Summary on Epson 3200

[peter_bongard]

Hi!

I know this has been topic of countless posts, but let's sum it up

here: Is there a place on the web or can somebody post examples of an

Epson perfection 3200 MF-Scan and a Nikon LS-8000/ Minolta Multi Pro

MF-Scan? I think lots of people still are deciding which one to buy.

The conclusion from what I've read so far is that the differences

between the epson and a good MF-filmscanner are still there, but

(after applying proper USM) are not *really* worth 2000 bucks! And-

are there any differences between a scan with a midclass

35mm-filmscanner (like the Minolta Dimage Dual III) and an epson

MF-Scan? And finally- are there any alternatives up to $1000 for MF

scanning that are better than the epson (what about an old Minolta

multi I or II or the new canon flatbed?)?

What do you think?

Regards

Peter

[bojan_steinb_cher]

I'm pleased with Epson 3200 MF scans. It's surprisingly good in shadows, but it could be sharper though.

 

There's an interesting Epson Nikon comparison at http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/epson3200/

 

Regards,

 

Bojan

[edgar]

Peter,

 

I bought an Epson 3200 a couple of months ago. Before buying it I asked to Epson, Minolta and Nikon (at a Photo Exhibition) to scan a 6x6 film. 1 B&W (Delta 100) and 1 color negative (Kodak 160 VVC).

IMO the result was the following:

- the B&W scan from Epson is fully comparable with the Minolta scan

- the B&W scan from Nikon is slightly superior, but for very small margin (not significant for A3+ prints)

- the color scan from Epson is much superior to Minolta color scan.

 

In addition I scanned the same 35mm B&W negative with Epson and my Canon FS 2710 (2700 dpi dedicated film scanner). After retouching the 2 scans in Photoshop there are not significant differences between them. I can confirm that the average quality of the Epson 3200 in comparable with a good 2700 dedicated film scanner.

 

I still have those scans with me, and I'm willing to send them to you; the problem is the file size: about 50 Megs for B&W and 150 Megs for color!!!

 

Definitely I consider the Epson 3200 a very good scanner, very close in quality to the best dedicated MF film scaner. For amateur photographers using Medium Format it's a best buy.

 

Let me know if I can be of help.

 

Hallo to everybody

 

Elio

[ruben_bittermann]

Elio,

VERY GOOD INFO ! ! !

[hugh_sakols]

Wow!! Maybe it is time to print my 6x6 transparencies. Elo, do see a significant improvement between 35mm color transparencies scanned with a dedicated scanner and medium format scanned with the epson 3200 at say 11x14??

[e_m3]

The differences between the 3200 and the Coolscan 8000 and MultiPro are substantial. But at 11x14 and smaller the difference might not be enough to justify the cost difference. It depends on how large you intend to print, if you have lots of dark areas in your slids/negs that will need a higher Dmax and if you want or need Digital Ice.

 

You can see a comparison between the MultiPro and the Epson 2450 in the MultiPro review, which is at www.photographical.net.

 

At only a few hundred dollars the 3200 is probably worth trying if you're squimish about dropping 2500 on a dedicated MF scanner. If you like it, great. If not, you're not out of much money.

 

I have a MultiPro. Since this is a topic of some interest among medium format photographers I'd be happy to scan a slide/neg for someone and post the results for all to see. So if anyone has a 3200 and wants to do a comparison for informational purposes, let me know. I think it would be a great benefit to everyone.

[donald_hutton]

I have a 2450. I had a 35mm Minolta F-2900. I recently purchased a Minolta Scan Multi Pro. In my opinion, the flatbed really doesn't cut it. I had better results from my 35mm 2820dpi film scanner than from the 2450 with 6X6 trannies. I just don't see the point in stepping up to MF for better quality, only to junk the end result with a poor scanner, or a scanner which produces a very average result at best. The 2450 does not have enough Dmax for chromes, always has a lingering magenta tone which seems just about impossible to correct and always produces a pretty soft looking scan (the kind of softness which USM just doesn't fix properly). It's better on negative - passable in my opinion. I haven't used the Nikon 8000 so can't comment. However, I am very happy with the Minolta with the scanhancer.

