Any experience with Epson V700

[keoj]

I was just curious, anyone out there with Epson V700 experience? I have an old Canoscan 4000 dedicated film scanner that works pretty well with Vuescan. Has anyone done any comparatives with a this flatbed scanner versus a dedicated film scanner? Thanks.

keoj

 

[GeneW]

Interesting review, shutterflower, and it confirms much of what I've heard about the V700. Has anyone done a comparison between the V700 and the 4490/4990 models? I still use an older 2450 (with Doug Fisher holder) for my 6x6 negs.

Gene

 

[Fotch]

I recently acquired an Epson V700 and then a Nikon V. Although the Epson does an excellent scan of 35mm, the Nikon is very noticeably, better in both in detail and tone. However, when comparing with the scans (about 1.3mb) from the One-Hour finisher I use, the Epson is way better than what they gave me.

The Epson of course wins hands down on medium and large format, and I have lots of 120 roll film and 4x5 (and some 8x10) films from years ago that I want to scan.

I do use the Epson V700 with the 35mm for an initial scan. The Epson scans the full roll of 35mm faster so I use it as sort of a high end proof and for many uses, the image is more than satisfactory. If a particular 35mm image warrants it, I scan that image again in the Nikon V.

 

[shadowfox]

I recently acquired an Epson V700 and then a Nikon V. Although the Epson does an excellent scan of 35mm, the Nikon is very noticeably, better in both in detail and tone. However, when comparing with the scans (about 1.3mb) from the One-Hour finisher I use, the Epson is way better than what they gave me.

The Epson of course wins hands down on medium and large format, and I have lots of 120 roll film and 4x5 (and some 8x10) films from years ago that I want to scan.

I do use the Epson V700 with the 35mm for an initial scan. The Epson scans the full roll of 35mm faster so I use it as sort of a high end proof and for many uses, the image is more than satisfactory. If a particular 35mm image warrants it, I scan that image again in the Nikon V.

I have the same dilemma, I don't think I have yet to squeeze out the most quality of my Nikon Coolscan V.

But the allure of quickly previewing a roll of film (as opposed to feeding 4 frames at a time) that the V700 promises is tempting me to get one.

I know it's a lot of trouble, but could you post a sample image that are scanned both using the Coolscan V and the Epson V700?

Also, did you use the height adjustable film holder on the V700? From the samples that I've seen, it does increase the apparent resolution via more accurate focusing.

 

[iml]

I use a V700. It's a very good scanner, and excellent VFM. All my scanning is 35mm b&w, although the plan is to acquire some MF gear eventually. I've never had to use the height adjusters on mine, the focus seems right as it is. I make mostly A4 prints from my scans, sometimes A3, and they look pretty excellent.

Ian

 

[monochromejrnl]

great scanner, colour, tonality, ability to pull shadow details - too bad about the negative holders... 120 are horrible, 35 aren't much better, though the 4x5s are useable for everything except for the most critical work...

betterscanning.com offers much better holders... will be ordering a 120 holder shortly...

 

[rich815]

I have a 4990 that I just love. I also have a Nikon LS-4000 for 35mm negs. The 4990 is awesome for MF but not good for 35mm (acceptable, just). That said the MF negs from the 4990 really do blow the 35mm negs from the LS-4000 out of the water. Anyone that tells you scanning MF with a flatbed brings it down to 35mm quality simply has not learned to scan correctly or has a bad example.

BTW, I find the holders on the 4990 to work just fine. A huge improvement over the holders for the 2450 and 1200U, which I owned earlier. I used the Fisher holders with the 2450 but found no benefit vs the ones provided with the 4990.

 

[aizan]

just curious, but are there 5x7 and 8x10 holders?

 

[AusDLK]

I have a V750.

Any users of the V700 or v750 are STRONGLY encouraged to perform focusing testing to determine the optimal height to set the OEM holders and Doug Fisher's MF holder.

I have it on good authority that optimal focus height can (and often does) vary from scanner to scanner.

I scanned the same pieces of film at 6400dpi using the OEM holder, my XpanScan prototype, and the MF holder at various heights, cropped out 6x6" pieces of the resulting scans and printed them. I allowed the scanner to apply it's default USM sharpening to the scans but did no other image manipulation.

I then did a blind test on each of the prints to determine the sharpest. In almost all cases the sharpest print was obvious and it was consistent from frame to frame at one specific "film suspension" height.

And except for the XpanScan prototype, none of the sharpest scans occurred at the "default" height.

So, if you want maximum performance from your scanner, spend the hours necessary to determine how to properly adjust your film holder(s) for the sharpest possible scans.