Scanner

[Leland Smith]

What results have you had with an Epson 3200? I am considering purchasing one to scan my 4X5 images and make prints no larger than 11"X14". Leland

[Jon_2416]

Leland,

I like mine. It isn't a replacement for a film scanner, but for smaller prints it is fine. I make 13x19's (12x15) with scans from 4x5 HP5+. When I need to go bigger, I proof with the 3200 and then rent an Imacon 848. Unlike a lot of other people, I really like the Epson software.

[Claire Curran]

I have been using my 3200 for about 6 months. It is very easy to use and the results are rather remarkable, especially when the low cost of the scanner is taken into account. It is a great way to make smaller prints. And it is an inexpensive way to proof your prints. If you like the results from the 3200, then go and pay for a good scan.

[Leonard Evens]

I've used both the Epson 3200 and the previous version the Epson 2450. I've posted some examples of what can be done with the 2450 at math.northwestern.edu/~len/photos/pages/e2450.html. That includes one 4 x 5 example. The 3200 is at best about 10 percent better in resolving fine detail.

You should be able to enlarge 3200 scans 5 times with little trouble, even if people get relatively close. You should be able to produce even larger prints if people keep a normal viewing distance from the print (usually taken to be the diagonal of the print). I make 13 x 17 prints from 4 x 5 negatives; that is as large as I can with my Epson 1280. At that size color prints are indistinguishable from conventional color prints. B/w prints depend more on the printer, but if you use one of the special ink systems, you should be able to do quite well there too. I'm sure I could also make high quality 16 x 20 prints. 24 x 30 and larger prints made from digital images scanned with an Imacon or drum scanner will definitely look better when viewed close up.

[Todd Caudle]

I've just recently started using a 3200 combined with Silverfast Ai, and it is amazing for 4x5, not so much for medium format. I've printed sections of 4x5 scans that would equate to 16x20 and 20x24 at 300dpi, with dazzling results (I don't yet own a wide-format printer). If all you're doing is 4x5, buy one. Also, there's a $100 rebate if you buy before 12/31/03, and amazon.com currently has them for $359.99. It's hard to beat for $260.

[neil poulsen]

There's a large number of threads at photo.net on the 3200 and it's predecessor, the 2450. Check out the following:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-one-category?topic_id=1701&category=Scanning%3eScanners%3eFlatbed

Check out the following recent thread on this site for comments regarding whether or not the get the pro versus the non-pro version of the 3200:

http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/thread.php?qid=497226

Also take a look at in the digital category of this site.

[David E. Rose]

Be aware that the replacement for the 3200 has already been announced and that it will up the resolution and quality once again. You may want to wait for the new model.

[QT Luong]

David is right. If absolute low price is not a priority, I think the 4870 will be worth it because of the Ice dust removing technology. I have ice on the Nikon LS 4000 and I found it to work very well. The 4870 is already available in Japan in New Zealand.

[Pete Su]

Note that the ICE stuff only works for color films, as far as I know.

So if you are going to be scanning a lot of dusty black and white, ICE won't help you.

[Jay DeFehr]

Even you intend to buy the 3200, it might be in your interest to wait until the new version comes out and the price for the 3200 bottoms out. I just bought an old Powerlook II to scan my 8x10 negatives, for $20. I had to buy a Scsi card and cable for another $10, and download a driver, but I think it's worth it.

[Julio Fernandez]

Jay: The 3200 did not turn out to be the quantum jump from the 2450 that the marketing hyped resolution numbers promised, so it may be naive to think the 4800 will be better, -no matter how much pre-conditioned salivating goes on from those easily tantalized by hype. The LF flatbed scanner market really needs a quantum jump and if it comes, my guess is that it will be in a different form that the conventional flat bed. The Microtek i900 could be that, who knows? At least it offers glassless transparency scanning and 'promises' higher Dmax (4.2) than current or announced scanners. Whether that is true it remains to be seen. I'd wait until the cards are up before deciding. You can see the Microtek at http://www.microtekusa.com/images/i900.pdf

[Jay DeFehr]

Thanks, Julio. The chances that I'll be in the market for another scanner anytime soon are infintessimal, but I'm curious about the Microtek anyway. Jay