Is it wise to buy a new Microtek M1 pro?

[Lei Meng]

Recently Microtek started to sell M1 pro on its website for $850.

I do have a 6-year old Microtek 1800f still functioning. But as I upgrade to Mac OS 10.5 the SilverFast Ai 6 does not work well and I don't like the ScanWizard Pro software. Upgrading to SilverFast Ai 6.6 requires $100 and to Ai Studio requires $200~$300. At the same time I don't know how much lifetime left for the 1800f. So I thought why don't I just purchase a M1 pro to get (1) a brand new scanner with higher resolution and (2) a full SilverFast Ai Studio software.

Does anyone have experience buying a new M1 pro recently? For old M1 pro users, how has been your experience? How about their support since they re-opened their sales operation in US? I prefer Microtek over Epson V750 because Microtek scans 4x5 glassless.

thanks in advance :)

[BarryS]

I like my M1 a lot these days, and appreciate the glassless scanning when I'm not cursing the film holder design. There is also no equivalent scanner with autofocus. Microtek is the big question mark, though. You don't know what kind of service you're going to get if the scanner breaks. Epson is pretty good taking care of its pro equipment customers, but you'll have to ask a V700/V750 owner who's needed service to see how they were treated.

[Lei Meng]

I like my M1 a lot these days, and appreciate the glassless scanning when I'm not cursing the film holder design. There is also no equivalent scanner with autofocus. Microtek is the big question mark, though. You don't know what kind of service you're going to get if the scanner breaks. Epson is pretty good taking care of its pro equipment customers, but you'll have to ask a V700/V750 owner who's needed service to see how they were treated.

thank you Barry for your reply. I also found a few reviews on Amazon. People complained about the software and also the customer service from Microtek. On the other hand it seems Epson has more positive reviews...

[Ivan J. Eberle]

BarryS, do you think the M1 is anywhere near the stated optical resolution of 4800dpi x 9600 dpi?
And, from what I see of the specs, it doesn't have Digital ICE, does it?

[SW Rick]

I think Guy Tal reviewed this- think you can find it on his website or blog if you'd not seen it.

[BarryS]

BarryS, do you think the M1 is anywhere near the stated optical resolution of 4800dpi x 9600 dpi?
And, from what I see of the specs, it doesn't have Digital ICE, does it?

All consumer/prosumer scanner specs are pure fiction. The M1 tops out at an honest 2400-2500 dpi. The late great Ted Harris said it resolved slightly more detail than the V700/V750. No digital ICE on the M1. The Microtek software is garbage, but Silverfast AI is excellent.

[Matus Kalisky]

I got my F1 (european version of the M1) as refurbished for 50% of the price of a new device. It does give me quite nice 4x5 scans. I usually scan at 2400 dpi and down sample to somewhere 1600 - 2000 dpi what seems to be closer to the real resolution of the scanner.

The quality of the scans is quite good. If you are careful with the holders than you can get your 4x5 films reasonably flat.

The scanner is capable of automated 2 pass scan where the scan is done with 2 different exposures and then merged. While it does improves the shadows (bit more detail and less noise) I had some issues with high contrast edges (reflection from cars etc.) but I have to come back to scanning to be able to confirm. I have an open dispute with Silverfast on this. I still need to try the Microtek software though.

The scanner has for 2 two downsides - speed and noise. It is rather slow - scanning (single pass 2400 spi) 24 35mm (4 strips) slides takes cca 1hour. Most of the time is spent on focusing and exposure setting. But the scan itself is rather fast. But that also means that scanning 4x5 is acceptably fast.

The scanner is really noisy (weird sounds really, some high pitched) - you would prefere NOT to read a book in the same room (watching action film is just acceptable)

I have made on 50x70 cm print from 4x5 E100G slide. While it is not "tack sharp" upon close inspection and I could have pay more attention to the noise it still looks VERY nice and my wife has it hanging in her office. Generally speaking I would expect 9/10 quality prints up to 4x enlargement (so 16x20" prints from 4x5 slide) and still very nice up to 6x (especially from large format film - 24x30" prints are usually viewed from larger distance).

Also on the positive side is the dynamic range. If the noise would be a bit less it would compare favorably to higher end scanners.

I will be scanning much more soon and will report.

[Frank Petronio]

I exchanged my first defective one for a defective replacement one several years ago.

I use an Epson now.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Pity.

What initially intrigued was the possibility that there was actually enough resolution to do MF reasonably well, perhaps better enough than the V750 Epson that a Coolscan 9000 was not also needed. Guess I'd still need both.

For this kind of money, it's now in the realm of considering a used drum scanner, though one that will also do my 35mm better than my Minolta DMSE 5400 will probably need to be 16 bit (at the A/D conversion level), and 8K dpi.

[Dan Baumbach]

I got the M1 when it originally came out and I really like it. It's head and shoulders above my old Epson 3200. It doesn't give me the detail of an Imacon scan but it's great to be able to scan at home and make prints.

I find the color pretty accurate and it's sharp enough for at least 16x20 prints.

[mrladewig]

If you can't hold the film flat, autofocus isn't much help. I bought a betterscanning holder for my Epson 4990 adjusted to the optimum height, started fluid scanning on it and have been very pleased with the results so far. Visible grain is reduced in color negative and color seems to be more defined on the slide film. Its not going to change the optical resolution, but it does improve the scans.

Fluid mount versus Epson holder example (http://ladewigs.com/Gallery/d/2578-1/Wetmount-Comparison.jpg)

Fluid Mount versus dry mount on Betterscanning holder (http://ladewigs.com/Gallery/d/2595-1/BetterScanning_Compare_11.jpg)

Not every film is showing this much difference, but Astia seems to benefit greatly from the fluid mount.

Coupled with the fact that Microtek isn't exactly earning a good customer service reputation, I think the Epson V700 or V750 with a betterscanning holder is a more appealing option today. Epson has been updating the drivers to keep up with OS requirements too. They've certainly earned a bad rep there too, but they're keep the V series scanners up to date.

[Greg Blank]

I had the same issues when they were selling the 1800f. On the second defective unit I was sent an agreement that I would sign and then pay for the #3 replacement, in essence having two scanners on my charge card simultaneously, I got feed up called my credit card compan and sent the second unit back to the dealer. Never did get reimbursed for shipping but the initial purchase was credited, despite the dealer telling me they would not accept it.

So I to use Epson, and am fairly happy with the V750


I exchanged my first defective one for a defective replacement one several years ago.

I use an Epson now.

[ashlee52]

I just threw mine out yesterday.

It quit working and they want about $300 minimum to repair it.

When it worked the scans of 4x5 film were less sharp and detailed than the results from my Nikon D-300.

Almost everyone uses the more popular Epson scanners at this price level, and I'd stick with the standard.

[Matus Kalisky]

I see comments concerning the film holders of the F1. I have scans films in all sizes, but did not have any problem. With the 4x5 if I should get the film sagging (especially if I blow with the canned gas too strongly) I would (while having gloves on!) push with one finger lightly while locking the film holder and I get no film flatness issues. I think the F1 has weaker places than the holders ...