Epson V750 stop doubting?

[pekoni]

The more I read about the V750 the more frustrated I became lately.
From the day the epson was introduced the resolution went down in reviews and test every half year. At this point in time its nearby 2000 ppi eff.
I must admitt all these test and commentaries do have an effect on me. This morning I was seriously thinking of going for an proscan 7200 for my 35mm and than mayby at a later stage replace the V750 for the MF5000.
I just did a little not so scientific test; I went to flickr and did a search on proscan 7200 and one search with v750+ 35mm.
You know what! I'll wil stick with my 750 epson.
Who agrees with me that the V750 is not so bad, not so bad at all?

regards,
Peter Koning

 

[Platinum RF]

for 35mm scan, you should buy a dedicate scanner, V750 is good for 120 and larger.

 

[brbo]

Don't doubt your V750. It's got higher eff resolution than any other flatbed.

Still, any not-so-scientific-1024px-flickr-test will show you that ancient 50 EUR Epson 4490 is just as good 🙂

 

[nightfly]

I've been using a 4990 for years for 35mm and have printed at 16 x 20 for shows and display and am happy with the quality. I'm certain dedicated negative scanners do a better job but if you are happy with the end results I'm not sure how much absolute quality matters.

I think getting your process and workflow down is probably more important. I've got mine dialed with a 4990 and a Styus Pro 3800 printer. Getting everything to look right and match the screen to the print results is probably just as important.

 

[literiter]

The more I read about the V750 the more frustrated I became lately.

regards,
Peter Koning

Your Epson 750 scanner is a perfectly fine scanner. If you scan 120 film, there is nothing wrong with it. I hold it up there with the Nikon CS9000 scanner easily.

If you demand higher resolution scans for your 35mm stuff, get a dedicated 35mm scanner then you have the real versatility of a superb flatbed scanner as well as being able to scan 35mm.

 

[NLewis]

Look at the Plustek 7600 review on Luminous Landscape. The Epson V700/750 is maybe not quite as good as either the Plustek or Nikon Coolscan ... but if the difference bothers you, you would do better going either to 24MP digital or medium format. Trying to squeeze the tiniest additional advantage from 35mm film is a dead end IMO. For a few frames that you might print big, you can send them to North Coast Photo for a 16MP scan on the Noritsu at $2.50 each. Precision Camera might do single frame scans on their Noritsu too. Their full-roll scans are coming back to me at 30 megapixels on 35mm! Of course there isn't 30 megapixels of real information on 35mm BW print film, but overkill doesn't hurt.

At 2400dpi real resolution, you could print at 300dpi at 8"x12". That's enough for most anything 35mm, IMO. 2400dpi on 6x7 would give you about 37MP of good information.

The Epson seems to benefit from "scan-fu," such as wet mounting, ANR glass inserts, different software such as Silverfast or Vuescan, etc. etc. when trying to squeeze more out of it.

 

[pekoni]

I agree with you all about most things, and I use the V750 also for my MF and LF.
My point is that in fact a dedicated 35mm filmscanner is non-existent apart from the ones wich can be rented here for 40 euro an hour.

I will read the review on LL about the 7600

regards,

Peter.

 

[literiter]

I agree with you all about most things, and I use the V750 also for my MF and LF.


regards,

Peter.

Do you scan B&W, color or both?

 

[Paddy C]

If there's one thing I've learned from these types of discussions, it's that everybody has a different opinion of "acceptable" and "good".

When it comes to scanners you must decide if a given scanner + workflow is good enough for your needs.

For example, I think that 16 x 20 prints of 35mm film scanned on a V700 would be about twice what I think you can go to. Could be that the print looks good-enough at a comfortable viewing distance and given the subject matter but for some it won't be.

 

[Frank Petronio]

I thought 35mm scanned on the 700 looked like muddy mush compared to a cheap Minolta film scanner but what do I know?

 

[J. Borger]

For prints up to A3 from 35mm a v700 or v750 is just fine with the right workflow ans glassinserts, If i want larger prints i shoot MF😉
Seriously the Epson flatbeds are much better for 35mm than the web discussions suggests. Is a plustek 7600 better for 35mm? If so ..... only marginal!

