What's better than a Epson V700/750?

[Ash]

I currently have an Epson v700 scanner with the original holders.
I understand you can wet mount, I understand there are the betterscanning holders.

If I got rid of the Epson V700, which is the next best scanner? As in, what will do a better job, work with a Mac, run on USB, and doesn't cost a few grand?

[Ash]

Anyone, anything?

[Martin Miksch]

Thats the top of the consumer line, better results you just get from pro-scanners, but they are much more expensive; alternative you can look for an old drumscanner.
Regards
Martin

[Brian Ellis]

Sex

[Ed Richards]

What about the 750 - it has better coated optics, I think it is focusable, and using Vuescan (maybe others as well) you can scan at 6400 with the high rez lens and automatically down sample to 2400, given better resolution because of the optics and the noise averaging.

[Ken Lee]

What's better than a Epson V700/750?

What's better than 4x5 on an Epson V700/750 ? 5x7 on the same Epson V700/750 :)

You get to keep your affordable scanner, but reap a 36% increase in performance *.

You can spend that 36% any way you like: You can make prints that are 36% larger, or you can use lenses that are 36% worse. Or you can shoot film that is 36% grainier. Or you can make prints that are 36% "better".

*
If we consider 4x5 film as 3.75 x 4.75, the diagonal is 154mm.
If we consider 5x7 film as 4.75 x 6.75, the diagonal is 210mm.
Since 210 is 136% of 154, the increase is 36%.

[Ash]

ok... so the answer is Epson have cornered the market, there's no alternative?

[Sascha Welter]

Epson didn't corner the market, everybody else left the market. (At least in the consumer area.)

[Ken Lee]

Microtek was there, but they had problems with support (in the US anyhow) and eventually withdrew. I don't know if they still sell scanners in the rest of the world. In my experience (with a 2500f which cost over $2000) the Epson was a better value and only a little lower in resolution.

Now and then I return to this page (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Conley/1114Conley.html) on Jm Galli's site. To quote the text:

"This page is about how a $65 lens that covers the 11X14 format trumps all the Sironars... Now I'm not saying you could put a $60 lens on your 4X5 and make 30X40 enlargements. I am saying that the tonality and sharpness in these contact prints exceeds what you could get with a Sironar-S on 4X5 and enlarged to 11X14".

It's great having a system camera like the Sinar, which lets you change bellows and backs to switch between formats - but to their credit, many wooden and metal 5x7 cameras let you use a 4x5 reducing back.

The major expense is that of larger film, some film holders, and perhaps a new lens at the long end of the line. The benefit you get in quality, can be sensational.

Many people consider a 5x7 image big enough as-is, so you can make lovely 5x7 contact prints if you like. Paul Strand did. When I saw his 5x7 images from the Hebrides - back in the 1970's - they knocked my socks off. I'm still... sock-less. :)

[Oren Grad]

Microtek was there, but they had problems with support (in the US anyhow) and eventually withdrew.

And has since returned, now selling direct:

http://support.microtek.com/products.html

Whether it's worth taking a chance on the quality of their customer support is a separate question, but the scanners are there if you want one.

EDIT, remembering the OP: As best I can tell, they've maintained distribution in the UK all along.

[Greg Blank]

I like Paul's work too, he was a bigger influence on my finding out what I wanted to do in photo than Ansel. I saw an exhibit of Stand's and Adams work at the National Gallery and Strand's work was striking. The fact that he made his own platinum paper further says something of his skills. Up close I was some what disappointed at the quality of some of the original Adams prints.



Many people consider a 5x7 image big enough as-is, so you can make lovely 5x7 contact prints if you like. Paul Strand did. When I saw his 5x7 images from the Hebrides - back in the 1970's - they knocked my socks off. I'm still... sock-less. :)

[Ken Lee]

Perhaps I'm beating a dead horse, but here (http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/5x7sample.jpg) is a sample and detail section of a recent shot on 5x7 film, using my old Kodak 2A wooden camera, Ilford FP4+, and a 300mm Fujinon A.

(Aside: The developer was 2-bath Pyrocat HD. I had to darken the shadows for aesthetic effect.)

Scanned on my Epson 4990, with a BettterScanning holder, the image has been down-sized to 12x17, and a small section of that file is shown at 100%. Unless I'm mistaken, the detail section shows on-screen, what we would see in a 5x7 foot print. The original scan file would be larger.

To get a 36% better scanner, might involve more than 36% more money.

