Microtek 900 or Epson 4990 or Microtek 1800

[Ron Marshall]

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]

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]

I believe the new Epson 4990 will take an 8x10 negative.

[Tim Chakravorty]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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