Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35

Thread: Microtek M1: A Review by Mac Holbert/Nash Editions

  1. #1

    Microtek M1: A Review by Mac Holbert/Nash Editions

    Hello Folks,

    I want to pass along a new review of the Microtek M1 scanner by Mac Holbert from Nash Editions in Los Angeles ( www.nasheditions.com ) The review is posted online as a PDF file at the CameraArts.com site:

    http://www.cameraarts.com/TheDigitalDarkroom.htm

    I hope that people will find the review and observations by Mac Holbert of particular interest, I think he has some interesting things to say about the M1.

    Gary
    Gary Nylander,

    West Kelowna, B.C., Canada
    Website:http://www.garynylander.com
    Blog:http://garynylander.blogspot.com/
    Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/nylander.photo

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    185

    Re: Microtek M1: A Review by Mac Holbert/Nash Editions

    Interesting, but I can't really understand how someone tests dynamic range with b&w negatives. Shouldn't be more appropriate to scan positive films?

    Cesar

  3. #3
    Wayne venchka's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,872

    Re: Microtek M1: A Review by Mac Holbert/Nash Editions

    Thanks Gary. That is the first evaluation of the M1 in real use that I have read on the internet.
    Wayne
    Deep in the darkest heart of the North Carolina rainforest.

    Wayne's Blog

    FlickrMyBookFaceTwitSpacei

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Ontario,Canada
    Posts
    344

    Re: Microtek M1: A Review by Mac Holbert/Nash Editions

    is that possible to turn on Silverfast's MultiScan 4X & MultiExp.2x the same time?

    Andrew

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,487

    Re: Microtek M1: A Review by Mac Holbert/Nash Editions

    I'm just waiting for Lenny to comment ;-)

    We need a head to head with an Epson.

    I wonder if Microtek has improved their quality control? I got burned a couple years ago (two defective ones in a roll).

    It is bizarre that the manufacturers don't come up with a truly professional CCD flatbed (robust construction, mechanical focusing, good software, better holders) with these specs that comes in at around a grand -- they would sell a lot.

  6. #6
    Zheng L. kilimanjaro1996's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    60

    Re: Microtek M1: A Review by Mac Holbert/Nash Editions

    The Microtek seems still have quality control issues. A colleague of mine bought the M1 Pro about half year back, and after 2 months it developed a grinding noise and auto focus became erratic. He returned it and got a replacement, and the new unit is working perfectly so far. He is much more meticulous than I do (I use Epson V700), but still we tend to agree that pure resolution and dynamic range are on par between these two scanners.
    Zheng L.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    2,094

    Re: Microtek M1: A Review by Mac Holbert/Nash Editions

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Petronio View Post
    I'm just waiting for Lenny to comment ;-)
    Here you go. I wouldn't want to disappoint ;-) I think the test is flawed.

    First of all, why are there so many comparisons from one mediocre scanner to another? Why not include - especially for people who at least know others that have great scanners - some of the really good scanners? Why is there no comparison to what a Premier, or an ICG 380, can do? How does it differ from what a 4500 is capable of, Scanmate, etc.? Why do photographers spend every last dollar on a great lens for our cameras, only to ask how can we get it cheaper when looking at a buying a scanner? I understand that not everyone can afford a Premier (altho it is cheaper than an Eversmart these days) - I can't even afford it. There is a certain level of quality any particular person can afford, but I think that they have a right to know what the difference is, especially if they are going to the trouble of lugging around a large camera, or developing their own film, all in the hopes of getting as much quality as possible.

    A while back, Luminous Landscape compared a P45 digital, the best at the time, to a consumer flatbed and said, gee the digital back is better. Big surprise - but what about a professional scanner? Uh, we don't know.... Same foolishness. Top level scanner will blow away any digital back on a variety of levels.

    Second, the way they scan makes little sense to me. They are basically scanning at 300 to the print size they want. I scan to the max, then see what happens on the print. I try and get the most out of a piece of film. I've never scanned anything as small as 100mb, or 300mb for 4x5.

