Microtek M1 Review

[Rob Landry]

Just came across this review of the M1.

http://whitespider.org/content/view/104/1/

It was originally posted on Photo.net and the discussion is at:

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00OGoR

[BarryS]

Lots of words, but not much information. The reviewer doesn't seem to understand the futility of 4800 ppi scans on a prosumer flatbed and misses most of the essential information about the scanner.

[Colin Graham]

I'm starting to think maybe only 3 people on the planet have the ability to thoroughly and objectively review a scanner. Nothing against this review, but it all seems superficial and subjective at best. I also wonder why anyone would want to, considering all the heckling coming from the sidelines. And finally I'm curious about ultimately what the M1 has to live up to. Many folks seem to have treated it's coming with some sort of messianic anticipation, and greeted it with a Golgothian assortment of jeers and stone throwing.

Present company excluded, of course. ;-)

[Ted Harris]

Colin, I hope I am one of the three . One of the problems, and I know I sound like a broken record, is that folks keep looking for massive improvements and it just isn't going to happen. The gains are small and incremental and that is all you're gonna get. Beyond that, the M1 produces the best scans I have seen from a a conumer scanner and the objective test I have done show it has slightly better resolution than the V750. Sometime in the next two week I'll get to the Dmax tests and I expect it will be in the range of 2.2-2.4. Having said all that, would I replace a 4990, V700 or V750 with an M1? Probably not. If I had an older scanner I'd replace it with the M1. If I ere getting my first consumer scanner it would be the M1. Is there anyway it can perform up to the level of the IQsmart 3 or Cezanne or a drum? Absolutely not. In fact yesterday, while working with a client we did a scan on the M1 of a negative we had scanned earlier on the IQ3. The comparison convinced him that, rather than buying a Nikon 9000 for MF and 35mm and an M1 for LF he would hold out for a used Cezanne or a new IQsmart 2 (which with rebate you can bring in for 8K+).

BTW, the M1 scan for the scanner comparison on the LF home page should be up soon same for 3 or 4 others including the Cezanne. Scans are all done and Leigh Perry was finishing the updates this weekend. The changes now need to be made to the Home page.

[Colin Graham]

Colin, I hope I am one of the three ..

You're definitely one of them...Not so sure who the other 2 are! :-D

[Nathan Potter]

Ted, many thanks for your update above and in VC. As I get further into digital printing (which is totally new to me) I'll be in the market for the M1 for modest scans of 4X5, 5X7 and 8X10 transparencies and B&W. I'll wait a bit longer for possible resolution of some software issues as discussed on this forum. High quality scans I'll do on pro scanners. The few 4X5's I've done so far on professional scanners are equivalent to or better than the Nikon 5000 ED. I've just started doing 35 mm scans on a new Nikon 5000 ED and it performs as expected. Now if I could just master some of the more sophisticated operations in Photoshop I'd be in good shape. But I've only been at this digital crap for 2 months.

Nathan Potter

Nate Potter

[Rob Landry]

I agree that the review is certainly not very good, but it's something at least. If one is used to using other consumer flatbeds or dedicated film scanners, you can at least draw a few basic conclusions from looking at the sample scans posted. For example, the 35mm crops posted, I know from experience with my Minolta 5400 that the M1 scan isn't very good. I'm sure someone who's used a Nikon 9000 would be able to form a similar opinion from the MF crops in that review.

[Harley Goldman]

[QUOTE=Ted Harris;318271] The gains are small and incremental and that is all you're gonna get. Beyond that, the M1 produces the best scans I have seen from a a conumer scanner and the objective test I have done show it has slightly better resolution than the V750.


Ted, does your comment on the M1 scan quality being the best of the consumer scanners also include a comparison to the 1800f?

Harley

[Armin Seeholzer]

This guy must be sponsored by Microtec its a good salesman! ;--))))

[Rob_5419]

Seems like the reviewer thinks the F1 is a better option. I might look into that one over an Epson v750 since I'm not going to afford an Imacon/Hasselblad ever. Not sure why everyone is so critical about the review. Maybe because I don't have a scanner, I find it useful and informative. He's hardly partisan either - describes lots of problems with the M1 set-up and its limitations compared to other drumscans and high end flat beds.

Final Thoughts
The Microtek ArtixScan M1 was a long time coming and the wait was a difficult one to endure for photographers holding off on their scanner purchase to see what it can do. In the development of the M1 Microtek sent out to make a dedicated film scanner that can also scan reflective materials and be affordable. This bang for your buck approach was a worthy goal and the many delays in trying to achieve this goal, while frustrating, should perhaps be viewed as not such a bad thing. Microtek could have easily shipped the M1 with bugs and flaws in both the hardware and software end. Instead, they took some heat and released a product that, while not perfect, performs at or better than anything else on the market in the flatbed category. While the sharpness of scans produced by the M1 aren’t at a level of a drum or Imacon/Hasselblad scanner, the included software isn’t perfect and its slower than your pet turtle’s grandma, the M1 does produce scans that can be called nothing short of very good when compared with any unit on the market and excellent when viewed in the context of other flatbeds. When it’s all said and done the M1 is the best flatbed scanner on the market today and should allow prints of very large sizes to be made from all film formats, and really what else can you ask for?