Microtek M1: A Review by Mac Holbert/Nash Editions

[venchka]

Many of us must be content with state of the possible.

[Kirk Gittings]

If you read it closely (unless I am missing something) It appears to agree with what Ted Harris reported on the scanner? That it could produce excellent results up to around 16x20, but beyond that fell short of pro flatbed and drum scans?

I'm curious has anyone had no problems with this scanner using Silverfast over a long period. Like Franks experience on my 1800f I had to return it 2-3 times I can't remember now how many, it was awhile ago.

[mrladewig]

Specifically on the Luminous Landscape article referenced (P45+ versus 4X5), the article stated that the 4X5 file was a 500MB file at 16bits. This should be a 1600ppi scan, which is not at the limit of the scanner nor the film. Obviously, we're all of a similar mindset here that 4X5 was hamstrung to make that test come remotely close.

It does seem to me that Camera Arts is saying the same things that everyone is saying. The M1 is a nice scanner, but it doesn't measure up to a professional scanner.

[venchka]

...

It does seem to me that Camera Arts is saying the same things that everyone is saying. The M1 is a nice scanner, but it doesn't measure up to a professional scanner.

Aye! Is it "close enough" for mere mortals on a very tight budget? Is it less than, equal to or better than an Epson V750-M? How about an Epson V750-M with Betterscanning holders?

[Don Diego]

Howdy:
Iam the new kid on the block just became a member short while back. Any way I tested both the M1 and the Epson 750 I bought the Epson. My 2-1/4 negs and slides printed on Epson 7800 on 16x20 look like made in my old darkroom. Very happy with the scanner. Just my two cents.
Don

[anchored]

Kirk asks: I'm curious has anyone had no problems with this scanner using Silverfast over a long period. Like Franks experience on my 1800f I had to return it 2-3 times I can't remember now how many, it was awhile ago.

I suppose "over a long period" can hardly be applied to the M1, but I've been using it about 7 months without problems... at least not much in the way of problems. I'm scanning 4"x5" color slides and Ilford FP4+ using Silverfast software (have never even tried the MicroTek software) and very happy with the results.

Up until recently have been scanning everything at 2400-res, but recently the machine has been producing a few random cyan or magenta thin lines at this setting... I've reduced scanning down to 1800 and this banding does not appear.

My main complaint on the machine is using the glassless 4x5 carriers. It takes a bit of finess and practice in order to get film into it and keeping it flat.

Now grant you... the scans are nowhere near as good as my Nikon 9000-
ED produces from MF film, and I sure miss not having ICE on the M1, but 16"x20" (or longer) prints turn out very nicely from the M1 scans.

[venchka]

anchored,

Howdy! We're almost neighbors. I'm up around Cypress-Copperfield. Have you tried the MultiScan & MultiExp mentioned in the article? Does it work for you? I ask because another M1 user on the Rangefinder Forum said that he couldn't get either feature to work on his M1.

[m332720]

I have had my M1 for about a month now. I am reasonably happy with the results.
I use the Silverfast software and have had no problems with the multi exposure or the multi scan..
I have done 13X19 inch prints and have been happy with the output. If I want bigger prints I would take my 4X5 negs to a lab. But for what I am doing I am happy with it.

Even with make a living from my photography I could not justify a more expensive scanner

Michael

[BarryS]

After a frustrating start due to software issues, I've been using the M1 with great results for the last 9 months. I've been heavily into using barrel lenses lately, so my negative densities can be all over the map and the M1 has been doing a very nice job scanning even some very dense negs. I like the glassless system although I agree the holders can be tricky to use. I'm not using the multi-exposure or multi-scanning options since I feel like I've been getting good results without them and the scans are time-consuming enough with the autofocus cycle. Overall, I think it's a good piece of hardware for up to 4X or 5X scans as long as you have the Silverfast software.

[mrladewig]

Aye! Is it "close enough" for mere mortals on a very tight budget? Is it less than, equal to or better than an Epson V750-M? How about an Epson V750-M with Betterscanning holders?

I'm one of those mere mortals with an Epson 4990, so I know what you're saying. But I also know where my 4990 falls short of a professional scan.

It certainly would be nice to see this comparison, but that wasn't the goal of this particular article. There isn't a great deal written on these scanners. So far what I've seen indicates that they are very similar. Neither has a dominating advantage over the other. Its like the articles comparing the V700 to the 4990 or the V750 to the V700. There are small incremental improvements at this level, but nothing that would cause a compelling reason to buy one over another, or to make an upgrade irresistible.