Keith Cooper is reporting EOL for Epson high-end flatbed film scanners

[Oren Grad]

That means V850 and 13000XL. He is reporting based on his discussion with Epson UK; apparently required CCD components are no longer available and declining sales make further inevstment in the line hard to justify:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/68126296

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqHU5ovQ97A

[interneg]

Calling them 'high-end' was always a stretch. Almost any camera scanning system runs rings round them these days on measures of both useful performance and cost - and that's really what's done for them.

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

Yes and Epson isn't a high MP scanner, but it's a pretty decent everyman tool that plenty have found fine - or at least "good enough". And yes, I saw Keith's vid yesterday, too. Love the guy.

FWIW, wet scanning - where for the most part your neg has a cover while it's getting scanned - just has less dust in my personal experience and that kind of killed my venture into camera scanning. But I absolutely agree that everyone's mileage will vary. Settled it for me "for now".... and until my photos are really really really to the point where the last thing to improve is the scan.... then I'll work with what I have rather than belabor it. Do I love scanning or the Epson V850? Not at all. But it does get the job done - especially if you wet scan. Dry scans? Not so much as the holders really aren't up to it and allow too much surface variance to deliver sharp scans.

Did I try wet camera scanning? No, but it's a thought for when the Epson dies. Wet scanning negs with the Epson Fluid mount has been a revolution in my output not just because the negs lie beautifully flat, but because as many have found, it adds a modest upgrade to filling or smoothing the film's surface defects. I'd even bought an old Kaiser copy stand for camera scanning years ago that was getting dumped, but net of cleaning up dust.... the time savings weren't there for me. They're there, but I've gone the other direction is trying to reduce output and raise quality BEFORE scanning using larger formats. Though I'd tend to think camera scanning offers more virtues to 35mm or MF shooters than LF, Fairly. I think Sandy King started using a Fuji MF and its multishot combos for camera scanning some years ago and wrote it worked better for him. I have no doubt he's right. When I get my negs to that quality... or when the Epson dies, I'll go there but not likely before. I tried the Fuji MF 50R which had wonderful dynamic range, but switched back to Nikon when they came out with the Nikon Zf recently. MF seemed overkill, and with the Z's I think Nikon has finally fixed their focus speed and their color science just nailed it so that I found I was turning off more and more of the post processing adjustments to a point where I had to even switch software to regain that control. Nikon GAS ain't cheap either, but a tad less than Fuji - and I had a lot of Fuji. YMMV.

[Kiwi7475]

Yes and Epson isn't a high MP scanner, but it's a pretty decent everyman tool that plenty have found fine - or at least "good enough". And yes, I saw Keith's vid yesterday, too. Love the guy.

FWIW, wet scanning - where for the most part your neg has a cover while it's getting scanned - just has less dust in my personal experience and that kind of killed my venture into camera scanning. But I absolutely agree that everyone's mileage will vary. Settled it for me "for now".... and until my photos are really really really to the point where the last thing to improve is the scan.... then I'll work with what I have rather than belabor it. Do I love scanning or the Epson V850? Not at all. But it does get the job done - especially if you wet scan. Dry scans? Not so much as the holders really aren't up to it and allow too much surface variance to deliver sharp scans.

Did I try wet camera scanning? No, but it's a thought for when the Epson dies. Wet scanning negs with the Epson Fluid mount has been a revolution in my output not just because the negs lie beautifully flat, but because as many have found, it adds a modest upgrade to filling or smoothing the film's surface defects. I'd even bought an old Kaiser copy stand for camera scanning years ago that was getting dumped, but net of cleaning up dust.... the time savings weren't there for me. They're there, but I've gone the other direction is trying to reduce output and raise quality BEFORE scanning using larger formats. Though I'd tend to think camera scanning offers more virtues to 35mm or MF shooters than LF, Fairly. I think Sandy King started using a Fuji MF and its multishot combos for camera scanning some years ago and wrote it worked better for him. I have no doubt he's right. When I get my negs to that quality... or when the Epson dies, I'll go there but not likely before. I tried the Fuji MF 50R which had wonderful dynamic range, but switched back to Nikon when they came out with the Nikon Zf recently. MF seemed overkill, and with the Z's I think Nikon has finally fixed their focus speed and their color science just nailed it so that I found I was turning off more and more of the post processing adjustments to a point where I had to even switch software to regain that control. Nikon GAS ain't cheap either, but a tad less than Fuji - and I had a lot of Fuji. YMMV.

I know others may disagree but for LF I see little benefit to wet scanning on the V850 compared to dry scanning directly on the scanner glass with a museum glass or ANR on top of the negative. Same flatness, no added expense, and IMO very small loss in resolution and color quality. And less color noise than scanning wet, no liquids, and no cleaning the liquids after the fact. Every time I’ve tried wet scanning on the V850 I’ve arrived at the conclusion that it’s just not worth the hassle.

Epson moving away from making scanners it’s just another area that will make prices climb up over time, with hardware and software issues creeping over time, just like the professional scanners that stopped being made shortly after the 2000’s. And another entry barrier for those trying to get into LF with a digital/mixed process. So not great news.

[interneg]

And another entry barrier for those trying to get into LF with a digital/mixed process.

No, that's rather incorrect - for the sort of money V850s run at these days, you can get far sharper scan options, if 'new' isn't an absolute requirement. That's what's finally nailed the Epson coffin lid on. 20-30 inherently sharp megapixels is often what the market seems to want as a baseline, rather than Epson's blurry nonsense.

[paulbarden]

No, that's rather incorrect - for the sort of money V850s run at these days, you can get far sharper scan options, if 'new' isn't an absolute requirement. That's what's finally nailed the Epson coffin lid on. 20-30 inherently sharp megapixels is often what the market seems to want as a baseline, rather than Epson's blurry nonsense.

"Epson's blurry nonsense"??? LOL If you know how to use an Epson scanner correctly, there's nothing "blurry" about the result. Absurd.
Here's an 8x10 negative scanned on the flatbed V750 (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54306818661_eaba671d42_6k.jpg), just plopping the neg on the glass - no special handling. Go ahead - tell me it's "blurry nonsense".

[Duolab123]

I ordered a V850, I've been on the fence now for a while. Panic purchase. :cool:

[Alan Klein]

I've compared my V850 to a Howtek 8000 drum scanner with very good results. I don't have a high-resolution digital camera, so going out and getting one for scan setup doesn't make sense to me.

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?158728-Howtek-8000-Drum-vs-Epson-V850-flatbed-scanners&highlight=howtek

[Michael R]

This sucks, although it isn’t surprising. I was hoping to eventually get an Epson scanner but I’m not ready yet so I’m screwed.

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

The amazing thing about this business is that each of us seems to know only one way something works for us when we really want the best. And yet somehow, as different as our techniques and tools may be, everyone seems to produce fine output - and I do mean fine. Or we'd just give it up. My apologies if I've triggered a feud here. Certainly didn't mean to do that.

[bdkphoto]

FWIW Epson has denied that they are ending production- via petapixel - https://petapixel.com/2025/02/05/epson-denies-claim-that-its-ccd-film-scanners-are-approaching-end-of-life/

[Kiwi7475]

FWIW Epson has denied that they are ending production- via petapixel - https://petapixel.com/2025/02/05/epson-denies-claim-that-its-ccd-film-scanners-are-approaching-end-of-life/

This is interesting in that this is in no way an official statement from Epson — rather “an Epson representative tells PetaPixel” (this is what the article states).

Maybe Epson doesn’t feel like they should be responding to Keith or anyone else’s statements in an official manner (there’s a point in that), but I just don’t know that the pedigree of this article is higher than Keith’s.

[paulbarden]

This is interesting in that this is in no way an official statement from Epson — rather “an Epson representative tells PetaPixel” (this is what the article states).

Maybe Epson doesn’t feel like they should be responding to Keith or anyone else’s statements in an official manner (there’s a point in that), but I just don’t know that the pedigree of this article is higher than Keith’s.

Keith's report isn't an official statement from Epson either. Neither of these reports can be considered meaningful, really. I find much of what ends up on Petapixel's pages should be viewed with a skeptical eye.

[Kiwi7475]

Keith's report isn't an official statement from Epson either. Neither of these reports can be considered meaningful, really. I find much of what ends up on Petapixel's pages should be viewed with a skeptical eye.

Agreed - who knows what the truth is.

[Alan Klein]

This is interesting in that this is in no way an official statement from Epson — rather “an Epson representative tells PetaPixel” (this is what the article states).

Maybe Epson doesn’t feel like they should be responding to Keith or anyone else’s statements in an official manner (there’s a point in that), but I just don’t know that the pedigree of this article is higher than Keith’s.

A company will more likely respond to an organization not an individual for public comments. Just because it is more official.

[Bill McMannis]

"Epson's blurry nonsense"??? LOL If you know how to use an Epson scanner correctly, there's nothing "blurry" about the result. Absurd.
Here's an 8x10 negative scanned on the flatbed V750 (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54306818661_eaba671d42_6k.jpg), just plopping the neg on the glass - no special handling. Go ahead - tell me it's "blurry nonsense".

