Should I get a Microtek 1800f?

[Chris Strobel]

Hi all, I was given an Epson 4990 last Christmas as a gift (non-pro version) I have not even taken it out of the box yet to try it.I have been busy shooting flower macros with my Canon 20d ever since, but am now back to 8x10 film, provia a little, but mostly Tmx 400 and fp4.I am re-thinking the scanner situation.I asked my wife for the 4990 last season after reading Ken Rockwells review of it, and him liking it better than the 1800f.Now I've poured over alot of post here on the subject and it seems its oppisite of Mr. Rockwells opinion.Ultimately I would like to print quality 16x20's from my 8x10's on something like an Epson 4800.Right now I use an Epson 1160 with MIS Eboni on Hahnamule Photo Rag.I have been saving for the 4800 printer, but am wondering if I should tap out that printer savings and get an 1800f before they are gone.I know the 4800 will be around much longer.I am shooting again almost soley 8x10, but do shoot 4x5 on ocassion.I need a little swaying here, is the extra 900.00 for the 1800f going to be worth it over what I already have.Thanks much!

Chris

[Ron Marshall]

I find that the 4990 is fine for 3x enlargements. That is the most I can do with my epson 2200, but perhaps 4x would be fine. Since you need only 2x for a 16x20 from an 8x10 you should be fine.

Many posts have related problems with the 1800s.

[Ted Harris]

The question i wheter or not you need the additional Dmax you get with the 1800f tht is where you will see the difference. If you've poured over all the posts here then you know that there arae many of us that find the 1800f to be the best option under $1000 and then there are a few who have had problems with its build quality. I assume you have read my prior posts so won't repeat them here. I was speaking with Microtek's National Product Manager today and aske him about the 1800f supply. H did reassure me that there would be repair/replacement units available for some time but that new ones will likely be gone in another 6 weeks or so.

Another considration with 8x10's is that they arae easier to mount on the glass tray of the 1800f han they are on the glass of the 4990. It is a bit of a tight it on the 4990 and just a hair less so on the 1800f. Problem is that the 4990 isn't going to bring you that much although you can probably get a decent rade in on it from Jim at Midwest. If it were me, much as I recommend the 1800f, I'd try what I already have first unless I could get 300 or so for it in trade.

[Frank Petronio]

I tied two 1800fs and went with the working 4990 instead and have found it to be fine for Epson 2200 - 4800 sized prints. But I am a Neanderthal compared to the elites here ;-)

I'd use the savings for shooting!

[Doug Dolde]

. But I am a Neanderthal compared to the elites here ;-)

I'd use the savings for shooting!

You said it Frank

[Chris Strobel]

That He's a Neanderthal, or use the savings for shooting

You said it Frank

[Doug Dolde]

You know.

[Frank Petronio]

You know that large sloping forehead really pulls the chicks Doug, don't be petty.

[Brian Ellis]

Since you already own the 4990 why not take it out of the box, plug it in, try it, see how you like it. FWIW, I suspect it will be fine with a 2X enlargement factor. I can't print 16x20 with my 2200 printer so I don't know for sure but the 8x10 prints I've made on my 4990 from my 8x10 negatives have looked great to me and with scanning I don't think there's going to be a noticeable difference between 1x and 2x. I haven't noticed the difficulty Ted mentions in scanning 8x10s on the 4990. Epson includes an 8x10 mask to be used in aligning the negative but after a couple tries I stopped using it because I didn't find it to be necessary.

I've learned the hard way that it can be an expensive mistake to discard one thing with which you aren't unhappy and buy another solely on the basis of a rave review of the other. It would be one thing to discard your 4990 if there was something you didn't like about it, it's another entirely IMHO to do so without ever using it, only because reviewers say there's something better. That's particularly true with a product such as a scanner where there are a lot of variables involved in the results one obtains, not the least of which is the skill of the person using it. I'm quite confident that a very competent operator can make a better scan with a 4990 than an incompetent operator can with a drum scanner. End of lecture.

[Ted Harris]

Listen to Brian. As everyone here knows I strongly favor the 1800f in the under $1000 scanner range. OTOH the 4990 will serve you well for 8x10 and maybe even a bit larger prints. Additionaly, I don't imagine you will lose much of the value of the 4990 by usingit a few times to see if it works for you. It is already used as far as the market is concerned, so, use it! If you are not satisfied then go to the 1800f as long as they are still available.

You might also consider once of our scanning workshops where you will get to put a 4990, 1800f, i900 and probably a V700 or 750 through its paces. We have not announced the schedule for the next ones yet but they are almsot certain to be on October 13th through 15th at Midwest Photo in Columbus, OH and on November 10th through 12th place to be announced but probably somewhere in the Pacific Northwest or Southwest. Send me a pm or email for more info.