Microtek Scanmaker i900 Review

[Steve Hamley]

I'll have to defend Todd also. Check out the "Final Thoughts" section of this drum scanner review. There's a comparison to lower-end scanners.

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/scanners/drum_scans.shtml

Steve

[QT Luong]

The Epson 1680 pro is better build and scans 8x10, which justifies the price. However, it might not produce superior scans for 4x5 compared to the recent consumer-grade Epsons.

[Jeffrey Zweig]

You need to look at the price point of the scanner to truly understand its capabilities. You can buy a 6400 PPI/DPI scanner for $80, offering 2-3X the resolution that a $3k scanner might offer. What then are you getting for so much more? Better features but more importantly better optics. I would have loved to get an Artixscan 2500f but the price is roughly 6X what the i900 is. It's not a perfect scanner by any means but for $500 its the best scanner I've used. By putting it in context you see that you get a product that offers Digital ICE as well as glassless scanning of slides and negatives while offering an affordable price. This is not to be used in pre-press applications but for the home / small business user it works fantastic.

The i900 offers Digital ICE for reflective prints only, but an upcoming product will offer Digital ICE for both positive and negative scanning applications. Hopefully it doesn't take as long to be released as the i900!

I'll try to take some scans with it and post them online as soon as possible! I'll post here when I get them up!

[Martin_4417]

Jeffery --

I'm very interested in your experience and that of others with i900. I had an Epson 3200, which I used for scanning 4x5 transparencies but sold it a few months ago thinking that I would buy the 4870 when it became available. I thought the ICE feature and the stated higher resolution would be useful. I had problems with Newton rings with the 3200 and was a little uncertain that the resolution I was getting was up to the mark. But, since I was making relatively small enlargements from my 4x5s, it seemed satisfactory. I was hoping that the 4870 would resolve both issues, but I'm not so sure now from reading numerous posts, some very positive, some tepid, and few fairly negative. The Microtek glassless tray feature would eliminate the Newton rings issue, but I don't know about the rest. I have seen nearly nothing about this scanner in the media or on the forums I follow. If you or anyone else reading this can shed light on how the i900 performs overall and particularly how it compares with the Epson 4870, I for one would be very interested.

Thanks

[Nature Photo]

OK guys, which are then the 4"x5" scanners capable of digital ICE dust removal from the film? Whether they do dust removal of the reflective image or not is of little use for large format photographers. Thank you

[Graeme Hird]

I can only speak of the Epson 4870 - it does have ICE for trannies. Somebody else can answer for the others.

[Nature Photo]

Thank you, Graeme.
I have scanned hundreds of 35 mm slides on a non-ICE dedicated slide scanner and definitely do not want to clean dust from 4"x5" scans in Photoshop. And why should anyone, if ICE and similar dust/scratch removal technologies are available?

Based on this alone, it seems that the Microtek i900 is out, regardless of how wonderful it otherwise is.

Also, it appears that the least bad option so far is the Epson 4870 (and yes, I know it' s not going to perform like a drum scanner). Graeme, what is your experience with the 4870? Many thanks,

[QT Luong]

ICE on the 4870 is better than nothing, however I was disappointed. (a) I have found it not to be as effective as on my Nikon LS 4000. I need to do much more cleaning by hand. Could be the fact that 5x7 film has 25x the surface of 35mm means it catches 25x more dust. (b) it cannot be used above a certain resolution, or the driver will crash. (c) it requires two passes of scanning and is very slow.

[Graeme Hird]

Nature,

My only experience with the 4870 is reading about it on the net. I own the 2450 and love it, but I keep abreast of the developments so that I'm not lost when the time comes to replace it. I'd follow QTL's recommendations if I were you.

Cheers,

[Nature Photo]

QTL and Graeme:
Thank you both for your replies. I am considering buying a 4"x5" flatbed. Dust removal is a must; the second criterion is to have a "good" image "quality" (allowing for wide ranges of subjective definition/interpretation). Resolution (ie. dpi's) is not as important. Will use Vuescan and PS, so software packages don't matter much .

So far the only two scanners I have found in the under-$800 range are the Epson 4870 and the Canon Canoscan 9900F.
1. Have I left anything out?
2. How does Canon's FARE compare to Digital ICE?