Anyone use the Epson V700?

kipkeston said:
Flatbeds sound like such a nice idea until you can't scan a single frame without newton rings or out of focus frames. I was fed up with epson tray, newton rings and out of focus negs and went with the V.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, the film holder on epson's scanners really stink!!!!
 
1948nikon said:
The v700 , as I understand uses a different form of light source and a higher resolution lens . Can someone give me more details on this. Not tech specs but real world benefits.
Click to expand...

I don't know about a different light source, looked like a regular scanner light to me. It is very bright. According to Epson, it has "dual lens technology" that it implements for scanning film. I've never taken one apart, so I don't know about this, but I do know that the hardware resolution is 3200ppi. That means that any scans above that resolution are interpolated and needlessly large. Some might say 3200ppi is too large as well, but I like the option of being able to print as large as I can. Naturally, the larger the true resolution, the better the scan, and the better the print. The Nikon Coolscans I've used (5000 and 9000) had 4000ppi, but are much more expensive.

That is the biggest benefit of the v700, price. It isn't as good as the high-end scanners, but it is in the ballpark and much cheaper.

kipkeston, were you using glass to hold your negatives flat? I've never had newton rings or moire patterns with this scanner. Focus issues, yes, but never those problems.
 
I have the V700 and the scans from this flatbed are outstanding. I tested it against the dedicated film scanners at school (Nikon 5000 and Sprintscan) prior to making a decision to keep it. It proved to hold its own for less $$ with the added flexibility of a flatbed. This is not a regular run of the mill flatbed scanner. It would be interesting to see a comparison against the Nikon 9000 as I hear it is a wonderful dedicated scanner.... but a more than twice the cost... I would expect it to. I have had the scanner for more than a year with no problems thus far although I will admit that I don't put it through heavy use.

My only major complaint is the dumb flimsy negative holders as already mentioned. I posted these test scans on another forum a while back. I hope you find this informative.

1a) 35mm B&W Full

198307334.jpg


1b) Crop of above

198307320.jpg


2a) 35mm B&W Full

198307325.jpg


2b) crop of above

198307330.jpg


3a) Medium Format Color Full

198307558.jpg


3b) crop of above

198307538.jpg


4a) Medium Format Color Full

198307544.jpg


4b) crop of above

198307547.jpg
 
Somewhere I have files from negatives scanned on both the v700 and the 9000. I was making 15X23 prints and the ones from the V700 looked good, but side by side there was a visible difference between the two. As you might expect from a $2500 dedicated film scanner, it showed the grain very well. The 700 muddied it a little.

That is the only occasion where the V700 hasn't been good enough though.

On the other hand... :rolleyes: I did make a very large print from a scan by the V700 once. 23X34, with Efke KB25. No grain to muddy!

If you get a chance to get the V700, go for it! (and get the better tray(s)!)
 
I'm giving some serious consideration to getting one of these scanners just for the automated 35mm scanning. Having to sit around and constantly feed film into my Coolscan V is a bit mind-numbing, especially if you have to make adjustments. I have tonnes of unscanned film sitting around because I don't have the time or motivation to work on it. I'd also be able to play with my Holga and TLR properly, of course...
 
I've been impressed with the v500 as well, but you can't scan as many negs at a time. I bought it to scan family prints but I tried it with negatives as well. I see similar differences that I saw with the v-750, muddies detail and textures more than a 9000, but only really noticeable in 8x10. I'm no expert on running them, so take this with a grain a salt, but I find the Epson scans require more post-processing than the Nikon scans and for color digital ICE takes much longer. Not a big deal, but it's there.
 
THe V700 is amazing for the price. The quality with larger formats (120, 4x5) is the best you can get without going to a drum scanner.

Since I just got my Leica, I haven't started scanning 35mm yet except for this shot, which was scanned at only 1200 dpi. 35mm film needs more, IMO, at least 2400dpi or 4800 dpi.

Here's a tip: Do not use ICE. Spot your results in PS, and retain the integrity of your scan. Scanning goes much quicker as well...

Also don't forget that scans, no matter how well the focus is, are slightly soft and need some amount of sharpening. I always do the minimum amount necessary. It's a very similar situation as with RAW files from digi-cams.
 
PVia said:
THe V700 is amazing for the price. The quality with larger formats (120, 4x5) is the best you can get without going to a drum scanner.

Since I just got my Leica, I haven't started scanning 35mm yet except for this shot, which was scanned at only 1200 dpi. 35mm film needs more, IMO, at least 2400dpi or 4800 dpi.

Here's a tip: Do not use ICE. Spot your results in PS, and retain the integrity of your scan. Scanning goes much quicker as well...

Also don't forget that scans, no matter how well the focus is, are slightly soft and need some amount of sharpening. I always do the minimum amount necessary. It's a very similar situation as with RAW files from digi-cams.
Click to expand...

Thx for your info. I just wish some of these "highend" flatbed scanners can have some mf functions. :angel:
 
PVia brings up a good point.

