Soft scans with Epson V750?

[Mike Delaney]

Soft scans from Epson V750?

I’ve just been reading Jack Flesher’s account of his first impressions of the Epson V750 compared to the 4990 (soft scan but better dmax). As I was just about to buy a 750 this has made me wonder whether I might not be better off with a 4990 after all.
I shoot colour slides, more 6x9 than 4x5 until now.
Has anyone else had the same or different experiences to Jack? I’d be most appreciative of any help. In addition, as I haven’t got any software, do you think it’s worth getting a package which includes Silverfast Ai and Monaco color or not (e.g V750 rather than V700)?
Thanks,
Mike

[Walter Calahan]

I own a V750 using Silverfast. My scans aren't soft.

Did Jack Flesher turn off all unsharp masking? All scanners add a little softness to the original image. My Nikon 8000 does. So I always use a "slight" amount of unsharp mask when doing any scan.

Mostly I'm scanning 8x10 color negs. The scans I'm making with the V750 is far superior to the old Epson Expression 1680 I use to use. Not a fair comparison with the 4990.

I don't think you'll be unhappy with either the 4990 or V750. As with any tool, you'll be the best judge of what is good or not. How you use it may be different than Jack or me.

[Jack Flesher]

To be clear, when I compared them 1) I did turn all sharpening off and 2) it was only a single sample of the V750. It is certainly possible there is some sample variation and a good 4990 will be sharper than a poor V750 or vice-versa.

The point of my commnet was that folks should check them out for themselves before they buy and if you already own 4990, not to expect significant gains from the V750.

Cheers,

[squiress]

I have the 700 and scan 120, 4x5 and 8x10. I note no softness in the scans and I normally have unsharp off. I have not compared to 4990, but am very pleased with this scanner. I also am not dissappointed with the bundled software given that I do little besides crop to my photos.

Stew

[Ted Harris]

See my earlier posts on the tests of the V700 that we did (the results should apply to the V750 as well). A full review of the V700 is in the current issue of View Camera which is on the newstands now. To summarize:

1) The refinements in the V Series over the 4990 are lost on the LF user since you need to use the highest resolution setting to take advantage of the second lens system; doing so gives you huge file sizes, larger than most computer systems can handle. Even so the resolution is only marginally better than that of the 4990.

2) Our tests showed that the V700 resolution, when set at the 3200 dpi setting, was slightly worse than that of the the 4990. The results obtained here and in 1 above were observed measurements from an AIG T20 Test Target, one of the industry standards used by scanner manufacturers.

3) The Dmax of the V700 was exactly the same as that of the 4990 when measured from a Stouffer Stepwedge. It is possible that, because of the antireflection coatings on the CCD and mirrors, the Dmax of the V750 is slightly better, but it will not be a marked improvement.

4) None of the above implies soft scans, that is, the scanners perform in the same general range as the others in their class, but they are not markedly superior.

Our overall conclusion, buy a 4990 and save a few hundred dollars.

[squiress]

1) The refinements in the V Series over the 4990 are lost on the LF user since you need to use the highest resolution setting to take advantage of the second lens system; doing so gives you huge file sizes, larger than most computer systems can handle. Even so the resolution is only marginally better than that of the 4990.

Our overall conclusion, buy a 4990 and save a few hundred dollars.

Good thing I still have lots of MF stuff to scan and ALL of the old 35mm in boxes and boxes.

Also, I got my V700 for $476 shipped. Similar pricing for 4990 is around $445 at places I checked. Hundreds difference may be list pricing, but street may not be so much.

Stew

[Charles Hohenstein]

Our overall conclusion, buy a 4990 and save a few hundred dollars.

Would that also be true for the photographer who shoots in more than one format and needs to scan 120 and 135?

[Jack Flesher]

Would that also be true for the photographer who shoots in more than one format and needs to scan 120 and 135?

A few more comments, then I'll leave the thread alone...

1) As Ted clearly pointed out, these scanners are in the same general class -- IOW neither is significantly superior or inferior to the other in any application.

2) The comments I made earlier (and without putting words in Ted's mouth, I think he was attempting pretty much the same thing in his review) were simply to try and quantify verbally the relatively minor, but still noticeable, differences I (we) saw between the machines.

3) To clarify one last time: If you scan 4x5 there appears to be a slight resolution edge in favor of the 4990 in the 1600 to 3200 DPI range. However if you scan 35mm and 120, the V700's get a similar slight resolution edge over the 4990 at over 3200 DPI in those applications (presumably from the second lens).

4) If you are contemplating a new purchase, a NEW 4990 Pro (with Silverfast Ai) costs about the same as the non-Pro V700. Alternatively you can pay $300 more and get the Pro version V750 with Silverfast Ai. However this option also puts you within a few hundred bucks of the Microtek 1800f price territory, so you may want to reconsider just how far you want to go.

5) Given the above, I will reiterate/clarify my original comment: If you already own a 4990, I think one is wasting money on a V700/750 upgrade as there simply is not enough difference to bother with -- My opinion only... If you are contemplating a new purchase, you should compare sample scans from each so you know exactly what you are paying for before you plunk down your cash.

Hope this helps,

[Remigius]

If you scan a lot of 120, it may be worthwile to buy a V700 instead of the 4990 to get the (imho) better mf film holder (2 strips of 6x12 instead of 3 strips of 6x12).

[Mike Delaney]

Many thanks Walter, Jack, Stew and Ted for taking the time to answer and for the useful points, they are most appreciated!