PDA

View Full Version : ArtixScan 1800f vs ArtixScan 2500f Scanners



neil poulsen
9-Jul-2005, 11:25
Looking at the scanner comparison on this site

http://largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

I'm impressed by the performance of the MicroTek ArtixScan 2500f. Checking their site, it was introduced in 2002, and it doesn't look like it's sold any longer.

How does the 2500f compare with MicroTek's currently offered 1800f for scanning film?

While I've gotten some nice images with my relatively inexpensive Epson 4870, it's kind of dismal comparing it with some of the other scanners. But for the price, what can one expect, I suppose.

Lars Åke Vinberg
9-Jul-2005, 16:03
I think the 1800f specs hit a sweet spot for scanning 8x10" film - not too many competitors out there. The 2500F with its dual resolution might be more appropriate for 4x5" but then its price point is (was?) not so competitive.

Ted Harris
10-Jul-2005, 08:52
We spent a lot of time talking with the Microtek engineers for the first "View Camera" LF scanning article (May-June issue) and, according to them the differences between the two machines are, with the exception of the CCD array, minor. The biuggest difference is the CCD array, the 2500f having a larger array in order to deliver 2500 ppi as opposed to the 1800 ppi delivered by the 1800f. The 1800f is a new design from the changes in the 2500f over the 2500 are a better integration of the cooling system into the main body of the scanner and a modernization of its connectivity (the 2500 was SCSI only).

The 1800f and the 2500f are comperable in terms of DMax and color fringing and, thus, should deliver the same results at 1800ppi with the 2500f only pulling ahead if you need to scan at a higher resolution. I use an 1800f for most of my scannning with general satisfaction. When I need more I send a trannie off for a drum scan on an Optronics Colorgetter Falcon.

Both machines are good solid choices. The 2500f has not been discontinued but, as you note, has become harder to find in the marketplace. One of the reasons, perhaps the principal reason, we have not seen the announcement of any new scanners in this class is the cost and availability of CCD arrays. The CCD arrays used in the Class I scanners (4870/4990, i900, etc.) are the same arrays used in digital cameras and, hence, readily available for other uses. The arrays used in the 1800f, 2500f, Creo scanners, etc. are larger arrays manufactured in small quantity specifically for these scanners ..... a market too small to drive the development of newer, better, larger arrays at a reasonable price.

If you are not in a big rush go to the "View Camera" web site in a couple of weeks. As part of the second article (July-August issue) we scanned the first image you see on both the 1800f and the Optronics strictly for putting them on the web so that readers could make their own comparisons. We had to redo one of the scans hence the delay but they are on their way. You will be able to download high resolution, unmanipulated files of the same image scanned on both scanners and see differences for yourself. Only problem, of course, being you will need a broadband connection to the internet as both are very large files since each scan was done at the maximum real resolution of the scanner giving files in the range of 500 MB to 1 GB before any manipulation.

Lars Åke Vinberg
10-Jul-2005, 16:32
Ted -

What do you know about the cooling system in the 1800f? I saw some marketing hype that mentioned a fan-cooled CCD but as far as I can tell there sure ain't no fan in mine. I have even taken off the lid to look/listen for a fan... nothing.

Ed Richards
12-Jul-2005, 14:40
Are you sure that the 2500 is still in production? It is gone off their WWW site.

Dave Aharonian
13-Jul-2005, 10:14
Hi Neil,

I was in a similar situation having a 4870 and not being pleased when I tried to do "higher end" scans. After much debating which involved looking at how much good scans were going to cost me, I purchased an 1800f and I just received it yesterday. I do not claim to do any type of precise testing whatsoever, but I can say that I am quite impressed with the 1800f. It was worth every penny. I'm making scans of my 4x5 and 6x7 negs and they blow away the 4870 hands down. My intention here was for a scanner that I could use to make prints up to 17x22 for exhibition and from what I'm seeing so far this will do the job very nicely. Excellent shadow detail, very sharp, great tonality. I use the Silverfast software as I believe its better than the Microtek software. I have no regrets about this purchase whatsoever. If you have any specific questions about it let me know.

Dave

Julio Fernandez
19-Jul-2005, 07:48
Any comparison of the Falcon or any other drum scanner against the 1800f is not really correct in as much as the drum scanners benefit from wet mounting, and the Microtek 1800f when used with the normal mounts does not. A more appropriate comparison would be that of the Falcon Vs. the wet mounted Microtek.

A new yahoo group dedicated to Wet Mounting and related scanning issues deals with the subject, you can access it at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCANMAX/ Several of the files and photos there enable you to see and compare the differences between dry scanning and Wet Mounting. Some of the photos in that group show the differences on a Creo. As you can readily see, the wet mounted images look more brilliant and well defined and those from dry mounted images look as if taken through milky glass flat and lifeless. Of course everything is relative. The wet mounted Creo should be probably on a par or at least close to the Falcon. It would be interesting to see the wet mounted Microtek compared with the Falcon, an excellent drum scanner.