Many (i mean a lot) of people will run some B&W negatives through the scanner in default and then complain about the quality. To get good scans out of a B&W negative, you have to turn ICE OFF. IIRC, this was mentioned in their manuals somewhere.

I made the same exact mistake when I made my first scan of B&W negative..... I was so disappointed that I came close to packing it all up that same day for a return. I'm glad I gave it another go.

In my opinion... there are two choices out there for scanners. The V700/V750 (same really) or the Nikon 9000. It depends on your budget and final expectations.
 
Epson and Nikon

Epson and Nikon

Here's a comparison. Epson at 4800, Nikon at 4000.
 

Attachments

  • Epson.jpg
    Epson.jpg
    119.2 KB · Views: 0
  • Nikon.jpg
    Nikon.jpg
    154.8 KB · Views: 0
The Better Scanning film holders are better at getting the focus right. Early reports place the Microtek M1 ahead of the Epson V700/V750 twins. A review of the M1 will be out in View Camera magazine in the next issue.
 
venchka said:
Comparison? Where?
Click to expand...
Venchka, try reopening the browser. I can see my thumbnails just fine.
If you can't I'll try again.

Just for clarification, the Epson was scanned from Epson Scan, the Nikon from Hamrick's VueScan. I have an Intel Mac so Nikon Scan won't work (yet). No unsharp mask was used, no modifications of any kind were added. These images are as scanned.

I've been using first rate flat beds for a long time for my 4 X 5 work. I still have my old (1999) Umax Powerlook III. The 4990, 700, 750 all pretty much look the same. The Epsons seem to manage about 1600 DPI, the Umax claims 1200 DPI but the Epsons are only marginally better. The Umax has a nice warm look so I've kept it. It handles noise in the medium dark areas well too.

I just acquired my new Nikon 9000 ED to replace my Minolta Diamage Multi. I like the look of the Minolta better than the Nikon but I need support with my new Mac. Scanning is a tough nut to crack. I'm sure that I'll get on top of the Nikon, but it's like learning to walk all over again.
 
Thanks, Dan. It's a shame that there really aren't any scanners below the Nikon 9000 in price that can deliver the same quality. On the other hand, there's nothing above the Nikon 9000 until you get past five figure professional models. I sure wish the Nikon 9000 accepted 4x5 sheet film.

I also can't see myself spending close to $3,000 on 2 scanners: 1 for 35mm/120 and another for sheet film. Grin and bear it and buy one flatbed I suppose.
 
Dektol Dan said:
Just for clarification, the Epson was scanned from Epson Scan, the Nikon from Hamrick's VueScan. I have an Intel Mac so Nikon Scan won't work (yet).
Click to expand...

Hi Dektol Dan,
If you like Nikon Scan it will work with Intel Macs. I've never stopped using Nikon Scan with Tiger and Leopard OS. At some point I'll try VueScan, but haven't had the time yet.
 
Mike:
Nikon Scan is still no go with me. 4.02 works fine on my G4 with OS 10.4.
It won't even launch on the Mac Pro in 10.4 or 10.5. I think it has something to do with four CPU cores. Some report that it could be made to work in 10.4 via the Photoshop plugin in CS2, or by launching Vuescan first. 10.5 is nada.
 
Dektol Dan said:
Mike:
Nikon Scan is still no go with me. 4.02 works fine on my G4 with OS 10.4.
It won't even launch on the Mac Pro in 10.4 or 10.5. I think it has something to do with four CPU cores. Some report that it could be made to work in 10.4 via the Photoshop plugin in CS2, or by launching Vuescan first. 10.5 is nada.
Click to expand...

Hi Dan,
Thanks for the information. I should have mentioned I've used a MacBook Pro and Macmini with the 9000 and Leopard. It must be the processors.
Cheers,
Mike
 
venchka said:
Thanks, Dan. It's a shame that there really aren't any scanners below the Nikon 9000 in price that can deliver the same quality. On the other hand, there's nothing above the Nikon 9000 until you get past five figure professional models. I sure wish the Nikon 9000 accepted 4x5 sheet film.

I also can't see myself spending close to $3,000 on 2 scanners: 1 for 35mm/120 and another for sheet film. Grin and bear it and buy one flatbed I suppose.
Click to expand...

Venchka:
When I came to the Y in the road at the digital camera or film/scanner impasse I quickly realized that $3000 will buy a decent digital camera (with a mediocre lens), but it will also buy two pretty good scanners. $3000 will also make for a mediocre black and white darkroom, but I've spent too many nice sunny days in a smelly dark room for one life time.

I still shoot digital for mundane commercial work, but I choose film for serious photography. Digital is just too limiting and compromising for the way I shoot.

I have a ton of money in old Leica gear medium and large format, but that's from piddling money away over a long time. I like the look of the old glass, and I've learned to shoot a manual camera in my sleep. I took a deep breath when laying the money down I'd saved for materials for a new carport and instead plunking it on a Nikon scanner. But $2000 is pissing in the ocean compared with the money spent for all the film cameras and lenses I've acquired over the past 30 years.

And don't forget that a digital back for a medium format camera is going to cost 4 times as much as the Nikon!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom