Epson V850-Epson V800, what is the next step up.

[Ari]

Be patient and look for one of the Creo Eversmart flatbeds.
I spent the last two years looking for one and finally got it for the right price.
My needs are primarily for 8x10, and the Creo eliminated all of the hassle and futzing around I had to do with the Epson.
The scans are also better by several orders of magnitude, so it was worth the extra money.

[Smorton]

A dslr scanner, assuming you have a good dslr, is an option. With my D600, I get about a stop more dynamic range, and about 1000 more spi, than an Epson flatbed, all as measured in use.

Peter, is there a lot of set up time with a dslr? I assume if I google it I would get a lot of results.

I have a Sony a6000. I wonder if that would be sufficient.

Thanks

Smorton

[Peter De Smidt]

I agree with Ari that a used high-end flatbed can be a good choice. I have a Screen Cezanne. The downside is the bulk, dealing with old computer systems, and the difficulty or cost of repair. You can get a bargain, or you can get a money pit.

A dslr scanner is much more DIY. Basically, you take one or more pictures of your negative, and then combine the pictures if needed. If you use good stepper motors and linear slides, you can automate the process, including combining the images via a template in PTgui. If you focus everything very carefully once, and you have a good clamping system, such as an Arca-style clamp and camera plate, you can attach/detach the camera quickly and in a repeatable position.

Daniel and I use Nikon cameras with an Arduino to automate the picture taking process. I don't know how easy it would be to re-code for the Sony.

Here's Daniel's scanner in operation:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXy7RJwIBAo
Here's an early version of mine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmRHTausFls

There are long threads in the DIY section on various builds/ideas.

If you like DIY, it's a viable option. If you don't, then it's a pretty big project.

Before deciding on a scanner, make sure to consider how much scanning you're going to do, what types of film you'll scan, and what size prints you'll make.

[Serge S]

A dslr scanner, assuming you have a good dslr, is an option. With my D600, I get about a stop more dynamic range, and about 1000 more spi, than an Epson flatbed, all as measured in use.

I was probably getting sharper scans from my canon 6d (using live view), but I find it less trouble to use the Epson V800.
I may go back to the camera to do a comparison to see for myself. I initially got the Epson to do contact sheets for my 6x7 roll film and started to use it for scanning individual negatives as well (in 4x5 & 6x7).

I have looked at Imacon scanners. I think that could be the next level up for me if I ever decide to go for more resolution/detail. Plus I think the imacon's have a smaller footprint than drum scanners or pro level scanners like the creo scitex, not totally sure.

Serge

[Ari]

I have looked at Imacon scanners. I think that could be the next level up for me if I ever decide to go for more resolution/detail. Plus I think the imacon's have a smaller footprint than drum scanners or pro level scanners like the creo scitex, not totally sure.

Serge

The Imacons take up much less room than a pro flatbed; the Creo I just got weighs over 200 pounds and takes up ⅔ of my desk. I would have loved to have one.
But the Imacons were a non-starter for me because I shoot 8x10; the Creo can scan up to 12x17.
In a perfect world (the one in which I win the lottery), I'd use a pro flatbed for 8x10 and up, and an Imacon for 4x5 and smaller.

[Serge S]

The Imacons take up much less room than a pro flatbed; the Creo I just got weighs over 200 pounds and takes up ⅔ of my desk. I would have loved to have one.
But the Imacons were a non-starter for me because I shoot 8x10; the Creo can scan up to 12x17.
In a perfect world (the one in which I win the lottery), I'd use a pro flatbed for 8x10 and up, and an Imacon for 4x5 and smaller.

If the world was perfect Ari, all the fun would be gone I think Or possibly less interesting...

Serge

[Ari]

If the world was perfect Ari, all the fun would be gone I think Or possibly less interesting...

Serge

You're right, of course Serge; I'd just settle for a small lottery prize to make things slightly less imperfect.

[Peter Gomena]

The Epson 10000 was merely larger than the old 1680 and offered no more resolution. It was a good production machine because you could put more images on the tabloid-sized bed, but beyond that, it was no better than its smaller sibling. I imagine the same is true for the 11000 model.

[Smorton]

The dslr scanners are impressive but I don't think I could built one in ten year.

Thanks.

Smorton

[Oren Grad]

The Epson 10000 was merely larger than the old 1680 and offered no more resolution. It was a good production machine because you could put more images on the tabloid-sized bed, but beyond that, it was no better than its smaller sibling. I imagine the same is true for the 11000 model.

The main reason for someone here to be interested in a 10000XL/11000XL would be for the capacity to scan some non-standard and ultralarge formats (e.g. 5x12, 7x11, 10x12, 11x14, 7x17 with a very small amount of the long dimension clipped) in a single pass because of the much larger transparency adapter compared to the V7x0/V8x0.

Tested resolution is not that far behind the V7x0/V8x0, but I've never seen a test in which it measured as superior. If one needs capacity only up to 8x10 the smaller scanners are a much more cost-effective solution.