 

[NLewis]

There's a gallery in SoHo Manhattan which has a display of photos of wild horses shot in BW, looks like 35mm Tri-X or similar. The photos are enlarged to ridiculous size, maybe 2x3 feet, 4x5 feet, even 6x8 feet. Of course the grain is as big as golfballs. But, it works artistically. (Apparently these were optical enlargements, not scans.) I asked how long that show/artist had been running at the gallery, and they said: "five years." It's their only offering. So, apparently Tri-X enlarged to 4x5 feet is good enough to pay the rent in Soho -- big gallery, too -- plus the livelihoods of assorted salespeople, plus the artist himself. Whether an enlargement is "too big" is a personal/artistic decision. That said, I don't like to enlarge 35mm BW beyond 8x12 unless I specifically want to see a lot of grain. 8x12 at 300dpi is 8.64 megapixels, by the way, and corresponds to a 2400 dpi scan.

 

[emraphoto]

Great for web use. Send to the pro or drum scan or arrange a good wet printer for galleries.

 

[f16sunshine]

Something all of us need to consider is these machines can get knocked out of spec.!
My old photography mentor bought a V700 after coming over to scan some old transparencies on my V700.
His new from B+H machine was much softer using the same holders for the same negatives and the exact same SW workflow.
Needless to say it went back to B+H for another one.

My experience is the V700 is OK for previewing and great for Web use in 35mm.
For 120's it has worked very well. Same 4x5. Excellent for scanning wet prints.
If I need a negative scan to be tits in regards to resolution I send it out.
Usually I shoot my 5Dii if I know that resolution and sharpness are a primary consideration.
I would love a Flextight and have been on the lookout for one. Probably just a dream though.
When you see the extended warranty cost

I've done a bunch of "archive" scanning of negatives and prints for older folks around town with my epson.
No one has ever complained about quality. In fact all are stunned to see their old slides and negatives on the monitor after years in a box. Miles of smiles and a few tears have been the norm.
It's quite satisfying and removes any doubt about how "good" the epson is.
Horses for courses some would say.

I would love a Flextight and have looked for a used one on occasion.
When you look at the listing for the new $25,000 X5 at B&H and see the 2 year extended warranty cost $5000, It does not inspire a lot of confidence in buying an older second hand machine.

 

[ZivcoPhoto]

I use a Coolscan V for my 35mm work....but recently, after a year using an aftermarket holder and so-so results with 120 film on my bought new Epson V700 (and using the ANR glass), I decided to try the holders that came with it new (for the first time), with the ANR glass insert and wow, with this combination the results are outstanding. I had been taking them to digital lab and getting 12-15 MB hi res scans, but for 11x17, which is as large as I need to print at home the results with V700 are hard to tell apart for B&W. For color, because the film is at the lab I have them Hi Res scan at the same time, but B&W which I do at home, the V700 is a marvel. I must have hit the right combination for perfect height from the glass top for the focus to be so perfect. I have been very happy with my V700.

 

[pekoni]

Thank you all, for the comments. I must say i am not doubting anymore whether i should opt for a 'dedicated 35mm scanner"
For my work wich is for 90 percent BW, the epson will do fine.
I can now stop thinking about upgrading my 35mm proces.
I am happy with 5x7, max 8x10 in 35mm.
I will put the energy in investigating wether I would print my photo's myself or sending it out wich is the case right now.

regards,

Peter.

 

[maddoc]

I can`t speak about the V750 but the V700 and that scanner holds up well against the Coolscan4000ED. 🙂

 

[shadowfox]

Microtek i800.
Use it with Vuescan.
Excellent for 120 format and bigger (used it up to 8x10).
Never tried the included 35mm holder, I use a Coolscan V ED for that.

 

[Trius]

I was going to start another thread for the 750, since I just ordered one yesterday; it should arrive Wednesday.

I had been scanning with a CanoScan 2700 for 35mm, which I liked well enough, especially with VueScan. But when we upgraded our Windows machine we lost the SCSI card, as the old PC was PCI. I wasn't keen on laying out the money for a PCIe adapter.

It wasn't the cost of the adapter as much as that I needed a scanner for 4x5 as well. So I'll be finding out how well it does for 35mm. I'm not expecting it to equal the Canon, but for web work I think it will be OK, and I don't print from digital anyway. The darkroom is a happy place for me. 😀

But the ability to scan 4x5 (and some old 120 from the days when I shot 6x6,) is going to be fun!

 

[whitecat]

I second the Microtek i800. I have scanned thousands of transparencies with it.