Microtek M1 Review

[Rob Landry]

Just came across this review of the M1.

http://whitespider.org/content/view/104/1/

It was originally posted on Photo.net and the discussion is at:

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00OGoR

[BarryS]

Lots of words, but not much information. The reviewer doesn't seem to understand the futility of 4800 ppi scans on a prosumer flatbed and misses most of the essential information about the scanner.

[Colin Graham]

I'm starting to think maybe only 3 people on the planet have the ability to thoroughly and objectively review a scanner. Nothing against this review, but it all seems superficial and subjective at best. I also wonder why anyone would want to, considering all the heckling coming from the sidelines. And finally I'm curious about ultimately what the M1 has to live up to. Many folks seem to have treated it's coming with some sort of messianic anticipation, and greeted it with a Golgothian assortment of jeers and stone throwing.

Present company excluded, of course. ;-)

[Ted Harris]

Colin, I hope I am one of the three :). One of the problems, and I know I sound like a broken record, is that folks keep looking for massive improvements and it just isn't going to happen. The gains are small and incremental and that is all you're gonna get. Beyond that, the M1 produces the best scans I have seen from a a conumer scanner and the objective test I have done show it has slightly better resolution than the V750. Sometime in the next two week I'll get to the Dmax tests and I expect it will be in the range of 2.2-2.4. Having said all that, would I replace a 4990, V700 or V750 with an M1? Probably not. If I had an older scanner I'd replace it with the M1. If I ere getting my first consumer scanner it would be the M1. Is there anyway it can perform up to the level of the IQsmart 3 or Cezanne or a drum? Absolutely not. In fact yesterday, while working with a client we did a scan on the M1 of a negative we had scanned earlier on the IQ3. The comparison convinced him that, rather than buying a Nikon 9000 for MF and 35mm and an M1 for LF he would hold out for a used Cezanne or a new IQsmart 2 (which with rebate you can bring in for 8K+).

BTW, the M1 scan for the scanner comparison on the LF home page should be up soon same for 3 or 4 others including the Cezanne. Scans are all done and Leigh Perry was finishing the updates this weekend. The changes now need to be made to the Home page.

[Colin Graham]

Colin, I hope I am one of the three :)..

You're definitely one of them...Not so sure who the other 2 are! :-D

[Nathan Potter]

Ted, many thanks for your update above and in VC. As I get further into digital printing (which is totally new to me) I'll be in the market for the M1 for modest scans of 4X5, 5X7 and 8X10 transparencies and B&W. I'll wait a bit longer for possible resolution of some software issues as discussed on this forum. High quality scans I'll do on pro scanners. The few 4X5's I've done so far on professional scanners are equivalent to or better than the Nikon 5000 ED. I've just started doing 35 mm scans on a new Nikon 5000 ED and it performs as expected. Now if I could just master some of the more sophisticated operations in Photoshop I'd be in good shape. But I've only been at this digital crap for 2 months.

Nathan Potter

Nate Potter

[Rob Landry]

I agree that the review is certainly not very good, but it's something at least. If one is used to using other consumer flatbeds or dedicated film scanners, you can at least draw a few basic conclusions from looking at the sample scans posted. For example, the 35mm crops posted, I know from experience with my Minolta 5400 that the M1 scan isn't very good. I'm sure someone who's used a Nikon 9000 would be able to form a similar opinion from the MF crops in that review.

[Harley Goldman]

[QUOTE=Ted Harris;318271] The gains are small and incremental and that is all you're gonna get. Beyond that, the M1 produces the best scans I have seen from a a conumer scanner and the objective test I have done show it has slightly better resolution than the V750.


Ted, does your comment on the M1 scan quality being the best of the consumer scanners also include a comparison to the 1800f?

Harley

[Armin Seeholzer]

This guy must be sponsored by Microtec its a good salesman! ;--))))

[Rob_5419]

Seems like the reviewer thinks the F1 is a better option. I might look into that one over an Epson v750 since I'm not going to afford an Imacon/Hasselblad ever. Not sure why everyone is so critical about the review. Maybe because I don't have a scanner, I find it useful and informative. He's hardly partisan either - describes lots of problems with the M1 set-up and its limitations compared to other drumscans and high end flat beds.




Final Thoughts
The Microtek ArtixScan M1 was a long time coming and the wait was a difficult one to endure for photographers holding off on their scanner purchase to see what it can do. In the development of the M1 Microtek sent out to make a dedicated film scanner that can also scan reflective materials and be affordable. This bang for your buck approach was a worthy goal and the many delays in trying to achieve this goal, while frustrating, should perhaps be viewed as not such a bad thing. Microtek could have easily shipped the M1 with bugs and flaws in both the hardware and software end. Instead, they took some heat and released a product that, while not perfect, performs at or better than anything else on the market in the flatbed category. While the sharpness of scans produced by the M1 aren’t at a level of a drum or Imacon/Hasselblad scanner, the included software isn’t perfect and its slower than your pet turtle’s grandma, the M1 does produce scans that can be called nothing short of very good when compared with any unit on the market and excellent when viewed in the context of other flatbeds. When it’s all said and done the M1 is the best flatbed scanner on the market today and should allow prints of very large sizes to be made from all film formats, and really what else can you ask for?

[Ted Harris]

Harley, it's a tossup between the M1 and the 1800f. The 1800f ha a larger sensor thus gives better edge to edge resolution which is important if you are scanning larger than 4x5 but otherwise not. The overall resolution of the M1 is higher than that of the 1800f. I still haven't tested the DMax of the M1 but suspect it will not come quite up to that of the 1800f which, along with the 2500f was ahead of all the other consumer scanners. I consider DMax to be as important or more important than resolution (within reason). Having said that I haven't and am not going to try and do a detailed comparison of the two because the 1800f is long discontinued.

Remember, if you pushed me to a wall and put a gun to my head asking for a purchase recommendation what you would get is:

1) Wait until the software bugs are worked out on the M1 (or live with them) and buy it.

2) If you don't like 1, above wait and see what new offerings Epson comes out with to see if they are any better than the M1 (but I don't think they will be).

3) If you don't like 1 & 2 above consider buying a used 1800f, 2500/2500f/Duo Scan 2500 which, as long as it is in perfect working order (a big IF consider the age) probably will outperform all the current consumer offerings.

4) If you don't like 1-3 above then save your money for a high-end scanner, either new or used for scanning for prints that really count.

Bottom line is we are pushing the technology of the consumer scanners to near the limit and you jut aren't going to see very much more in the way of incremental improvements using the current technology. That does't mean there aren't other possibilities but neither the cost of the R&D nor the potential sales volume are likely to convince the player to spend the $$ and even if they did the results till wouldn't be that much better than what you get now. The current capabilities, while only adequate IMO, are stil pretty amazing for the price.

[Rob_5419]

Ted -

thanks for the bullet-sized advice.

Is the software problems limited to the States, or is this also on the European F1 version too?

I've seen the Microtex Artixscan F1 (European) with HDR software for around $2000US.

Is that price about right? It is so much cheaper without the (flawed) software - I'm wondering though, how useful it would be without true 48 bit scanning software (not that it matters for black and white whole plate negatives maybe?)

How much are you guys paying for this in the States with the Silverfast HDR software?

[Harley Goldman]

Ted,

Excellent summary! Thanks very much for your input.

[BarryS]

With Silverfast AI Studio and the extra set of filmholders, the package costs $700. The basic package is $600, so I think it's a pretty good deal for an extra set of holders and the Silverfast software for an extra $100. Or it will be a good deal once Silverfast fixes AI. :)

[Rob_5419]

With Silverfast AI Studio and the extra set of filmholders, the package costs $700. The basic package is $600, so I think it's a pretty good deal for an extra set of holders and the Silverfast software for an extra $100. Or it will be a good deal once Silverfast fixes AI. :)

No way!!! That's less than 40% of the cost we pay in England.

