedicated film scanner? What does 1600 dpi look like through the bottom of a Coca Cola bottle? 1600 dpi through glass is not as good as 1600 without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick_wilson2 Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 To muddy the very murky waters of MF scanning further, Canon has its "3200" equivalent called the 9900F. Something else to talk about on the forum... Its RRP is lower than the 3200. http://www.canon.com.au/products/scanners/scanners_low_medium_volume/canoscan9900f.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_bongard Posted May 27, 2003 Author Share Posted May 27, 2003 Paul, >1600 dpi through glass is not as good as 1600 without it.< Ok, but the Minolta Dual II doesn't scan with 1600 ppi in MF, its ppi-resolution is significantly lower than that of the 3200. Nick, Whats RRP? Does that mean the 9900 would deliver sharper pictures than the 3200? I think its software is still its handicap, but with vuescan, it should work finde, shouldn' it? -Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_bongard Posted May 27, 2003 Author Share Posted May 27, 2003 Ah, and one other thing: My computer doesn't have any SCSI-controllers. What do I need to operate the multi II? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoff_mcauliffe Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 If your computer does not have SCSI capability, you can buy a "card" for $50 (or less) and plug it into the motherboard. Software and instructions included, easy to do. I think you can buy the Minolta with a SCSI card or without. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick_wilson2 Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 Peter, RRP is recommended retail price!! Not some obscure photographic thing at all. Probably wherever you are, the term is different. I have had a little giggle about it... One feature of the Canon seems to be scratch removal software (a la ICE). I know some film scanner people swear by ICE on MF film scanners. I was hoping for users' comments myself. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward_breeden Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 Peter, I, too, have be wrestling with decisions about MF scanners. With the price lowering of the Minolta Dimage Mutli Scan II to $500 (US), I was about to "pull the trigger". However... in addition to the usual MF sizes (6x6.45; 6x6, 6x9) I also shoot panoramics (6x17 and Xpan). The Minolta won't do 6x17 and to scan the Xpans (24mm x 60mm)<I think that's right>, I needed to buy the Universal adaptor for almost $380, thus bringing the total cost to almost $900. So I started to consider the Epson 3200. After reading the specs, as you have, I decided to try the Epson. I am by no means expert in either scanning or photoshop, but after 3 years of struggling with a Agfa DuoScan 1200 to get acceptable scans for Internet use, I must say I'm quite pleased with my choice. Perhaps the Minolta would do better, but for my budget it works great. Since you seem to already have a 35mm scanner, perhaps the Epson would be a reasonable choice. BTW, I haven't tried 35mm scanning yet, so I don't know it's quality. As to an earlier comment about viewing direct vs. the glass is "like looking through a coke bottle bottom" (or words to that effect)I think that's a bit to harsh. Perhaps the proof should be in the image. I have a 6x17 scan which I made on the 3200 that I've converted to jpeg. It's still a large file of almost 1 meg (the orginal PSD was 49 megs) which I would be happy to e-mail to you if you're interested. Drop me an email and I'll forward it to you. I know the 6x17 is a large scan - even wider than 4" x 5", but I at least think it will show the merits of the Epson 3200. Best Regards, Edward Breeden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_ellis1 Posted May 29, 2003 Share Posted May 29, 2003 Minolta has just released (is about to release?) a new film scanner called the DiMAGE scan elite 5400. (boasts 5400 dpi 35mm scans) I'm not sure about the pricing, but I believe its going to be sub $1k. This may be a bit cooler than the Dimage III. Even if its not, one would hope its release drops the price of the DiMAGE III..... (I'd wait a little bit if you had the time...) -- also: (and please don't flame me on this...) in previous replies people were suggesting the Epson 3200 does 1600 DPI. [ their web-page suggests its 3200x6400 DPI... say 3200 dpi, not 1600. That beats the RESOLUTION of the DiMAGE (2840 dpi)... but DPI tells but a small part of the story... Regarding the Canon 9900F someone mentioned earlier... search the web. I remember reading a review on an English website comparing the Epson 3200 to that Canon. The Epson did much better mostly because of the crappy (their words, not mine) software the Canon scanner came with. I'm personally also in the market for a scanner..... I'm leaning towards the Epson 3200, but am waiting till I hear a review (and price) of the DiMAGE Elite 5400 to see if I should get that instead... (and use an old crappy flatbed for print-only scans) my 2 cents, -- MikeE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_ellis1 Posted May 29, 2003 Share Posted May 29, 2003 Please ignore parts of my previous note regarding the Elite 5400. It doesn't do MF, so that won't be of any use to you. sorry about the extra (useless) info. -- MikeE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_rexach Posted May 29, 2003 Share Posted May 29, 2003 I just ordered the Epson 3200, should be in either friday or monday. I have plenty of 6x7 and 35mm negs and slides waiting to be scanned so I will post results asap. 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