I agree Epson have/had marvelous sharpness when the correct workflow is implemented. I continue to use a 4870 I purchased new a couple decades ago. Windows and Epson dropped support but thanks to VueScan, I use the 4870 weekly. I can focus on the grain of the film.

[Kiwi7475]

A company will more likely respond to an organization not an individual for public comments. Just because it is more official.

It is likely more complicated than that. Following the PP article, Keith wrote

“Yes that is what Epson US currently says

I'm in the UK and have no reason to doubt what I was told, including that timings would be different in different regions, but the net result would be the same...”

Also note how the PP article also states

“It is possible that Epson USA, with whom PetaPixel directly communicates, is operating differently than Epson UK and the latter is winding down sales of these CCD photo scanners. Epson claims photographers in North America, however, have nothing to worry about.”

So all I would say is that at this point it’s not clear what the V850’s (& family) future is going to be like.

[Andrew O'Neill]

"Epson's blurry nonsense"??? LOL If you know how to use an Epson scanner correctly, there's nothing "blurry" about the result. Absurd.
Here's an 8x10 negative scanned on the flatbed V750 (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54306818661_eaba671d42_6k.jpg), just plopping the neg on the glass - no special handling. Go ahead - tell me it's "blurry nonsense".

I totally agree with Paul. I've been able to get some great scans with just the 8x10 neg, laid directly on the flatbed glass, with AN glass on top.

[dave_whatever]

I totally agree with Paul. I've been able to get some great scans with just the 8x10 neg, laid directly on the flatbed glass, with AN glass on top.

I suppose the "blurry" thing comes from the issue that the output file resolution as advertised from these scanners far outstrips the optical resolution. For instance it's widely held that most of the Epson consumer flatbeds have a real optical resolution of somewhere in the 1800-2200dpi range, give or take, regardless of what is advertised. So my 4990 will output a 4800dpi file....but it contains no more detail than a 2200dpi scan upscaled (despite having experimentally shimmed the film to achieve focus correctly). So if you buy one expecting a real 4800 output - or higher on the later models - then it IS blurry nonsense if compared directly to film scanners that actually achieve that resolution. If I was to compare a 4800dpi scan of a 35mm slide from my Epson to a 4800 scan of the same film on my Imacon it basically looks like the Epson is broken!

If you buy one knowing this, and setup your scanning for a ~2000dpi output, then they are very good, for sheet film especially.

[StuartR]

I think the problem with the Epson scanners was that they were at once too expensive and too cheap. With some small quality of life adjustments (a focusing lens, better materials in the film holders and the ability to scan 8x10 with the high resolution lens), it would have been a truly good scanner. I run a small printing studio and have had an X5 for most of the time I have been open, but added an Epson for 8x10. I do see what people mean about "blurriness", especially compared to the X5. I think that largely comes down to the quality of the lens. I wish they had gone more in the direction of the Kodak and Creo scanners and offered a real high quality product with XY stitching, high end lenses and materials. Even if it were much more expensive, I think they might have sold better, as all the labs I am aware of would likely replace their aging scanners with a modern one. The problem now is that it does not have the quality or durability to replace the best of the old scanners, while simultaneously being too expensive to convince more casual users who now reliably choose camera based scanning.

[jnantz]

I totally agree with Paul. I've been able to get some great scans with just the 8x10 neg, laid directly on the flatbed glass, with AN glass on top.

same here, and im using a nearly 20 year old scanner ..

[paulbarden]

I think the problem with the Epson scanners was that they were at once too expensive and too cheap. With some small quality of life adjustments (a focusing lens, better materials in the film holders and the ability to scan 8x10 with the high resolution lens), it would have been a truly good scanner. I run a small printing studio and have had an X5 for most of the time I have been open, but added an Epson for 8x10. I do see what people mean about "blurriness", especially compared to the X5. I think that largely comes down to the quality of the lens. I wish they had gone more in the direction of the Kodak and Creo scanners and offered a real high quality product with XY stitching, high end lenses and materials. Even if it were much more expensive, I think they might have sold better, as all the labs I am aware of would likely replace their aging scanners with a modern one. The problem now is that it does not have the quality or durability to replace the best of the old scanners, while simultaneously being too expensive to convince more casual users who now reliably choose camera based scanning.

You're right, of course. But the V850 is currently the only game on town unless you're prepared to spend a heck of a lot more money. I use my V750 for sheet film scans and some 120 scanning, but rarely do I bother with 35mm film, because it simply doesn't offer decent resolution for such a small negative. If I were doing mainly 35mm work and scanning it, I would be chronically disappointed with the Epson scanner. But here we are discussing it on a Large Format forum, so I expect most of us are working with sheet film sizes which are easily scanned with the Epson, and the results are sufficient to make prints measured in feet, not inches.

[StuartR]

Yes, I agree. But that is largely my point! With some small changes it could have been a world class scanner. But I feel like they tried to cut corners in a lot of different places. The result is that while pretty good for large format, it could be much better for 35mm. It is not an inexpensive product, but it feels cheap. I guess the best point of comparison I have are my printers. The Epson P5000 was launched below 2000 dollars and it is built like a tank, weighs as much as a small adult woman and demands at least as much precision in use as the V850. Granted, it is subsidized by the cost of the ink, but it goes to show me that Epson is more than capable of making a durable, professional and serious machine for a reasonable price. The V850 is much closer to the P900. Both are capable machines in certain areas (the P900 is a lot closer to the P5000 than the V850 would be), but I wish that Epson instead offered a scanner in that more pro category. I think if they had stuck to the cheaper scanners for the consumers and offered a pro scanner, they might actually have found more buyers. But perhaps I misunderstand the market, as most of my contacts are pros and serious artists.

[paulbarden]

Yes, I agree. But that is largely my point! With some small changes it could have been a world class scanner. But I feel like they tried to cut corners in a lot of different places. The result is that while pretty good for large format, it could be much better for 35mm. It is not an inexpensive product, but it feels cheap. I guess the best point of comparison I have are my printers. The Epson P5000 was launched below 2000 dollars and it is built like a tank, weighs as much as a small adult woman and demands at least as much precision in use as the V850. Granted, it is subsidized by the cost of the ink, but it goes to show me that Epson is more than capable of making a durable, professional and serious machine for a reasonable price. The V850 is much closer to the P900. Both are capable machines in certain areas (the P900 is a lot closer to the P5000 than the V850 would be), but I wish that Epson instead offered a scanner in that more pro category. I think if they had stuck to the cheaper scanners for the consumers and offered a pro scanner, they might actually have found more buyers. But perhaps I misunderstand the market, as most of my contacts are pros and serious artists.

I am still working with my V750 that I purchased in 2013. It's been "good enough" for my needs and it cost about $800 back when I bought it. I think that I have gotten $800 worth of service out of this scanner, flawed/limited though it may be. You can say that these "feel cheap", which I don't disagree with - but the fact that mine has lasted for 12 years says something about the build quality, IMO.

[Oren Grad]

To Stuart's perceptive observations I'll add that one of the issues with these too-expensive-but-too-cheap scanners is sample variation in mechanical alignment. The arguments over image quality that have flared from time to time aren't just because people have different needs and expectations, but because some people have been getting results that more or less realize the potential capability of the hardware while others have not.

[paulbarden]

To Stuart's perceptive observations I'll add that one of the issues with these too-expensive-but-too-cheap scanners is sample variation in mechanical alignment. The arguments over image quality that have flared from time to time aren't just because people have different needs and expectations, but because some people have been getting results that more or less realize the potential capability of the hardware while others have not.

Good point.

[Bob Kerner]

I am still working with my V750 that I purchased in 2013. It's been "good enough" for my needs and it cost about $800 back when I bought it. I think that I have gotten $800 worth of service out of this scanner, flawed/limited though it may be. You can say that these "feel cheap", which I don't disagree with - but the fact that mine has lasted for 12 years says something about the build quality, IMO.

Absolutely agree here. I'm using the same model and it sat dormant for about 5 years. Wipe it down, clean the scanning surface and you're good to go. Only aggravation is keeping the software (I prefer Silverfast) licenses up to date. And if you don't lock the scanner head before moving it you could wreck it. Otherwise I'd say it's one of my most enduring tech investments and it doesn't show any signs of quitting.

[Alan Klein]

You're right, of course. But the V850 is currently the only game on town unless you're prepared to spend a heck of a lot more money. I use my V750 for sheet film scans and some 120 scanning, but rarely do I bother with 35mm film, because it simply doesn't offer decent resolution for such a small negative. If I were doing mainly 35mm work and scanning it, I would be chronically disappointed with the Epson scanner. But here we are discussing it on a Large Format forum, so I expect most of us are working with sheet film sizes which are easily scanned with the Epson, and the results are sufficient to make prints measured in feet, not inches.

Although not printed, the scans of 35mm seem pretty good with my V850.
Tmax400 35mm: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157716777378896

[Jiminkent]

Please could you elaborate what you mean by "museum glass". The Internet has lots of interpretations of this and I'm intrigued. I don't like my Epson 5x4 negative holders, so an alternative method would be welcome news!

