Epson V700 vs Coolscan (Image inside)

F

Fujitsu

Well-known
Local time
4:38 PM
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
284
View My Gallery
May not be the best test target to judge a scanner, but it is a real case.

The Coolscan shows a tad more resolution but far less than what I expected from reading on internet forums.

The sample you see is Velvia 50. With grainier films the Coolscan tends to exaggerate noise where the Epson smoothes it out which in fact does look better on prints.

image74t.jpg


img009k.jpg


74678654.jpg


66242144.jpg


I used NikonScan / Epson Scan respectively. Epson seems even better in full auto and scans four strips of film at once. The Coolscan V takes one strip only.

Most of all, the Epson is available new with warranty and will scan all sorts of films, including larger formats. The Coolscan V is for 35mm film only and officially discontinued.
 
Last edited:
I have both a Nikon 9000 and an Epson 4990 (V700 predecessor). The difference in resolution between the two is not dramatic but it's there. The scans from my Nikon have a bit more clarity than the Epson scans. That being said, I was perfectly happy with my Epson scans and had I not stumbled upon a bargain Nikon I probably wouldn't have bought it.
 
But, with V700 you have some variable. I am talking about the sweet spot of focus, and ofcourse the dry/wet option. I also have V700 and Nikon 5000 and the difference is barely noticeable, when I scan wet with Lumina solution.
I tried also scaning cibachromes and, in my subjective view, I find that scaning prints with V700 will result in better image files than scaning film with Nikon 5000.
 
Hello,
I don't want to be mean, so I hope you'll understand my comment.
This test doesn't show much. The slide seems very well exposed (and it's a 50 iso slide). You should make a test with all kinds of negatives and slides to understand how and when the Coolscan becomes useful/essential.
My second point is that, the very fact that you mention "noise" for the Coolscan means you don't have the necessary experience to conduct such a test. It is easily, not fixed, but controlled. Nikonscan is a very very powerful tool and if you need pieces of advice, feel free to ask me anything in private, I'll be glad to help !
The picture is beautiful 😉

Fujitsu said:
May not be the best test target to judge a scanner, but it is a real case.

The Coolscan shows a tad more resolution but far less than what I expected from reading on internet forums.

The sample you see is Velvia 50. With grainier films the Coolscan tends to exaggerate noise where the Epson smoothes it out which in fact does look better on prints.

image74t.jpg


img009k.jpg


74678654.jpg


66242144.jpg


I used NikonScan / Epson Scan respectively. Epson seems even better in full auto and scans four strips of film at once. The Coolscan V takes one strip only.

Most of all, the Epson is available new with warranty and will scan all sorts of films, including larger formats. The Coolscan V is for 35mm film only and officially discontinued.
Click to expand...
 
You have to scan 80lp/mm film min to really do a fair comparison.

Shoot some bluefire film in a really sharp camera and scan that.

Also it looks like you have a good scanner.
My V750 was not as sharp as your V700.
 
It is hard to tell how sharp the original slide is. Shoot some static object, that is easy to focus on and has no chance of disturbance by wind. Like, a brick wall 😉
 
On my monitor I see darker blacks and better contrast from the coolscan. I did a similar test some time ago, the Epson keeps pace with negative film, particularly lower speed film, with modern emulsions. But with chrome, and other types of film the coolscan eventually blows the Epson away. It's also a much higher resolution scan than the Epson can produce. I think of my Bessa as a little 20 megapixel camera when I couple it with my coolscan. The Epson can't give that level of performance. Now put some medium format film, or 4x5 film in the V700 and you're cooking with gas.
 
A very helpful comparison. The Epson image, at least on my monitor, looks a bit less saturated, but otherwise, I'm surprised at quality of the output from the V700 based on what has been said about it on the web regarding 35mm scans.
 
Even though some say the V700 is inferior, I just keep using mine anyway .........

I love two passes for a roll of 24 ....... or 16 or 2 times 4X5 all from the same box.

Does 5 of the 3.25X4.25 polaroids as a time ....

If I get a real keeper, I can always have it drum scanned.

Dave
 
Here´s an update.

I tested the Plustek OpticFilm 7600i. Findings below.

Resolution compared
Nikon Coolscan V ED, Epson V700, Plustek OpticFilm 7600i

89724962.jpg


94986130.jpg


87789863.jpg



Dynamic range compared
Nikon Coolscan V ED, Epson V700, Plustek OpticFilm 7600i
(upper right half with stronger contrast to "stress test" data delivered by the scanners)

59383963.jpg


24239309.jpg


51648437.jpg
 
Last edited:
Again, I would suggest you finding a sharper test target. This one does not show much detail in neither scanner.
 
varjag said:
Again, I would suggest you finding a sharper test target. This one does not show much detail in neither scanner.
Click to expand...

As long as the scans are from the same positive I dont think your statement ist valid. You can clearly see detail on grain level above. What else are you looking for?
 
+1 somewhere above.

Use a sharper image.

Try some bluefire or other microfilm in a super sharp rangefinder for a better judge of exactly what the real resolution is and the enlargement potential of each.

I compared the V750 to a minolta 5400 a while back and it was roughly 44-48 lp/mm for the V750 vs about 96 + lp/mm for the 5400.

The Nikon should be about 72 lp/mm.
 
Thank you for taking the time to post these tests. I use both the Epson v-750 Pro and Nikon 9000ED. I am now scanning mostly with my Epson for two reasons. One: It is faster Two: I want to reduce wear and tear on the Nikon. I find my scans from the Epson to be perfectly adequate for most of my negatives most of the time, but the Nikon clearly has better resolution... perhaps not as marked when doing Medium format with the ANR Glass and holder on the Epson. Perhaps even more important is the increased dynamic range and apparent microcontrast with the Nikon. I have the wet kit for Nikon, but have yet to figure out how to use it.

Here is a full size Epson Scan from a Christmas Ski Trip. 35mm TMY-2 ... I think that resolution is sufficient, but I suspect that the Nikon would reveal more shadow detail:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5084/5299533682_4b1a6ee1b4_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom