Diff between Epson 700 and 750-M

[sanking]

Sandy, or anyone used seen both...

Thank you for the advice. In your mind does the anti-reflective and better mirror material found on the 750 warrant the added price?

./e

Erik,

Hard to say since I have never seen any direct comparison of real results between the two. However, based on various factors I decided that for purposes any possible improvement in possible image quality did not warrant the considerable extra cost of the V750. If you need the extra bundled software that comes with the V750, or the fluid mount station, others might decide differently.

I have been pleasantly surprised by the quality of the V700, once the holders are adjusted for the optimum plane of focus. The scan quality is definitely good enough for prints up to 16X20 size from 4X5" negatives IMHO.

Sandy King

[Brian Ellis]

I have a 4990, the predecessor of the 700/750 series. From the tests I've seen there's little if any difference between them, at least in terms of resolving power. I tried scanning 6x7 b&w negatives with the 4990 and my experience was similar to Rick's. I was reasonably happy with the results when the print was 8x10 or smaller but anything larger wasn't satisfactory. It's been a great scanner for 4x5 and 8x10 but not 6x7.

[sanking]

I have a 4990, the predecessor of the 700/750 series. From the tests I've seen there's little if any difference between them, at least in terms of resolving power. I tried scanning 6x7 b&w negatives with the 4990 and my experience was similar to Rick's. I was reasonably happy with the results when the print was 8x10 or smaller but anything larger wasn't satisfactory. It's been a great scanner for 4x5 and 8x10 but not 6x7.

The V700 has two lenses, one is called a "high resolution" lens and it is activated when you choose film area guide. The other lens is called a "super high resolution" lens and itis activated when you choose film holder. Epson's use of terminology is a bit optimistic in the case of both. If you use the HR lens effective resolution is approximately the same as what you get with the Epson 4990. However, if you can use the SHR lens effective resolution is quite a bit better than with the 4990. In direct tests of the two scanners I was able to get about 1800 dpi effective resolution with the 4990 and the V700 using the HR lens. However, with the SHR lens effective resolution was around 2300 dpi.

The plane of best of focus was determined for all tests with both scanners.

Sandy King

[Heroique]

I have a 4990, but I've rented a v750 for a very limited, side-by-side comparison.

I used a sheet of 4x5 Velvia-50 film (nicely exposed w/ minute details in the subject) and snugly dry-mounted w/ a film holder similar to Doug Fisher's design.

I used Epson Scan for the comparison, selecting the "film w/ film holder" option in each case (i.e., not the "film w/ area guide" option). So I was comparing the 4990's single fixed lens w/ the v750's "SHR" fixed lens.

My tests weren't rigorously scientific, but I found my 4990's best plane of focus, which I understand is unique from model to model, to be about 2mm above the glass. However, there seemed to be enough DOF for me to say: 2mm ... plus/minus .25mm. (I'd like to hear more about this DOF "tolerance" from others.)

At this optimal plane of focus, my 4990's maximum resolution is about 2000 dpi, perhaps a touch less. I really have to squint () to see improvement above 1500 dpi, but it's there if I look carefully enough.

When I rented the v750, I likewise determined its best plane of focus; it occurred at a slighly higher elevation than my 4990.

I then compared the two scanners at 2000 dpi.

My personal result: I couldn't tell the difference between these scans w/ several carefully inspected crops. However, there was a different "look" to the images that would be difficult for me to describe.

When I went to higher dpi, up to 2400, I still couldn't tell the difference, but I was making comparisons w/ E-6 4x5 film, not a fancy line resolution chart. If I had done so, I suspect the v750 may have appeared a tiny bit better; and it might have appeared better at 1800-2000, too. However, since I rarely print larger than 11x14, the slightly better performance, if I had seen that it existed, would probably be negligible to me.

[77seriesiii]

Sandy,Rick,Heroique, everyone; AWESOME! Thank you very much, that is a savings of at least $300!

Just need to drop an order! Not looking forward to spending the dosh but...it is getting harder to convince my wife that we never had a scanner and I have no idea what that big beige box is beside her monitors.

Thanks again everyone.

Erick