Microtek i800 versus Epson V750

[sanking]

I have been using an Epson 4870 for several years for scanning 5X7" negatives (fluid mounted) with output of no more than about 3X. The results have been very satisfactory, but the bed size, which is less than 8X10, is not fully satisfactory since I would also like to scan for proofing purposes only a full roll of 120 medium format film in one pass. So I am now considering the Epson V700 or V750 or the Microtek i800. Here are my major critieria, and I would like opinions on which scanner would best fit my needs at the best price.

1. SilverFast Ai is required. If not included in package I will purchases separately.

2. Wano be able to scan a full roll of medium format film in one pass, and want a holder that will keep the negatives or slides tight and off the glass of the bed.

3. Want the option to use the scanner with fluid mounting.

4. Major purpose of the scanner will be for scanning 6X9 cm and 5X7" negatives for output at no more than about 5-6X.

Looking at prices on the web tends to strongly favor the Microtek i800. Is there any real advantage to the higher dpi rating of the Epson 750 that should make me lean that way?

Sandy King

[Kirk Gittings]

Can't answer for the Microtek. The 750 is a great scanner but the 120 film holder should be replaced with Doug Fishers to get the most out of it and maybe his fluid mounter too. I am beta testing his right now for him.

Also isn't MT coming out with a new one this month or next?

[sanking]

Can't answer for the Microtek. The 750 is a great scanner but the 120 film holder should be replaced with Doug Fishers to get the most out of it and maybe his fluid mounter too. I am beta testing his right now for him.

Also isn't MT coming out with a new one this month or next?

What kind of medium format holder is provided with the 750? Is it a single or double frame holder or one that will accept a full roll of film for scanning at the same time?

I have the same question about the Microtek i800?

Any information on the name and specifications for the new MT scanner?

Sandy King

[Oren Grad]

Sandy -

My Microtek i800 is now on its way back to Microtek for replacement under warranty - it died last week after a slow descent into terminal flakiness that chewed up a lot of troubleshooting time. FWIW, it came out of the box with lots of haze inside the glass, though while it was working it seemed to produce decent scans through the haze; I didn't try taking it apart to clean it.

IMO the main reason to buy an i800 is if you need its large bed size and have a really tight budget. The i800 can handle reflective materials up to 8.5x14 and transparent materials up to 8x12, which means you can scan negatives up to 7x11 or 5x12 by plunking them directly on the bed. I don't know of any other model at anywhere near the price that can handle transparent materials that large.

So far I'd used it mainly for scanning prints. With negatives, I did experiment with scanning 4x5 and 5x7 negatives off the bed. I was able to produce large TIFF files that looked superb on screen, but I don't know whether they'd stand up to 5-6x enlargement in printing.

Microtek doesn't provide a fluid-mount option. I don't know whether there's anything available from a third party. Perhaps not, since this model doesn't have a very high profile and is now probably on the way out, given the aggressive discounting.

If I recall correctly, the 120 holder that comes with the i800 is a strip holder that allows scanning a full roll at once, but only if it's divisible into three strips - for example, 4 frames x 3 strips with 6x6 negatives. The 35, 120 and 4x5 holders do suspend the film a few mm above the bed.

Hope that helps - good luck in your search.

PS: OK, scratch that - I just checked the electronic documentation, and it's showing the 120 holder as being able to take only one strip at a time. It can handle a strip with two 6x9 frames, but that's it.

[BrianShaw]

(snip)
So far I'd used it mainly for scanning prints. With negatives, I did experiment with scanning 4x5 and 5x7 negatives off the bed. I was able to produce large TIFF files that looked superb on screen, but I don't know whether they'd stand up to 5-6x enlargement in printing.
(snip)
If I recall correctly, the 120 holder that comes with the i800 is a strip holder that allows scanning a full roll at once, but only if it's divisible into three strips - for example, 4 frames x 3 strips with 6x6 negatives. The 35, 120 and 4x5 holders do suspend the film a few mm above the bed.

Hope that helps - good luck in your search.

PS: OK, scratch that - I just checked the electronic documentation, and it's showing the 120 holder as being able to take only one strip at a time. It can handle a strip with two 6x9 frames, but that's it.

I'm not a very skilled digitizer of film (and what's worse is that I have little interest in becoming skilled), but I've had an i800 for about a year and have used the film holders for 4x5 and 120. I haven't been happy with the results and have actually been happier laying the negs on the glass. When using the holders I always get scans that are out-of-focus. Unfortunately I haven't taken the time to figure out if this is a scanner problem, software problem, or if I need new glasses.

Siverfast SE came with my scanner. I have only loaded the Mikrotec software and haven't yet loaded Silverfast SE. Perhaps this will make a difference??

Also going from memory... the 120 holder I have holds two or three strips of 4 6x6 frames. The 4x5 holder holds 2 negs and seems to keep them flat, but takes a bit of fidgeting to keep them from cocking at a slight angle.

My biggest complaint with the i800 is that it is S-L-O-W.

[Oren Grad]

I'm not a very skilled digitizer of film (and what's worse is that I have little interest in becoming skilled), but I've had an i800 for about a year and have used the film holders for 4x5 and 120. I haven't been happy with the results and have actually been happier laying the negs on the glass. When using the holders I always get scans that are out-of-focus. Unfortunately I haven't taken the time to figure out if this is a scanner problem, software problem, or if I need new glasses.

Siverfast came with my scanner. I have only loaded the Mikrotec software and haven't yet loaded Silverfast. Perhaps this will make a difference??

Also going from memory... the 120 holder I have holds two or three strips of 4 6x6 frames. The 4x5 holder holds 2 negs and seems to keep them flat, but takes a bit of fidgeting to keep them from cocking at a slight angle.

My biggest complaint with the i800 is that it is S-L-O-W.

I tried one experiment scanning a 6x9 TMX frame to TIFF and playing around with it in Picture Window Pro. I wasn't thrilled with what I saw on screen - the scans from the 4x5 and 5x7 negatives right on the bed were much nicer looking. Of course, this wasn't a properly controlled test by any means - different films, different lenses, different formats, different degrees of magnification, and all that. But FWIW, my initial impression was that the scan from the 6x9 negative wouldn't be good for much, but the scans from the LF negatives on the bed had some potential.

My i800 was the cheap package, which came with Silverfast SE. I think there's a "pro" package that comes with AI. In very limited tinkering, I haven't seen any difference in results between Silverfast SE and the Microtek ScanWizard Pro software. I found the Scanwizard Pro interface easier to use for my limited purposes, so that's what I settled on.

[sanking]

Hi Brian and Oren,

Sounds like I would gain very little by replacing my 4870 with the i800, especially since I don't need the legal size scanning area. Thanks for your comments.

Sandy King

[BrianShaw]

That could be the correct conclusion, Sandy. I wish I had chosen differently. For me it was a "quick-reaction decision" -- my boss said I could buy a scanner but I needed to get the PO in ASAP (that day). So I picked without doing enough research. Now I have this nice looking scanner on my desk that I don't use much because I don't like the results.

[al olson]

You may be interested in considering my experiences with the Microtek i800 that I posted in the thread titled:

Peculiarities of the Microtek i800 Scanner

I am not happy with the results and I will second Brian's comment about not getting sharp scans from sharp negatives as well. I had an Epson 4870 that I liked far better and I sold it to buy the i800. Not happy at all.