 

 

Yes, a dedicated MF scanner is expensive, but MF is an expensive way to bigger and better enlargements. If that's not the reason to go to MF, surely stick to 35mm!

[nick_wilson2]

FWIW, I take it as given that a dedicated film scanner will do a better job. It is cost that is the issue.

 

I have been wondering about the capacity for after-scan software to sharpen the scan (the USM mentioned) or to increase resolution through interpolation. To what extent can the obvious technical limitations of the flatbed be rectified?

 

Also, I am wondering whether the better dynamic range of the film scanners is then re-lost when printing onto paper, as the DR of paper media is less than film.

 

It always seems (understandably) that reviewers use difficult, contrasty pictures. The plane cockpit on the interesting test on www.digit-life.com/articles2/epson3200/ is a case in point.

Can any transfer to print media capture all of the detail?

 

In the old days, an Ilfochrome would lose the detail too. Do flat trannies have a problem? If not, then it is only a fraction of pictures that might need the better scan, and these can be obtained from a bureau.

 

Nice to get some more lenses or maybe that new XPan II or perhaps a TLR for fun...Nice to have a film scanner, too but not at the cost of a bloody car!

[r s]

The most detailed Epson 3200 review - with comparisons - I've seen is at

<a ref="http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Scanners/Epson_3200/page_1.htm">Photo-I 3200 Review</a ref>

[r s]

URL: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Scanners/Epson_3200/page_1.htm

[edgar]

Dear All,

 

I just want to add some considerations (apologize for not being so precise as I would be, since my English is not so good....) to the various issues related to Medium Format scanning.

 

When I started MF 2 & 1/2 years ago I had the same concerns of some of you: does make sense to invest in more expensive and probably more complex and less flexible MF cameras & lenses AND subsequently loose quality buying a cheaper Flatbed scanner?? Will I loose with a flatbed scanner more quality than I add from the MF film size? Better stick to 35mm with dedicated film scanner?

 

After some months of brainstorming, I had the opportunity to discuss this issue with a PRO photographer, who was used to use a MF Pentax 67 and a Canon D2400UF flatbed to scan films, for certain specific purposes. His advice was to skip to MF, since the OVERALL quality of the image you can obtain in printing is largely better. Obviously not only in terms of sharpness, but even more in terms of tonal rendition & richness, that are simply NOT COMPARABLE.!! Finally the print from MF is much better, richer, more 3Dimensional and more realistic, even if not always sharper. This fact must not seem strange, since sharpness IS NOT the only parameter that affects the perception of an excellent image quality. One example: I have prints from Zeiss Contax 35mm + dedicated film scanner that are SHARPER than some prints from Pentax 67 + flatbed (A3 size prints). BUT the overall image quality from Pentax is much better and simply not comparable even in A3+ format.

 

Today my toolkit configuration has improved, and the print quality, that was already quite good with Pentax + Canon 2400, has been even more increased. Today I use Hasselblad and Mamiya 6 + Epson 3200 that is very much better and sharp than the Canon 2400. I currently reach a print quality that is not absolutely approachable with my 2 35mm toolkits (Contax AX + 28/2 + 50/1.4 + 85/1.4 + 135/2 + 180/2.8 and Leica M6 + 35/1.4 + 75/1.4 + 90/2).

 

To give you an additional piece of info, I print with an Epson 1290 for color and a dedicated additional 1290 with MIS INK Hextone inkset for B&W.

 

So, to answer to some of you, YES Hugh does make sense to use MF + Epson 3200 instead of 35mm even at 11x14. And I don't agree with you Donald, 'couse the sharpness is not the only relevant issue that identify a MF print. Believe me the overall quality of MF at this point of the technical development of consumer flatbed scanners is

so good, that the comparison with 35mm, even with the best possible professional scanners is simply not applicable.

 

Finally some considerations about prices: I bought ALL my photographic tools as second hand, and I can make you sure that I spent for the Hassy and Mamiya 6 outfits less than I spent for Contax and LeicaM outfits!!!! Definitely if you go forward with good used equipment, MF is a little less expensive than an excellent 35mm outfit.

