Epson V750, conclusion?

[Taotao]

Hi,

Finally I am about to buy a V750. It is that time of the year :-).

I don't have any scanner right now( had a UMAX Power Something III, cann't remember ). I want to go for V750 partly for the softwares. I like silverfast and I did wet mounting on my UMAX.

So my question is how good or bad V750 really is? Lots of people here have used V750 for a few months by now. Later reports seems better than the earlier ones. I think Kirk was going to post some feedback, but I haven't see it.

Should I wait a few more months to see what come out from Microtek or HP?

Thanks.

[Armin Seeholzer]

I'm really happy with mine V750 and use it from 35mm up to 8x10 and I'm surprised how good the 35mm get out of it!
Don't think the others invent the wheel knew!

[Ralph Barker]

You forgot to mention whether you're shooting 4x5 or a larger format, and what size digi-prints you intend to make from the scans. Those two factors will have a significant impact on the answer of whether the V750 will suit your needs.

Assuming 4x5 film and moderate enlargements, I've found the V750 to be a pretty decent scanner. It certainly won't compete against the high-end scanners costing many times its price, nor against well-done professional drum scans. But, it's much better than not scanning at all.

[Taotao]

I forgot to mention that I will scan mostly 4x5, some 8x10, some old 35mm, 6x4.5. And for prints not bigger than 16x20 from 4x5.

[Ted Harris]

The V750 is probably the best consumer scanner currently available (exception is the Microtekk 1800f which is now discontinued but there stillmay be a few left in the pipeline). Having said that the operative words are 'consumer scanner.' From 4x5 and larger film you will get good scans to print 8x10 and for most negs/trannies 11x14 when you go larger you arae pushing the capability fo the scanner. Some are satisfied with results at 16x20 and others are not. If you look at a print larger than 8x10 from a scan made on the V750 (or any of the other comperable scanners) v. a same size print from the same pice of film scanned on one of the high end scanners by a knowledgable operater you wills ee a difference. At 11x14 the difference will be smalland subtle, at 16x20 larger and more noticable and so on as you go up in size. For your 6x4.5 and 35mm film none of the consumer flatbed scanners is as good a solution as the film scanners available. You should be able to get decent, not great but decent 8x10 prints from yoru 6x4.5. Your 35mm is a tossup at 8x10.

Wht Ralph said above has a lot of merit too. I could say the same thing about a print made on an ancient enlarger with a good but not state-of-the art enlarging lens v. a top-of-the-line enlarger with the latest best optics and ..... many of us don't print traditionally with the latest and best either.

The v750 is a good option. The 4990 is almost as good for a lot less money. Neither is going to allow you to make a print that everybody will like at 16x20 but it may be fine for you. The biggest issue with these scanners is not their resolution (although that is a problem) but their DMax, their ability to capture shadow detail.

[Walter Calahan]

I like mine. Mostly scan 8x10 and some 4x5. Anything smaller I use my Nikon 8000.

[Kirk Gittings]

Sorry all I have been buried with commercial work which means I have been using the 750 allot for production but have not continued the side by side testing with the 1800f as I promised. It is definitely a step up from the 4990. It is a bit sharper with less noise and quite a bit faster.

[John Flavell]

This "independent" test result has been going around the 'net this morning and is including on Epson's web site:

PDF File Icon INDEPENDENT INDUSTRY STUDY CONCLUDES EPSON FLATBED SCANNERS OUTPERFORM COMPETITION FOR DYNAMIC RANGE:


Independent Industry Study Concludes Epson Flatbed Scanners Outperform
Competition for Dynamic Range: National Software Testing Labs (NSTL)
Reports Epson Flatbed Scanners Deliver Superior Optical Density

LONG BEACH, Calif., Nov. 29 /PRNewswire/ -- When it comes to reproducing the
highest level of shadow detail and mid-range gray values as quantified by
optical density (OD), Epson scanners outperformed competitors in a recent
National Software Testing Labs (NSTL) study.

"Many people don't realize the importance of optical density when it comes
to choosing a flatbed scanner," said Phil Amato, product manager, Consumer
and Photo Imaging, Epson. "Optical density is really the true measuring
stick for understanding how well a scanner can reproduce varying degrees of
shadow and noise detail and a big factor in overall image quality."

The NSTL study followed the methodology described by ISO 21550, an
internationally recognized standard that specifies the method for measuring
the optical density of a scanner. The methodology uses the 41-step Stouffer
transparent step wedge, T4110, as the test chart to evaluate the optical
density. Twelve scanners were tested, and included the Epson Perfection 4990
Photo, Epson Perfection 4490 Photo, Epson Perfection 3490 Photo, Epson
Perfection V700 Photo, as well as models from other competing brands.

The NSTL independently confirmed that all tested Epson scanners were found
to have OD values that were equal to or greater than the values Epson states
in its specifications. The results also showed that three of Epson's
scanners consistently achieved the highest optical density scores of 4.0 or
higher. Competitive scanners achieved scores of 3.1 or below. The NSTL
concluded that Epson's scanners consistently outperformed competitive models
with respect to OD measurement, and additionally, provided more consistent
results over repetitive testing.

Complete methodology details and results for each individual model can be
reviewed by downloading the complete final report at http://www.nstl. com/ or
http://www.epson. com/cgi-bin/ Store/EditorialA llAnnouncements. jsp?BV_UseBVCoo
kie=yes .

[Ted Harris]

The NSTL study has been around for awhile and, while a good study, does not address real world parameters in the same way that we use these values and in a way that easily translates to the negtives and chromes we scan. The studies are absoutely valid but, IMO, at the same time absolutely useless to the LF photographer in evaluating a scanner. In a word, they are more about marketing than performance. The NSTL tests show DMax of more than 4.0 for the V700, V750 and 4990. Tests that more approximate our operating conditions and viewing give a DMax of ~ 2.25 for these same models. In fact, all of the Epsona nd Microtek scanners tested fall into a DMax range of around 2.2 to 2.5. The high end scanners mostly bunch in a DMax range of 3.9 to 4.0.

Again, no quibbles at all with the referenced testing but it is theoretical lab conditions and doesn't really give you a number that is useful. having said that, on balance the V750 is probably the best choice on the market today in the undr $1000 range BUT it is only better than the other options by small margins.

[Kirk Gittings]

Again, no quibbles at all with the referenced testing but it is theoretical lab conditions and doesn't really give you a number that is useful. having said that, on balance the V750 is probably the best choice on the market today in the undr $1000 range BUT it is only better than the other options by small margins.

I agree completely. these do not completely replace the need for quality drum scans for ;arger prints (In my judgement 16x20 and larger).