    This sentence:
    "Dropping the output resolution of a 4" X 5" scan at 500% Excellent from 360 DPI to 287 DPI will yield a 32" X 40" print. In practice I routinely print at resolutions even lower than this. It is an image dependent judgment and proper sharpening is crucial."

    - says it all. They are acting like a standard lab, trying to just get the work out the door. Small size of file makes it print faster, and the client won't know the difference anyway. I don't try and make up for deficiencies in a scan by more sharpening. I make a great deal less money than they do because I figure every print that goes out of my studio has my name on it. Its the best I can do for any given photographer, no matter how many test prints it takes. Its a very different philosophy.

    If you think about a test done by someone who has expediency as their goal I think you will see the flaws. It's a "good enough for government work" strategy and if your sense of good enough matches theirs, you win. If not you lose, and if you have never seen different, you may not even know there is something more. Printing quality is not important to everyone, nor should it be. However, I prefer to go after a higher standard, on occasion I might get there... I think a lot of people here go to their best as well.

    Lenny
    EigerStudios
    Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    11

    Re: Microtek M1: A Review by Mac Holbert/Nash Editions

    Lenny Eiger; Here you go. I wouldn't want to disappoint ;-) I think the test is flawed.

    <<A while back, Luminous Landscape compared a P45 digital, the best at the time, to a consumer flatbed and said, gee the digital back is better. Big surprise - but what about a professional scanner? Uh, we don't know.... Same foolishness. Top level scanner will blow away any digital back on a variety of levels.>>

    Is this the test you were thinking of? I know you don't think much of the Tango, nonetheless, it's hardly a consumer flatbed.

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...-testing.shtml

    -dave-

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    2,094

    Re: Microtek M1: A Review by Mac Holbert/Nash Editions

    Quote Originally Posted by daverich4 View Post
    Is this the test you were thinking of? I know you don't think much of the Tango, nonetheless, it's hardly a consumer flatbed.

    -dave-
    Actually, it was a previous one. I think they used a Cezanne.... And just for a point of reference, the Premier has twice the resolution of a Tango, aperture control, etc. One doesn't always need it but it's the top if one is comparing, goes to my earlier point...

    I also think the problem with many Tango's is that they are in a lab and some kid has been hired to run it who has very little understanding. The test you reference has people who know how to use it very well and can produce excellent results whenever they want to.

    Lenny
    EigerStudios
    Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Naples,FL
    Posts
    571

    Re: Microtek M1: A Review by Mac Holbert/Nash Editions

    Quote Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger View Post
    Here you go. I wouldn't want to disappoint ;-) I think the test is flawed.

    Why do photographers spend every last dollar on a great lens for our cameras, only to ask how can we get it cheaper when looking at a buying a scanner?

    Lenny
    Lenny, thats the conclusion I came to.

    I had the M1 for about 3 months when it first came out. It had serious software issues that I'm sure they have sorted out by now. I was looking for an improvement over the 1800f which it was not. These are both fine scanners for the money but as Lenny points out what is the sense of investing all this money into fine glass and film only to have a major weak link in the chain?

    I broke down and bought a new Creo IQ Smart 2 after sending back the M1. It is now as strong or stronger than any other link in my chain. My 8x10 film scans are spectacular! No regrets.

    jb
    www.timeandlight.com

Similar Threads

  1. Opening Mac made PS images in PC?
    By Deliberate1 in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-Oct-2008, 00:27
  2. New Microtek M1 review
    By Harley Goldman in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 22-Mar-2008, 05:37
  3. Microtek M1 Review
    By Rob Landry in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 15-Feb-2008, 10:18
  4. New Computer Recommendation
    By Peter Lewin in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 2-Jun-2007, 18:43
  5. Microtek Scanmaker i900 Review
    By Jeffrey Zweig in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 16-Sep-2004, 05:38

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •