mattb1

I asked the same questions, and came from the same point. My 1270 was dieing, and I wanted to print larger. I too was never impressed with the 2200 either. I bought the HP 130, and love it. I don't think I would have been as happy with an Epson pigment ink printer, just because the print can last a long time doesn't mean I'll be happy with it. I print on glossy for both color and B&W, and both have been stunning. I need to get some matte and try it as well.

 

Check out www.outbackphoto.com for a user diary on the HP 130, they covered B&W printing and some of the quirks of the 130.

 

Personally, I love the output of this printer. It is capable of very vibrant colors, and very dark blacks. I don't notice color shifts or Bronzing.

 

The HP media is pretty good. And, I think that 3rd party papers will be available for this printer at some point.

 

I don't hesitate in saying this printer is a great buy, defiantly a better option than the Epson 4000 or 2200 for me.

 

HP also announced a 8750 that sounds good.

645's are medium format, and on the smaller end of that, not that I don't love 645's, they are great...

 

IMO you may have been miss-led on the abilities of a consumer class flatbed. I was also miss-led on the Epson 3200, which I was only able to do some web work and a couple of prints. The consumer flatbeds can do web work fine, as far as printing it is a very subjective topic. Some people don't see the need to print 5x7's or larger, and when they do print larger they may have quite different expectations than you do. Also, a lot of people don't mind doing a large amount of work on the scans from the consumer flatbeds. If they are happy, then its great I hope they get a lot out of them.

 

IMHO its not worth my time and effort to use a consumer grade flatbed, I was even disappointed with LF on them. The prints I was able to make were of images that benefited from softness. In contrast, I love my film scanners, and they do everything I expect out of them. If you can't afford a current generation film scanner then look at the last generation used, just be sure to get ICE or equivalent.

 

If you are stuck with it, then put a lot of time into sharpening and use it for subjects that don't require a lot of detail.

I only have a GA645, so I can't tell you about the other models. The GA645 has a very quiet shutter, the film advance is louder. A meter is correct on the close focus range. The AF is pretty good, its not as fast as a good 35mm SLR, but accurate. The auto exposure is great, at least for me I tend to use the aperture priority mode. The lens is great, but having only one focal length is a pain, the zoom version may offer some relief on that issue. Lastly, the GA has a small flash, its not powerful but can help.

IMO I would suggest getting a head of the curve instead of behind it, the 2200 is older technology. HP has the lead in inkjet printers in this current generation. I'm really happy with my designjet 130, but the newly announced 8750 (same size as the 2200) looks like its way beyond the 2200 in capabilities, and probabily does not have as many quirks as the 2200. I would strongly suggest getting a HP than the Epson 2200. The dye inks of the HP's will be a lot close to the lightjet prints in the color gaumt and tonality, and the HP's do B&W with much less hassle than the Epsons. I've never could get a B&W print out of my old Epson 1270, but with the HP I've done more successful B&W prints than I ever did before. And the color is really great, I've never had this much satisfaction from an Epson product. The only theoretical draw back to my designjet is the media selection, but so far that has been a non-issue for me at least. I expect this to change as people get off of the pigmented ink bandwagon.

I think the nikon can adjust the intensity of the LEDs, but the minlota can not. Its a very handy feature. I'm not sure if the V has the GEM post processing software, if it does its better than Minoltas diffuser for grain. Also, some people say the new version of ICE, 4, is better. The Minolta can give some more detail, but it has to be a tripod shot with good focus to take advantage of the extra resolution.

 

Both the Nikon and the Minolta are great machines. Less difference than between a consumer flatbed and a film scanner.

You may also want to check out hp designjet printers goup in yahoo. There is at least one Epson 7600 owner who just purchased a HP 130.

Don't base your decision solely on my opinion, but:

 

I opted for the HP 130. Love it, don't regret it. The glossy media is good, I like it. I would imagine any swellable surface, like the Epson color life paper, would get long life results. However, I'm no expert. IMO, I don't see why any media that works for an Epson dye printer wouldn't work just as well for the HP.

 

The color from the HP is great, one of the main reasons I bought it. I just wasn't sold on the pigmented inks of Epson. The limited color gamut and for some reason I just don't have a lot of confidence in Epson. For some reason I think we will hear A LOT of complaining about the actual shelf life of pigmented prints, chipping and that sort of thing.

 

I haven't printed 24inch wide yet, but will get a roll of paper this week. The prints I've done, at 18x24, are great. There is a huge difference between 16x20 and 18x24. Everyone I know have been extremely impressed with the prints from the HP, B&W and color. I have never been as happy with traditional prints as I have been with this printer.

 

I haven't seen any marks on prints, I think there are two sources of these. One is from the roll feeder, and the other is scuff marks. I'm pretty sure that there is a work around for the roll feeder problem, but I don't have one so I'm not sure. The scuff marks can happen when using the front manual paper feed, I use it all the time and haven't noticed it on a print yet. If I feed a sheet through multiple times, with out printing, I see scuff marks but they are slight.

 

I have been printing B&W on the HP 130, and I think it probably is better than the Epson 4000. I've hear that the 4000 has problems with color shifts, the HP doesn't have as much of a problem as far as I can tell. The blacks are impressive on the HP. Checkout this page, it mentions the B&W capabilities: http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi031/HP_Designjet_30.html

 

Another resource would be: http://www.neilsnape.com/

 

Sure, the HP has its quirks (like paper profiles) and maybe some media choice issues. It is certainly different than working with an Epson. But, I like it just as much or more than my old Epson printer, a 1270 (never could get myself to buy a pigmented ink printer).

I would have to strongly caution you against getting an Epson flatbed. It depends on what you want to do with the scans. For me I shoot MF for the detail and tones, neither of which I was able to get from any film format with an Epson. IMO, if you will only be printing small, 5x7 or less and web stuff, and don't do much cropping, then with some work an Epson will be ok.

 

A much better suggestion is to get a used Nikon 8000, which should be close to your price range. Also check out the used Minoltas and Polaroids, just make sure they have ICE or similar technology. The results with both 35mm and MF will be outstanding, Epsons just can't compare. You will spend less time and effort getting good prints with a film scanner.

 

You may find that a flatbed will do just fine for you, but seriously looking at what you want to do now and in the future will help you decide. Buy once and don't waste a lot of your time.

The short answer is NO, unless you want to pay in excess of $10,000.

 

For me, the Epsons are a joke, don't get fooled by hype and people who want to re-enforce that they paid good money for a cheap scanner that has very limited applications. The claimed resolutions don't even hold up to close inspection. That said, you still can do some things with them and a lot of people are happy with them (which is great). You just have to be realistic about their ability and your expectations of quality.

 

The complaints about the films scanners are from people who have an extremely high quality standard. They are very minor knocks on excellent scanners. Having to work around them is an indication that you have the necessary control and tools to get the most out of your film.

 

Epson, and now the canon, flatbeds have serious inherent flaws. Light diffraction through the thick glass, lens diffraction caused by using a very small aperture, and poor lenses. These problems are the result of making the scanner 'easy' to use, by using a fixed lens you don't have to focus. The draw back is poor focus and diffraction problems.

 

The difference is like comparing a 3 mega pixel point and shoot camera with a 8 mp DSLR.

 

IMHO I don't put a lot of stock into what photo-i has to say, it may be interesting but not very applicable to what I like to do.

Switch the dial to P, A or M. Press the data button, on the back. Press the auto focus button to start the process, use the dial to increase/decrease the value and then press the auto focus to go to the next. Luckly I keep the manual in my car...

I love my GA645. The exposure is almost always dead on, and the AF is pretty accurate as well. The AF is not real fast, as compared to a 35mm SLR. For travel it is great, a lot less to travel with than a 35mm SLR system. I use it for landscapes, travel, and some people shots. It shows up my 690 on occasion. It's the MF that I experiment the most with because its so easy to use. The flash is very weak though, sometimes it works ok as a fill flash or to trigger a slave flash.

 

I've abused mine pretty well and it just keeps going. I just throw it into a backpack or suitcase and don't think about it much. The lens retracts so its not exposed for abuse, and the plastic is pretty durable.

I would suggest an HP printer. I loved my old Epson for color, but never got an acceptable B&W print. Now I have a huge expensive HP and I'm almost printing as much B&W as color. The issue for me now is dust on traditional B&W film.

 

Also, the Nikon scanners can adjust the intensity of the light source, called analog gain. This can be of significant help in 'problem' photos, and some artistic license. I'm still figuring out B&W scanning, so I can't tell you much. You may have a lot of research to tell what equipment would be best for you. You may want to look at buying a good scanner first and having someone else print for you until you can afford a great printer. It took me a couple of years to save up to the point I'm at now, but its great.

I also suggest neither, get a good used film scanner (but get one with ICE)

"anything over 300 DPI is excess" Not true, a lot of inkjet printers do better with higher resolution. Epson's have been said to do better with multiples of 360, such as 720 and 1440. The issue is that only craft people will put in the extra effort of time and money to get that detail for special photos. Most production shops will only work at the minimum, i.e. 300 to 360, to save time and money. Since most photos and their subjects do not need the extra attention to detail. They are in business to make money, not art, which means they have to print as efficiently as possible not the best quality.

 

If your photo does better with the extra resolution then keep it for the future. For sending to the printer, find out what they want. If they don't know, then either let their software interpolate for you, send 300 dpi, or If you can find out the manufacture/model of the printer, someone maybe able to tell you about their experience.

I get a little clunking, but wasn't concerned about it. It also seems to pull the film holder deeper into the machine.

 

I was pretty irritated with the 9000 until I found the hint to use the thumbnail view on the yahoo 8000/9000 group, which as a lot of info. It is amazing that it works differently and that Nikon doesn't know about it.

I've heard that Kodak E100 G is a very fine grain film that scans well. I've only taken a couple of rolls of it, and the grain does look pretty fine but I haven't scanned any yet. I still like the punch of VS. I have scanned some Kodak 400UC negative film, it is surprisingly low grain for a 400, seems to do well though I've only done a couple of scans of it.

Tom, its not really an issue. So what if the f stops and shutter speeds are on one side rather than on top? I shoot a lot of landscapes, and sometimes I have a preference to use 'portrait' orientation for landscapes (ok, actually a lot). So, you may find yourself rotating the camera no matter what. A bigger consideration is how you like the feel and weight of a particular camera, as well as the characteristics of its line of lens. IMHO the range finders are great.

Try this, in the thumbnail drawer click on the icon that will give you thumbnails rather than just numbered frames. The software will actually process the frames differently this way. When I try using the numbered frames in the thumbnail drawer only the first frame is correct, after that I get partial frames. When using the actual thumbnails in the thumbnail drawer all frames are framed correct, or at least very closely to correct. It is very particular, but it really does work. Check the manual pages for the thumbnail drawer for info. I found this solved all my framing problems.

I can't say I can enlighten you, but here are some ideas. Its not an easy question to answer...

 

A huge factor is the subject matter, and your personal standards. Tonal qualities and detail are what high res scanning is about. Some subjects just don't need it, some do. The great thing about digital is that you can get fantastic prints from small files for some subjects. A clean image with clear lines and good color can look great printed large, even though it lacks detail. Some subjects, like landscapes though still need large files IMHO.

 

Personally, I agree with the point of view to scan at the highest resolution available for MF and 35mm. But for LF you may get a file that is too large to really be used by the current computing power available. But, 9000x6000 is not real big with 24bit pixels. A 4x5 at 4,000 ppi would be about 16,000 x 20,000 or just under a gigabyte, which would need a pretty good machine to manipulate it. A 16,000 x 20,000 would be about 53 in x 66 in at 300 dpi, or 26 x 33 inch at 600 dpi. Figure in cropping and it is a large format print, but not mural sized. But these are full frame analogies, how often do you print full frame? If you normally crop a significant amount of area out of the final image, then you need all you can get at the start. On the other hand, a 8x10 at 4000 ppi is larger than any desk top computer can handle efficiently.

 

A lot of people think that interpolating down from a large scan gives better results, you can determine which interpolation best suits your subject and you can crop and use an appropriate resolution for the printer you selected. A low res scan will be appropriate for a smaller set of print sizes, cropings and print resolutions. These arguments are very good for MF and 35mm, but start to loose their effectiveness with LF. If you downsize to say 20% of the original size, a lot of the detail and tones are lost and may not be better than a low res scan, it will depend on the photo in question and your goals.

 

Likely, 4x5 can be done at high res, but 8x10 you really have to ask your self what you want out of the film. You have to decide whats the largest print and the most cropping that you would want to do, and balance that with the ability to re-scan if necessary and the amount of computing power you have. Or, if you intend the scan to be an archive duplicate of the original in case it gets damaged.

 

The down side is that a high res scan will have noise and film grain which will have to be removed, a lower res scan will have less film grain with less detail. A small print, under 11x14, from either a high res scan or an appropriate low res scan will most likely be so close in quality that the extra effort may not be worth it. But, that is a highly personal qualification. You will have to experiment for your self and decide what you like.

Focus is a minor problem for dedicated film scanners compared to differaction with a flatbed. Usually its very easy to pick a focus point in the normal work flow. I have a Nikon 9000 and a Minolta 5400, both are easy to set the focus point. Even a slightly soft scan from a film scanner is superior to a Epson scan. While you don't have to think much about focus with a flatbed, its because one it is fixed and two Epson relies on a large depth of field to try to get everything in focus around their focus point. The draw back to this approach is very significant diffraction, which is very noticeable. I'd rather have focus controls and no diffraction.

 

With a film scanner multi sampling can help in some situations, but not all. With Epsons, it can help and it can hurt the image. I've had more problems with registration of the different passes than I had success in the shadow areas, that's with a Epson 3200. That is the subsequent passes do not line up with each other, so the calculations are not comparing the same pixels from each pass.

 

Personally, I don't use it much at all. The Nikon 9000 is so good it does not need it, have not used it on the Minolta either. Yes, I did buy a glass film holder for MF. However, when I tried scanning MF on an Epson I just threw a way the results, could not even print at 3x.

I'm not sure why you think drum scanners are more like flatbeds than a film scanner. Sounds like you are trying to justify purchasing a flatbed scanner. Be aware, Flatbed scanners from Epson are not very good, you can do web stuff and only very small prints. Even with those limitations you have to do a lot of aggressive sharping. So, in this regard they are pretty far from a drum scanner. An older used film scanner will produce superior results than any consumer flatbed. I would advise caution in believing bias reviews and marketing material on Epson scanners, I believed and was not happy with the results.

 

That said, mult-scanning has nothing to do with resolution. It is a way of dealing with noise in shadows, some advocate that it is only good for shadows on slides. The process is to take several samples at the same point, then average them to get the value for that pixel. Read up on noise sources in scanning and it will make some sense. Better scanners do multi sampling, which read the same location multiple times with out moving the sensor.

I would second the Fuji 690's. Repair isn't a problem yet, I just had my III repaired by fuji and they were very quick about it.

 

I would also suggest a Fuji ga645 or the zoom of that model. The zooms are about the same price as the GSW 690 though. I still use my ga645 a lot for landscapes, and it does a great job.

 

Range finders are great for landscapes.

I'm pretty happy with the HP designjet 130. It is not a high volume printer, but it is stunning. You may want to check into it.

I think the Nikon 5000 can also alter the intensity of the light source, called analog gain. The Minolta 5400 does not have this capability. It is nice to have if you have a lot of underexposed slides or a lot of shadows. ICE 4 is nice in that it works with Kodachrome.

 

The GEM grain management on the Nikon is better than the diffuser that the Minolta 5400 has, and the Minolta has not grain management software. The 'pixel polish' for the 5400 is pretty much useless IMHO.

 

That said, the 5400 is a good scanner. I have it and a Nikon 9000. I like the extra resolution for those slides that can take advantage of it. But the Nikons have a lot better software.

Also look at E-bay for a Nikon or Minolta as well, anything that is a film scanner will be pretty good. I would caution against trying an Epson flatbed, or flatbeds in general. Although MicroTeck is pretty good.