Even with Customs and postal charges, it's still much cheaper.

Are you sure it's the same product? Surely the F1 must be superior in some some way to warrant charging $2000US equivalent over here. Taxation alone can't explain that difference....? Or can it :rolleyes:

[Jerzy Pawlowski]

Taxation alone can't explain that difference....? Or can it :rolleyes: Someone has explained to me that cost of conducting business in Europe is much higher than in North America, plus: numerous EU officials have to eat and in general EU citizens have to pay somehow for longer holidays, good social services, etc. It is matter of choice, people take care for themselves or dump this task on government, the latter is convenient but much more expensive.
From what I have read F1 may have different software, addition of ICE, and this may explain difference, still it is large for me.

[Rob_5419]

Thanks Jerzy.

I've had a look at the Microtek website and support for digital ICE seems to be the only major difference between the M1 and F1.


Type - Flatbed Scanner
Image Sensor - CCD
Optical Resolution - 4800 X 9600 dpi
Bit Depth - True 48-bit
Scanning Area - Reflective- 8.5" x 14" / 216mm x 356mm (Legal-size), Transparent: Up to 8" x 10" / 203mm x 254mm
Interface Type - Hi-Speed USB (USB 2.0)
Max. Interpolated Resolution - 65535 X 65535 (PC), 32767 X 32767 (Mac)
Platform - Windows & Macintosh
Voltage - 100 t 240 VAC, 47 to 63 Hz
Power Consumption - 40W
Environment - Operating Temperature: 10 oC to 40 oC / 50 oF to 104 oF, Relative Humidity: 20% to 85%
Dimensions - 22.3" x 15.1" x 6.3" / 567mm x 385mm x 158mm
Net Weight - 26.4 lbs (12 kg)



In the Box: F1

ArtixScan F1 scanner Power cord
Hi-Speed USB 2.0 Cable
Microtek software CD
35mm(mounted) slide
SnapTrans holder
35mm filmstrip SnapTrans holder
Medium format film SnapTrans holder
4"x 5" film s SnapTrans holder
8" x 10" glass film holder


system requirementsMac
CD-ROM drive (for installing software)
Colour monitor with 24-bit colour capability
128MB RAM (256MB recommended )
iMac or Mac G3/G4/G5 with built-in USB port
Mac OSX 10.3 and later version

Win
CD-ROM drive (for installing software)
Colour monitor with 24-bit colour capability
128MB RAM (256MB recommended )
Pentium III PC or higher with USB port;
USB:Hi-Speed USB port and Windows Me/XP


The ArtixScan F1 HDR ships with the Silverfast software

compared to:

http://focuscamera.com/product.asp?id=964730444

which has no details to its specifications at all.


In any case, I think anything living in Europe, we're going to be hard pressed to justify buying an F1 over the Epson v750 which is less than 40% of the cost of the Microtek.

[BarryS]

Wow--for that price differential, I can't imagine getting the M1. Over here, the V750 is equal in cost--maybe a few dollars more. Strangely, the M1 is twice the weight of the V750--not sure what they're putting in there to account for the difference. The boxed M1 is pretty heavy, but I found a deal with free shipping.

[Zephryn Carter]

I've had a chance to read the review of the M1 over at whitespider.org and thought the author did quite a thorough job at reviewing the scanner and giving an unbiased opinion. Some good things, some bad things. He's bottom line is very close to Ted's opinion of the M1.

It would be nice to see a side-by-side with the V750 however.

[Leigh Perry]

I plan to process and post the scans this weeken. If someone has a V750 and wants to do a test scan, I'm looking for the next film destination now.

[Ted Harris]

Leigh, Kirk Gittings has already volunteered to e to do the scan.