In fact the only reason why I still use also 35mm is specialistic: long telephoto and autofocus for Contax AX and darkness photography for LeicaM; in all other situations I use ONLY MF cameras.

 

I hope these considerations will be helpful for you.

 

Cheers Elio

[donald_hutton]

If you reread my post, you will notice that I did not mention sharpness once. In fact, my complaints about the quality of a scan from a flatbed are the very things you think it does OK. The Dmax is very limited, the detail does not get captured and this actually ruins the overall tonal quailty of the print. To be honest, this stuff is not going to be too critical on an 8X10, but for 8X10 35mm is just fine. You've mentioned all your great camera equipment, but have neglected to mention you dedicated film scanner. My point is that this is probably the weak link. I can assure you that $400 flatbed scanners, while very capable for a great many applications, have a long way to go....

[louis_webb]

I've just purchased a Umax Powerlook ||| second hand but have yet to set it up.I got it via E##y for 245 ukp and have ordered a couple of Umax dedicated 645 tranny holders,which takes the price to 300 ukp,still 20-40 ukp less than the Epson.Once I've obtained a Scsi adapter off a friend and got the scanner going,I'll let you know what the results are like.

[ken_rexach]

I purchased the Epson 3200 scanner a few weeks ago. My experience is that I waited too long to get it! I have used it for 35mm and MF (Pentax 6x7) color neg/slides. The results are outstanding. The prints have much better color gradations and overall quality than a "real"4x6"print from the local pro lab! (I used an Epson Photo 1280 printer and epson photo paper) Its insane. I have even made 20"x30" enlargements from 35mm Kodak supra 400 color negs.! again, great results. Certainly the same quality or better than "real" photo prints from pro labs. The only thing that digital doesnt do better than "silver halide optical printing is in B&W. Nothing to do with the scanning though.

 

The Epson 3200 has even made me money! yes, since I have gotten it I have digitized and printed images that were confined to my archives and sold them. Its incredible how some image manipulation can turn a neg or slide into a GREAT print even though the photo looks ok in the 4x6 you got from the lab. I had amassed hundreds of pics, Since I dont know how to or can afford to produce prints myself (optically and chemically) from color negs or slides. Also, individual slide scanning at photo labs is expensive and time consuming and certainly not as good as doing it yourself, tweaking until one gets the desired results.

Its insane, a LOT of people cant really afford a MF dedicated scanner. BUT, if you Think you want one and need it. Get the Epson, then after a while if you still feel the need for a dedicated unit get it, if you cant afford it you wont get it anyway (and waste a LOT of pictures that have potential!) but even if you can, the quality of the Epson will make de desition a tough one.

 

Oh, those looking for examples, here is a shot taken with a Pentax 67, 55mmf4 lens (on a Gitzo 1228 tripod with a small bogen ball head) using Portra 400NC film. The first picture was digitized by scanning the 4.5"x6" print from the local pro lab. The second picture was made by scanning the same Neg using the Epson 3200 and silverfast software (at 3200 dpi)

1st: http://www.photo.net/photo/1492151

 

2nd: http://www.photo.net/photo/1542304

 

 

this third pic is a low res (1000dpi) scan (epson 3200, silverfast) of a kodak 100s slide (Nikon FM2n and 50mm f1.8 AI)

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1541719

[oskar_ojala]

Check out <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004nU1">this thread</a> for links to some comparisons between the Epson 3200 and a Nikon Coolscan 8000.

 

<p>Having used different 35 mm film scanners with resolutions between 3000-4000 dpi and now owning a Epson 3200, I'll say that at 1600 dpi, the Epson produces excellent quality. At 300 dpi printing, this equals 12"x12" prints from a 6x6 neg/slide. For prints at that size and smaller, I think that more expensive scanners are overkill. But with bigger prints and good printing better scanners can provide better quality. I don't think an Epson 3200 is as good as a good, modern 2700 dpi film scanner.

 

<p>So in a nutshell: for small prints the Epson gives top quality. For large prints (ie. something like 20x20" and bigger) a dedicated film scanner should be considered.

[tanvir_ahmed2]

Hello,

 

Please check out this link

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Scanners/Epson_3200/page_1.htm

 

Best Scanner Review I have ever seen.

 

RGDS