Best scanner under $500

[Matthew Cromer]

I bought an Epson 2450 on an interim basis for making relatively smaller prints. However I'd like to buy a better scanner for somewhat larger prints.

The problems I see with the 2450 is softness at 2400 DPI and quite a bit of shadow noise in the scans. If I bought one of the 4800 DPI scanners and downsampled to 2400 would I get sharper scans than my 2450? Would I see less noise?

Which scanners in the $500 price range would people recommend for scanning 4x5 film (color neg and chrome)?

[Kirk Gittings]

In the last year I have extensively tested an Epson 3200, 4870 and Canon 9950f on the films you mentioned. Of the three, all things considered, the 4870 is the better scanner. They can be gotten for $350.00 refurbished from the Epson webstore. I have had good experiences with their refurbished equipment in the past.

[Eric Fredine]

Matthew - I doubt that you'd see a vast (if any) difference between the 4870 and the 2450. I think you're just seeing the limitations of consumer flat-bed scanners. They are 'just ok'. Cheers, Eric

[Mark Erickson]

I find the output of my Epson 4870 to be significantly better than that from my old 2450, particularly in dynamic range (i.e., less shadow noise).

[Matthew Cromer]

I'm hoping for better DR and better resolution.

The review I have seen of the 4870 showed a much sharper scan at 2400 dpi than my scanner can deliver with any of my trannies or negs.

If I had a decently sharp scan at 2400 dpi with out as much noise I'd be pretty pleased. Of course at 2400 DPI I'd need a better computer too

[Matthew Cromer]

Eric,

Have you done any side-by-side comparisons of any of your 4x5s drum scanned versus your 4870 scans? What DPI are you scanning at?

[Eric Brody]

I have an Epson 2450 and it's marginal at best.

Epson is coming out with a new machine, the 4990 in the near future??? It has a list of <$500. I know none of the details but it might be worth waiting a few weeks for the PMA show in Orlando. If you're looking for a flatbed for large format, it might meet your needs.

It's unfortunate that there is not currently a film scanner that will do larger than medium format without the price approaching $5,000, at least not any of which I am aware.

It has always seemed frustrating to me to spend the time and effort to make a large format negative or transparency and then consign its production to such inadequate weak links as the present generation of consumer (amateur) priced flatbed scanners, especially compared with what one can achieve in a black and white wet darkroom.

[Matthew Cromer]

I found this:

Epson 4990 Comparison to Epson 3270

Pretty darn convincing scan at 1200 DPI. I suspect 2400 DPI will be good. Time to start saving pennies. . .

[Kirk Gittings]

I have done comparisons between the 4870 and drum scans on 4x5 trans. The main difference is in shadow detail, the drums have better shadow separation (flatbeds are a little muddy), slightly better highlight separation and better sharpness too. I would say that the 4870 scans are about 85% as good as a drum scan for prints from 4x5 to print to 16x20 with a 1G+ file.

I do all my commercial work on the 4870 and it is great. I am more demanding for my art work and I have a 30 year retrospective book coming out this spring and an accompanying show coming up latter this year. I am also transitioning from silver to ink jet printing for a part of this show. I have become very proficient at making reasonably good scans from my Epson 4870 flatbed scanner for commercial work, but I began to wonder if I was not shortchanging myself by not getting drum scans for the exhibit prints. When the scans for the book came back I compared them to my inhouse scans of the same trans. and found my own scans a little lacking. I had high res. drum scans done of some of the trans. for the exhibit prints and found them superior. I would guestimate about 15% improvement overall. For me this is an important quality difference that makes getting what I want in a print easier and superior. The new flatbeds are amazing at the price and do a hell of a job for all but the most critical work. I will replace my 4870 with a 4990 mainly because of the larger scan area, 8X10. I don't shoot 8x10 but the larger area will allow me to gang scan more 6x9's for my commercial business. I will then take the 4870 and experiment with wet scanning to see how much I can improvement I can get with that.

[Frank Petronio]

Each generation of Epsons gets abit better, and the best part is that their sub $500 4800 series does better than some of their more expensive offerings.

IMHO, the scanner quality usually exceeds the ability of the operator to pull the best scan possible from it. I've seen a lot of people complain about Epsons (or whatever) compared to drum scans, but then when you probe you fnd they really weren't using best practices with their Epson. No offense to Kirk (who I am sure works at a high level) but I think a properly used Epson is capable of 98% of a good drum scan, all other things being equal. You lose a little shadow detail and you have to use more USM with a flatbed... big deal, half the time I try to make the shadows richer anyway.

I don't make that many supersize prints, nor can I justify spending $100 per scan for my art. But I pull some really satisfying 13 x 19 prints off my lowly 2200 inkjet, and I could never make a C-print with that kind of control...