[DavidStephenson]

That's a pity - I might need to try to get another one to take care of future breakdowns. The V850 even if plastic junk does an okay job if you learn to work with it and use the higher resolution lens with the holders at 2750dpi. I used to have access to an actual high end flatbed Creo, scanning at double the resolution of the Epson and in 16bit. I have done rescans of the same negatives with the Epson, and after sharpening there wasn't much difference and the Epson iSRD noise reduction makes cleaning colour files much quicker. I admit I have never gone down the drum scan path but I have done many exhibition prints up to 40" from both 120 and 5x7 and comparing prints from both scanners and earlier optical prints, not a lot in it.

[Duolab123]

I panic bought one (V850) last week, sent it back to B&H today. I'm too old and poor to deal with such things.

[interneg]

With some small changes it could have been a world class scanner. But I feel like they tried to cut corners in a lot of different places.

Most of the problems stem from their sensor choices - it's effectively pairs of 1200px sensors offset by 1/2px & interpolated together. I wasted hours of time trying to replicate this by hand using some very inherently sharp high end CCD scans & doing the interpolation etc - and ended up very close to what the Epson spits out. So, the 1200px output is probably pretty decent - and the scanner optics are apparently quite good once liberated from the scanner.

However, even 20+ years ago, 1200px was a tough sell - and a better sensor like the 6000/ 8000/ 11,000px Kodak ones (for example) would have cost as much as the scanner alone - and would have needed a costly leadscrew drive to fully benefit from the higher quality. So you can see why they did what they did, especially back when 16mp was seen as the high end of digital backs. An honest, sharp 1200ppi off 4x5 is essentially all that 90+% of 4x5 people will ever need.

The thing that should be much more sobering to some who spend many hours claiming that they can see no difference between an Epson scan and a higher end scan off 4x5 and upwards is that this is highly likely because the MTFsystem of their 4x5 (or upwards) work is in fact significantly below the very low MTF response of the Epson V8xx series. It isn't hard with basic, competent technique to comfortably deliver more information than an Epson can resolve - even if the competing 'high end' scan is only 2000ppi or less. BTDT, and the differences aren't subtle.

[Serge S]

I totally agree with Paul. I've been able to get some great scans with just the 8x10 neg, laid directly on the flatbed glass, with AN glass on top.

Same here - except I scan 4x5 & 5x7 negatives and use plain glass

[djdister]

My v750 does a great job with 4x5 and 5x7 - for anything smaller I'll use my GFX 100s.

[landstrykere]

the output file resolution as advertised from these scanners far outstrips the optical resolution. ... my 4990 will output a 4800dpi file....but it contains no more detail than a 2200dpi scan upscaled .../... If I was to compare a 4800dpi scan of a 35mm slide from my Epson to a 4800 scan of the same film on my Imacon it basically looks like the Epson is broken! ....for a ~2000dpi output, then they are very good, for sheet film especially.

I have a dedicated 35mm scanner @ ~4300 "real, optical" dpi and use V700 for 120mm to 8x10in.
Some time there was on local online 2nd store here a 4990 selling for nothing and I went to click the "buy" button, was a bargain for a spare , but someone was faster than me. After a while I spotted a V700 at a normal price (they are overpriced 2nd hand) and hurried to buy it. Drove to the seller same evening, he opened smiling and asked me "so you have a V700 for medium and large negatives and jumped on this occasion to get a spare just in case?" I smiled back. Guy was too busy with small children and no time for photography. He told also he had used a v850 on rental but didn't see noticeable difference.
I considered flatbeds with transparency options actually "end-of-lined" somehow, a marginal niche. So like many other devices we have to rely on stocking some for spares or replacement. In few years option may be 2nd hand digital cameras, the ones that I will not buy now because too much money if just for scanning, but that may become affordable in 5 to 10 years.

the issue in negative sizes is the 127 baby formats 3x4cm and 4x4cm. Dedicated 35mm scanners don't take them and the Epson V### lack resolution for nice results.

But then any old Meopta or Krokus with 6x9 condenser and holder can be set in the bathroom for regular printing, which is the best, and then print scanned on the Epson for internet....

I use a Meopta 6x9 of the 50's that i got on an ad where seller was listing the 6x9 Meopta, a 6x9 round bell Krokus from late 40's and an old 6x6 for very little. I drove to collect the lot, took the phone to pay him and he declined with a "it's ok. You get me rid of this old junk in the basement and already paid more in roadtoll than the listed price"