Microtek i900 for scanning 4X5?

[Steve Hoffmann]

Has anybody tried the new Microtek i900 for scanning 4X5 chromes yet? I've demo'd the Microtek 1800f and 2500f. The 1800f made very clean scans but didn't resolve as much detail as my Epson 2450. The 2500f was outstanding; noise free, saturated colors and detail rich. However, $3000 for the 2500f is at the limit of my budget right now. I bought an Epson 4850 and it was so poor I returned it without any interest in trying another.

[Ted Harris]

Steve, is that the Epson 4850 or 4870?





Thanks,

Ted

[Steve Hoffmann]

It was the newest Epson 4800 dpi scanner, 4870, sorry I get the model number wrong....;^)

[Ted Harris]

Thanks Steve,





I, like you, am in the process of choosing a new scanner. I currently use the Umax PowerLook III and it is just time to replace this old warhorse. However, having used such a professional level scanner I am painfully aware of the differences between a consumer level scanner, no matter how high the stated resolution (e.g. the Epson 4870) and the (supposedly) more sturdily built professional units. I have no way of looking at most of them in advance so these sorts of discussions are very useful.





I have basically narrowed my choices down to the Epson 3200, Epson 4870, Microtek i900 and Microtek 1800f. I have been leaning toward the 1800f because of the build concerns mentioned above. These concerns were further reinforced in a conversation with the owner of the pab I use. He noted the major difference they see in the build quality of the housings and motors of the professional models. Unfortunately they don’t have any of these four models in house at the moment. In fact, the only flatbed scanners they have are Heidelberg.





All of this is a very long winded way of saying that I would like to hear more about your concerns with both the 1800f and the 4870 since they both seem to get lots of positive reviews here. I need to be able to scan 8x10, 4x5, 6x12, 6x9 and 6x6 with the heaviest use being 4x5 and 6x12 and 6x6 a close third. … all in both chromes and negatives. The i900 certainly seems to be the best bang for the buck to me IF the build quality doesn’t negate the positive aspects of its specifications.

[evan clarke]

I have the Epson 3200, 4870, Polaroid 120 and the Microtek 1800f. You must use Silverfast with the 1800 and it will give excellent results, much better than my Epson. The Scanwizard is just not sharp and there is no good documentation or user group for this software that I have found. If you are unfamiliar with Silverfast, it produces very good results but the settings can fool you because the program remembers them on a cumulative basis. You must completely reset everything occasionally and make new settings for images when you don't feel you are getting good results. It is also important to make careful notes on the global options because this makes a huge difference and can get out of hand if you make a change and don't remember what you changed. I bought it mostly for the 8x10 capability and now use it for all my LF and MF.

[Ken Lee]

I have a Microtek 2500f, and I found that the Microtek drivers give horrible dynamic range (very contrastry) while the Silverfast drivers give poor resolution. Fortunately, I found VueScan which is a bargain, and does very nicely.

One of the best things about the Microtek scanners is that they allow you to scan without intervening glass.The only smudges, dust, or scratches are the ones you put on the film. It's probably more expensive to build a scanner which will adjust to 2 different positions, but it's worth it to me.

[Steve Hoffmann]

I'm not sure if I got a bad 4870 or if I had problems with curved film. The medium format film holder in the 4870 is designed for a strip while the holder in my 2450 is exactly 6X9. My 6X9 stuff is cut to frame. In any case, 4870 scans from both 6X9 and 4X5 chromes contained less detail than scans from my 2450. The 4870 scans looked unfocused. The 4870 did have nearly zero dark area noise....I only had the unit over night and was so disappointed in the optical resolution that I returned it the next day.

I live about 100 miles from the Microtek plant in So Cal. I wrangled an invite up for a demo on the 1800f and 2500f. I took two chromes. The 1800f didn't resolve as much detail as my 2450. I KNOW the difference between optical resolution and software sharpening. It was obvious that the optical path in the 1800f was just not as good as the 2450. However, the 1800f made very clean scans. I'll agree with the poster who said the Microtek driver for the 2500f produced contrasty scans. Just the same there was very good detail in the 2500f scans and noticeably better optical resolution than the 2450. The 2500f made very clean scans. Of the two chromes I took up there, one was very dense and the other was full of small detail. I did this purposely to test the scanners’ limits in both optical resolution and Dmax. In any case, I realize that my experiences are very limited with the Epson 4870 and the two Microtek scanners and may not be representative of what these scanners are capable of. I'd like to try a Microtek i900. If it resolves as much detail as my 2450 and is as clean in the shadows as the Epson 4870 was, then that would work for me. If not, I'll save my coins for the 2500f.

[Jeffrey Zweig]

Hi Steve,

I recently purchased a i900 and wrote a review on it that I'll link you to on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00018JMZU/qid=1089846162/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl23/103-7122460-2526264?v=glance&s=electronics&n=507846

Basically I would go for the 1800f if your primary purpose with a scanner is going to be scanning slides. Although it does not have Digital ICE the optics on it are far superior than the i900. The i900 is more for reflective prints and Digital ICE. As you noted the 2500f would be the best but it is expensive. If you can afford an 1800f I would go that way as I think you'll be much happier with the results in the longterm.

Sandra

[Steve Hoffmann]

Sandra,

Thanks for the comments and link to your review. You seem quite satisfied with your i900. So, was wondering why you think I'd be happier with the 1800f. My demo of the 1800f at Microtek produced scans that did not have as much detail as my Epson 2450 produced off the same chrome. The 1800f scan was cleaner but I'm looking for improvements in both resolution and Dmax.

[Don Miller]

Steve, how did the dmax compare between the epson and microtek?

The microtek should produce about a 20 inch print at 300dpi from an uncropped 4x5 (if I did the math right). The 1800f with rebate is under $1000 now.

Don

[Steve Hoffmann]

I also scan 6X9, which makes the 1800f minimal in resolution for larger prints. The 1800f made much cleaner scans than my 2450 (better Dmax). In any case, whatever the claimed resolution between the Epson 2450 and the Microtek 1800f (that I got to demo), the 1800f lagged behind my 2450 considerably in image detail resolving ability. Sandra, if you are reading this post, do you have any experience with either the Epson 2450, 3200 or 4870? If so, how does your Microtek i900 compare to these Epson scanners in your opinion?

[Jeffrey Zweig]

Hi Steve,

The major difference between the 1800f and the i900 in my opinion is the difference in the level of transparency scans. Reflective images are marginally better with the 1800f in my opinion, and if I were only scanning reflective I would probably save the money and go with a i900 as it has Digital ICE, etc. The optics on the 1800f produce greater depth than the i900 when scanning slides and negatives. You scan large format (6x9) which makes it tough to find something that will scan high resolution images with. The 2500f would probably be the next step up for you.

Both Jeffrey and I have worked with the Epson 4870 Pro and have nothing but positive things to say about it. The reflective scans are on par with the i900 and I would try it out for yourself. We purchased the i900 because Microtek has the advantage due to its glassless scanning bed. I believe Microtek has a patent on this because no one else has adopted this feature. I didn't get to play around with it much but I would imagine that the 4870 would produce newton rings since it lacks this feature, but someone with one might chime in and let us know.

Personally I believe it comes down to personal preference. When you examine the Accord and the Camry they look similiar and you'll have people from both sides telling you why one is superior over the other. For us, we just like Microtek as they have been good to us in the past. The glassless scanning feature itself gave us the one up on why we bought it alone. If you are scanning transparent materials though I might recommend the i900 over it. If you were scanning strictly reflective then the 4870 might be a great option!