[mrladewig]

I thought the Betterscanning holder was an extremely sound upgrade for my Epson 4990 (the predecessor to your V700). Microtek's commitment is somewhat waivering, and the IQ differences between Microtek and Epson can probably be resolved through the betterscanning holder just as well as autofocus.

Otherwise its a big jump from there to a drum scanner or Imacon or professional flatbed.

[rguinter]

What's better than a Epson V700/750?

What's better than 4x5 on an Epson V700/750 ? 5x7 on the same Epson V700/750 :)... [/I]

Ken: Not trying to be sarcastic but... if a wide variety of film were available in 5x7 that would be an ideal solution. But there isn't...

Bob G.

[Acutance]

I, too, would like to know the answer to the question posed by Ash. I have been away from large format for a long time and am trying to get back to shooting 4x5, but the costs of optical prints are rather high compared to digital prints and when I look at the scan results in the scanner comparison section of the website I am left asking myself the question would I be better off shooting on 6x7 and buying/renting a coolscan 9000. Of course there would be no tilts and swings, but the math would seem to indicate the enlargability would be the same. The sample scans of the Epson 700 and 750 look good, but not amazing and the reviews people seem to put up say they like it, but wish that there was something better. Well at least that is the impression I have gotten. Maybe I am misinterpreting the comments.

So I think it is a fair question to ask would be the next step up in price and scan quality? Would some of the owners of the pro flatbeds please chime in ?

[Ken Lee]

if a wide variety of film were available in 5x7 that would be an ideal solution. But there isn't...

It's true that fewer films are available in 5x7, but b&w shooters probably experience less scarcity than the rest.

On the other hand, my own experience is that with Pyrocat HD developer, one can shoot Ilford FP4+ and HP5+ at their stated film speeds. At 5x7 size, these films match or out-perform their 4x5 Kodak counterparts, except perhaps with regards to reciprocity. But for those who rarely make long exposures, reciprocity is not a major concern.

Fortunately, Ilford and others support us with a wide variety of film sizes - but if I had to, I would probably purchase larger film, and cut it down to 5x7. This is another situation where Infra Red viewing devices pay for themselves the first day out of the box.

On a related note, Microtek has informed us that they now offer their line of scanners (http://store.microtek.com/shop/) in the US.

See this recent announcement (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=62064).

[sanking]

I, too, would like to know the answer to the question posed by Ash.

...snipe, snipe, snipe..

So I think it is a fair question to ask would be the next step up in price and scan quality? Would some of the owners of the pro flatbeds please chime in ?

The question was, "If I got rid of the Epson V700, which is the next best scanner? As in, what will do a better job, work with a Mac, run on USB, and doesn't cost a few grand?"

In the category of "new" the next step up from an Epson V700/750 in scan quality for 4X5 film is probably an IQSmart3 or Imacon, and both will cost a lot more than a few grand.

In the category of "used" there are many professional flatbeds (Cezanne, Eversmart, Topaz) on the market that will cost in the $2K to $5K range. Maybe even less if you get lucky. But these scanners are really big, 150 lbs and up, and may require vintage computer hardware and software. You also have used drum scanners, Howtek D4000/D4500 available in the $2K to $3K range. But also big and may require vintage computers and software. And if the big boys quit working you will have a very large paper weight on your hands because in most cases repairs are not cost efficient.

Would high quality medium format B&W film scanned with a Nikon LS-9000 equal 4X5 B&W film scanned with an Epson V700? Yes, if you use quality MF equipment and use the camera on a tripod as you would the 4X5. But you lose the movements of the view camera and the ease of composing the image on a large ground glass.

Ultimately the choice one makes has to be based on one's personal working habits and preferences, and is likely to be a compromise. But I would recommend getting an Epson V700 anyway since you can get one refurbished from Epson for a little more than $400, and you can use it for proofing scans later even if you decide to buy a more expensive scanner. I have an Eversmart Pro but use the V700 for lots of proofing work.

Sandy King

[Oren Grad]

Of course there would be no tilts and swings

Why not? Buy a 6x9cm view camera, or a rollholder for a 4x5.

[Acutance]

Thank you sanking. This is the information I was hoping for, and your reasoning appears to be very sound.

Oren Grad I completely forgot about these. Thank you for reminding me of these options.

[neil poulsen]

What size prints were you thinking of producing?

[amateriat]

What's "better?"

Can't say for sure, but come tomorrow, I might take a chance on this (http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/sys/1734203774.html)

(Hi, gang...very first post here, even though I don't have anything with a bellows attached to it...well, there's my Dad's old Polaroid, but that doesn't count.)


- Barrett