PDA

View Full Version : Microtek 900 or Epson 4990 or Microtek 1800



Ron Marshall
15-Feb-2005, 18:02
I shoot 6x7 and 4x5 b/w, mostly Acros, and want to buy a scanner. The largest I will print is 13X16 inch. I am looking at the Microtek 900 or the Epson 4990.

From what I have read the print quality at 13x16 should be about the same with scans from either of these scanners.

What I would like to know is, are there any features that differentiate them? Specifically, if not having glass between the negative and optics would be a benefit, especially since I have read complaints of Newton rings with Acros?

Resolution and dmax don't concern me, since I believe both scanners are good enough for my needs in that respect.

Another related question to anyone who uses a Microtek 1800: for 13x16 is there any benefit in spending the extra money for a Microtek 1800 compared to the 900?

Thanks in advance for taking the time.

Ron Marshall

Neil Dixon
15-Feb-2005, 21:39
Ron,

I've been in the market for a new flat bed and have looked into the Microtek products rather extensively. I can't give you any thoughts about Epson because I have'nt looked into them, they won't take 8x10 negs. The major difference in the Microteks is the speed of the units. The 900 is reputed to be rather slow and the 1800f is much faster and designed for the professional environment. If speed is not a hinderance I figure the 900 is a safe bet for the money. I have my eye on the 1800f because of its speed but also because it features a Kodak 43,200 sensor cell ccd array which may be better than the proprietary array which I believe comes on the 900.

Neil Dixon

Kirk Gittings
15-Feb-2005, 22:26
I believe the new Epson 4990 will take an 8x10 negative.

Tim Chakravorty
15-Feb-2005, 22:42
Give the Canoscan 9950F a hard look before you decide. Check out the photo-i review. I own one , and with 4x5 chromes its superb !

Jeremy Holmes
16-Feb-2005, 01:37
Hi Ron,

The Artixscan 1800f will give you a crisper, more vivid image than the Scanmaker i900 in positive and negative mode. It is a professional scanner that is mainly for this purpose of large format transparent scanning. The i900 is excellent, though it doesn't match the 1800f in those modes. The Epson is not on the same level as the 1800f and is more on par with the i900. I personally own a i900 though and couldn't be happier. It's quick and offers great color reproduction in everything that I've tossed at it. Hope this helps!

Jeremy

Ted Harris
16-Feb-2005, 08:46
Jeremy,

I also own an i900 and am reasonably happy with it. Before i purchased it I wanted to do a comparison betwenn it and the 1800f but was unable to do so. Do you have any comparison scans?

Ron Marshall
16-Feb-2005, 13:37
Thanks to all for the information.

I plan to keep the scanner for many years so if there will be a discernable difference in print quality at 24x30, which I will sometimes print, I would go for the 1800 over the 900 or the 4990.

I imagine that there is some difference at almost twice the price, but the question is will I see it at 24x30.

Ron

Morey Kitzman
17-Feb-2005, 22:10
Ron

I own the Microtek 1800f, it is several years old so I don't know if they have changed since. I recently used an Epson 4870 and the quality was superior to my 1800, sharper and better shadow detail. So I am seriously considering the 4990. Good luck.

Ron Marshall
18-Feb-2005, 08:33
Thanks Morey, that is very helpful since very few people seem to have experience with more than one scanner. I have tried all of the local stores and none have the 1800.

Matt g
4-Mar-2005, 09:28
Good debate,

I too am looking for a scanner good for 35mm and 6x7 - hopefully to scan for image librarys ie 50Mb and up - I like eveything I have read about the epson 4990 so far. Do you think it will suit my needs?

I too have considered theMicrotek 900 and the stats seem pretty similar.

The 4990 does actually do 8x10 too :)

Will paying 1000's more for a film scanner make any difference to a Stock Photo library

- or are the likely to reject images scanned on 4990 and the like as lacking detail?

Thanks

Diane Maher
4-Mar-2005, 12:30
My Epson 2450 has started to give me broad white lines in some of my scans. I don't know what this means. I am looking for something that will scan my 8x10 slides/negs (plus other smaller formats).

Jeremy Holmes
4-Mar-2005, 16:17
Hi Ted,

What size samples would you like to see from the i900? I can host up quite a few varieties as I have a lot of free web space. The i900 truly does a remarkable job for the price. I'm very pleased with it.

Jeremy

Sanders McNew
5-Mar-2005, 12:12
Jeremy, can you explain why the Epsons are not on the same level as the Microtek 1800f? I am trying to decide between these three scanners -- I'm moving up from an Epson 3200, and I am scanning mostly 4x5 sheets, though I will shoot more 8x10 if I have a scanner to use with them. Morey Kitzman posted that his experience has been that the Epson provides better sharpness and shadow detail to his 1800f. I've not worked with the Microteks and so am left to the opinions of people like you and Morey to make a decision. I would be grateful if you could elaborate on your remark, and if it comes from personal experience or from others.

Best,

Sanders McNew

www.mcnew.net

Jeremy Holmes
7-Mar-2005, 17:07
Hi Sanders,

Both the Epson and the Microtek are great options. I simply prefer Microtek as they have true glassless scanning for 4x5 and up to 8x10 images. This prevents as I'm sure you know newton rings and all that. With Kami fluid and anti newton ring glass from Focalpoint or others the outcome is superb for the price point. Sharpness is fantastic in my opinion. Shadow detail I think is fine as well, though I don't have as much experience in this as Morey may. When it comes down to it Microtek offers the high end community products that are built like tanks (weigh almost as much) and has a history of great optics. I wish there were more vendors out there that offered them so you could try both and get your opinion. I think of it like a stock broker. If you asked 100 what to buy, you'd probably get 100 answers.

Jeremy

Sanders McNew
7-Mar-2005, 19:08
Jeremy, thanks for the reply. When you say glassless scanning, I am not sure that helps me. I prefer to scan the entire negative, including the borders. (If nudity does not offend, you can see samples of my work at www.mcnew.net.) I assume the glassless scanning requires me to put the negative in some sort of holder that covers the edges. Yes? On my Epson 3200, I simply lay the negative emulsion-side down on the scanner glass -- the emulsion will not cause Newton rings on the scanner glass. If the negative has excessive curl (always in the case of Polaroid Type 55 negatives) then I sandwich it with a piece of ANG on top of the negative.

I am correct, aren't I, that glassless scanning on the Microtek wouldn't let me scan the complete negative? And if so, is it still possible to scan negatives on the glass in the Microtek? If the answers are "yes" and "no," respectively, then that's that and Epson keeps me as a customer.

Sanders McNew

www.mcnew.net

Jeremy Holmes
8-Mar-2005, 20:48
Hi Sanders,

The 1800f and i900 come with a separate bed specifically for scanning slide and negative material. You slide out a tray or use one of the template trays for the scanning. In your case you would just put it on the 8x10 glass tray that comes with it. I find that this gives a better quality scan than scanners which use light from a transparent media adapter or other alternative ways of doing it. I *think* Microtek is the only one that has this since they have a patent on it, although I maybe wrong so please don't quote me. I use the 8x10 glass tray along with the ANG to sandwhich it and have been pleased with the results.

Jeremy

Keith S. Walklet
8-Mar-2005, 21:39
Sanders,

I'd be happy to send you some tests I recently completed for a workshop comparing the Epson 4870, Nikon 4000 and Heidelberg TANGO on a 35mm transparency, if nothing else to help you ascertain the quality of the Epson. Apparently the 4990 has eliminated the memory buffer problem that limited 4x5 scans to 3200 dpi (1gb!) and it can handle the 8x10 film. I expect complete some more tests on larger film in the near future.

Sanders McNew
8-Mar-2005, 21:54
Keith, thanks for the offer. I already use the Epson 3200, and the 4870's performance is quite similar. Really, it's the Microtek scanners that are unknown to me. But thank you anyway for the offer -- it is more than kind. Sanders.

Noshir Patel
9-Mar-2005, 19:27
Jeremy (and others)... I'd love to see full res crops of scans done at 2400 dpi or higher from the i900 (or 1800f for that matter). The slide scanned should ideally have very fine detail beyond what the scanner can resolve (but that will be easily distinuishable from noise). A scan of a dark shadow area would be great as well. The most important thing would be to indicate resolution along with the image so that a reasonable comparison to other scanners could be made.

Thanks in advance...
Nosh

Jeremy Holmes
30-Mar-2005, 15:22
Hi Nosh,

I scan get some scans at 2400 PPI if you would like. Hosting them at that resolution would be next to impossible as they are VERY large. What would you like to see in a reasonable size compression and resolution wise? Keep in mind that these are on a monitor and the full grasp is hard to see until you take it to the next level.

Jeremy

Noshir Patel
31-Mar-2005, 08:25
Jeremy,

What I was thinking was a very small crop (without resampling, so still 2400 ppi but a very small portion of the full frame image) from a detailed area. No need to post the full scan. So... high quality but small jpg (500x500 would be plenty) at full resolution.

If you do this, let me know where you post it...

Thanks...
Nosh

Don Hall
3-Apr-2005, 11:37
Hi to all. I thought I would share my experience with the Epson 4870/4990 and the Microtek 1800. After having some problems with my Microtek software(which have since been resolved thanks to their support team) I decided to try the Epson 4990 Pro based on my wifes excellent experience with her Epson 4870 she uses in her work. After receiving the 4990, I loaded the respective Silverfast software on all and calibrated them. I then proceeded to scan several 4X5 transparencies, all at 1800 dpi with no adjustments. All were reviewed in Photoshop at 100%. To my surprise the 4870 was clearly superior in resolution than the new 4990. Evidently Epson quality control is not the best in the world. The Microtek scans exhibited better resolution than either Epson. I tried scans on the Epsons at higher resolution but all I got was bigger files, no improvement. As an aside, the Microtek Scanwizard Pro software provided better results than the Silverfast software on the 1800. Dmax was visually best on the Microtek 1800.
Any similar experiences ?