Should I get a scanner or a printer?

[coops]

I currently own an Epson Perfection 3200 scanner and an Epson 2200 printer. The scanner does okay with old photos, but is crappy with 4x5. The printer is great, but the 13" print height restriction bothers me.
My local lab offers 400mb drum scans for $50, or 30mgb scans for $25.
I am thinking about an Epson 750 scanner, or even the new Mikrotek M1, if it gets good reviews, and having the lab make my large prints.
If no consumer scanner can come close to a drum scan, perhaps I should have the lab do my scans and get myself a wide bodied printer.
Anyone else faced with these issues out there?
Any input/advice is appreciated.
Cheers

[Ron Marshall]

Scans from the Epson 750 will allow about a 3-4x enlargement, which is about the maximum the 2200 will print. For larger prints you should get a drumscan.

[coops]

Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question, but when you say 4-5 times, do you mean 16 x 20 ( 4 times 4x5)

[Ron Marshall]

Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question, but when you say 4-5 times, do you mean 16 x 20 ( 4 times 4x5)

Yes, a 3 to 4 times linear enlargement. The largest I print from a 4990 scan (same class as 750) is 11x14; larger than that and it begins to get a bit soft. An image without a lot of fine detail could go to 16x20.

[neil poulsen]

If it were me, I'd go for the scanner and save for the wide-format printer.

Drum scans are expensive. What you save will add up pretty quickly. You might as well be putting it aside for the printer.

People say that 3x to 4x enlargement is about the limit of these scanners. But, that's a matter of personal taste. I've seen greater enlargements that I thought looked
darn decent. I'm not necessarily disputing the 3x to 4x guidelins. I'm just suggesting that it depends on what you want in a print.

[Richard Jernigan]

Maybe you've seen this link comparing a 3200 with the V700 - very little difference. I don't know if the V750 will do much better.

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/int...00/page_12.htm