which scanner - microtek 1800f or epson 4990

[robc]

I have been reading some reviews and snippets of info about these scanners but am unsure of a couple things.

I plan to use the scanner for both 4x5 and for 6cm x 6cm format. The microtek 120 film holders seem to be designed for 6 x 9cm which appears to make scanning 6x6 difficult. Are there 6x6 holders available for this scanner.

Does scanning using the glass holder on the 1800f reduce the scan quality noticeably.

Does the 1800f actually produce scans of noticeably better quality than the epson 4990?

Is it really worth the price difference?

Has anyone done a direct comparison of the two scanners?

thanks.

[Brian Ellis]

I have the 4990. I haven't used the Microtek so I can't compare them. However, there's an article by Ted Harris in View Camera magazine a couple issues ago in which the results of testing various scanners are set out. Based on his evaluation the 1800f is better. I like my 4990 but I don't make prints larger than about 11x14.

[Eric Brody]

Fascinating. I have almost exactly the same questions. I'd love to try scanning my 4x5 and medium format black and white negatives, but feel foolish making what might be significant compromises in quality.

I'm an amateur, and financially my photography produces more out-go than in-come, so cannot easily justify something like an Imacon. There appears to be this huge hole in the marketplace for a quality scanner for 4x5.

People who use 4x5 film do so for the quality, detail, and smooth gradation. I realize that computer equipment, like scanners, changes (improves?) rapidly but fear there will be an asymptotic endpoint to scanner development if digital takes over and film becomes a niche market. At almost 60, I hope I'll have film available for the rest of my photographic career but fear for the younger set.

I'll be interested to read any answers. I have looked on the internet for the answers to these questions and the closest I've seen has been Ken Rockwell's site. He says he's preparing this comparison, but I know little about him. In 2004 he said "The 1800f is most likely the best way to scan your 4 x 5" transparencies short of a real drum scanner. "

More recently, in 2005, in preliminary comments on the Epson 4990, he says "I'm working on comparisons to the Microtek 1800f and Minolta Multi-PRO. All these scans take a lot of time to make. I'll make a dangerous guesstimate, based on only a few scans, that the 4990 is much better than the 1800f and about as good as the Multi-PRO. You can see a quick comparison between the 1800f and 4990 in 2 examples here (on the site). These make the 1800f look so bad that I need to make two new scans at the same time and see if the difference is really that great. That's why it says UNDER CONSTRUCTION at the top, so don't jump to any conclusions."

We'll see.

[Ron Marshall]

There is a scanner comparison in one area of this site. The 4990 is there and the 1800 possibly will be added:

http://largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

[Deniz]

We have both in school.. I personally use the 1800f for my 4x5 and 8x10 negatives.. I seem too fiddle alot less in photoshop to get the density right with the 1800f.

But the 4990 looks cooler on the desk..

[Roger Hein]

I use the 4990 and, compared to my old 2450, I have been more than pleased with the results. I scan 617, 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10 neg film for an end enlargement of about 3X which is well matched for my final print size, choice of papers I use (matte), and/or process (alt printing). I would have considered the 1800f despite being more than double the price but Microtek have no support in Canada so that ruled it out as an option. Whether it's truly 'twice as good' I think may be debateable. Look towards your end output and consider the equipment that best suits the job.

[Kirk Gittings]

I have been using the 4990 for 2 years now with good results, but not completely happy with scan resolution at 16x20. I just bought an 1800f and was going to test it last weekend but the software crashed my operating system and I am working getting that running again. If I get it up and running this weekend I will test it again.

I am planning to run both scanners. the 4990 for our production commercial images (because the 4990 has digital ice) and the 1800f for my art prints if it is indeed abump in quality. I will let you know.

[Stephen Willard]

Rob

I read the same article in View Camera and indeed the 1800f was noteable better. However, Microteck does not fix its scanners. If it breaks under warranty, then they will send you a new one. If breaks after the warranty, then you will have to buy a new one.

In either case, I would consider wet mounting your film on the scanner. This is exactly what they do with drums scans. The effects of doing this should improve the performance of you flat bed scanner notable. Wet mounting your film is very similar to pouring an oil finish on dry untreated wood. Detail that was not visible in the grain before all of a sudden seems to glow with detail. Wet mounting is suppose have a very similar effect. If you go to the wesite

groups.yahoo.com/group/WETMOUNTING/

you can buy conversion kits and supplies including a how-to video for wet mounting your film with flatbed scanners.

I have just order a custom kits that I intend to use with my 8x10 enlarger. My belief is that wet mounting will hide imperfections such as dust and scratches. These blemishes are very visible when I start making 20x60 and 30x40 and larger prints. With the oil, I hope most of that will go away.

[Leigh Perry]

The 1800f is next on the list for the scanner comparison here:

http://largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

The slide is currently in Norway. When it finishes there, it will return to the USA for the 1800f and the Canon 9950f, both of which have been awaited by many, it seems.

[Ed Richards]

Leigh,

Any chance that an Air Force resolution target can be added to the mix? It is difficult to see what is going on with the scan of the chrome, other than that some scanners look better than others. It is hard to translate that into what size print the scanner will be good for.