hamradio
Well-known
Right now Epson has refurbished 4490s in stock for $109 shipped. Add the coupon code 'review12' to it to receive 12% off, and bam, $95.92. 
Ordered mine last night. Was going to order a new one through wal*mart for $129 plus tax, but figured I'd poke around and see if epson was selling refurbs again. I was pleasantly surprised.
Hopefully the link works. Figured someone might want to take this up, as I can't seem find it any cheaper.
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=63060806
Ordered mine last night. Was going to order a new one through wal*mart for $129 plus tax, but figured I'd poke around and see if epson was selling refurbs again. I was pleasantly surprised.
Hopefully the link works. Figured someone might want to take this up, as I can't seem find it any cheaper.
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=63060806
filmfan
Well-known
Tempting, but I heard it is not a very good with 35mm... However, at that price, it must be worth it.
hamradio
Well-known
I plan on trying 35mm with it, but mainly bought it for medium format stuff. I've seen...acceptable...35mm stuff come from a 4490. Not spectacular, but passable, IMO. Better quality than what the local minilabs give me for color 35mm.
antiquark
Derek Ross
Epson says the 4490 goes up to ~50 megapixels, but in reality it's more like 10 mp. It works OK, but I found the auto level adjustments and white balance weren't the greatest. Probably different scanning software would help with that.
Oh Two
Established
Jump on it
Jump on it
I have flat bed transparency scanners going back to a Umax Powerlook III, and have owned various Epsons predating the 4990 as well as Microteks and other Umax models.
Even if you get the latest thing from Epson, I very much doubt that you will see ANY improvement over the 4990. Flatbeds have reached their theoretical limits 15 years ago and the Epson 4990 is just fine. No flatbed will match a dedicated 35mm scanner of any reputable quality, even those 10 years old.
Scanning 4X5s, I can tell the ever so slight improvement that the Epson has over the ancient Powerlook but both are equally poor performers at 35mm.
If one is scanning to post to the internet or to make 'contact sheets', then the flatbeds are useful time savers for 35mm.
Jump on it
I have flat bed transparency scanners going back to a Umax Powerlook III, and have owned various Epsons predating the 4990 as well as Microteks and other Umax models.
Even if you get the latest thing from Epson, I very much doubt that you will see ANY improvement over the 4990. Flatbeds have reached their theoretical limits 15 years ago and the Epson 4990 is just fine. No flatbed will match a dedicated 35mm scanner of any reputable quality, even those 10 years old.
Scanning 4X5s, I can tell the ever so slight improvement that the Epson has over the ancient Powerlook but both are equally poor performers at 35mm.
If one is scanning to post to the internet or to make 'contact sheets', then the flatbeds are useful time savers for 35mm.
Gray Fox
Well-known
I have a 4490 and a Microtek 4000t, both of which I run with Vuescan 86. The 4490 is obviously not as sharp as the dedicated 35 scanner, but is acceptable up to 6x9. It has the advantage of Digital ICE, which does a good job on color and chromogenic B&W. I bought the Better Scanning neg holder for 120 film and it is much better than the issued Epson one. I think you would be happy even using Epson Scan once you learn to use the "Professional Level". It would probably be useful to go on line to Epson to see if they have any updated software, too. Bottom line is that for the money you'll be hard pressed to do better. Btw, the latest Vuescan has a much better listing of film types, including Kodak Ektar, which I hope to try soon.
lmd91343
There's my Proctor-Silex!
I've used the 4490 for 6x9 and 645, but I have nothing to compare it to.
For 35mm it is not as good (dr, sharpness) as my Canon dedicated FS 2710. I don't know if it is related to the better carrier for the Canon (each frame has an independent frame for each exposure). The Epson carrier has one frame for an entire strip of five exposures.
For 35mm it is not as good (dr, sharpness) as my Canon dedicated FS 2710. I don't know if it is related to the better carrier for the Canon (each frame has an independent frame for each exposure). The Epson carrier has one frame for an entire strip of five exposures.
Thardy
Veteran
It works well pretty for medium format film, never tried 35mm.
Last edited:
emraphoto
Veteran
i use it for xpan negs. rigged up my own masking set and scan as 6x7 medium format. quite happy with it actually and have had images run in magazines from this rig.
ChrisN
Striving
And you can even scan 4x5 negs; again make up your own mask from mat board, take two scans and stitch them together.
chubasco
Well-known
I think you're going to like the 4490, especially for medium format. It does
an OK job with 35mm for web posting. Here are two from a Ricoh point and
shoot 35mm, scanned at 2400dpi:
using Epson filmholder and software
an OK job with 35mm for web posting. Here are two from a Ricoh point and
shoot 35mm, scanned at 2400dpi:
using Epson filmholder and software
Robin P
Well-known
a couple of samples
a couple of samples
Both images shot with Portra.
-from a Fuji 645
from a Bessa R with 35mmP
A good scanner for MF and useful for 35mm neg but not transparency.
Cheers, Robin
a couple of samples
Both images shot with Portra.
-from a Fuji 645
from a Bessa R with 35mmP
A good scanner for MF and useful for 35mm neg but not transparency.
Cheers, Robin
paulfish4570
Veteran
This certainly looks like a good buy. Thanks for the tip ...
chubasco
Well-known
Agree, medium format seems to be the sweet spot with this scanner:
Koni Rapid Omega 100/expired Fuji 400H, SEP conversion
Epson 4490 scanned @ 1200dpi
Koni Rapid Omega 100/expired Fuji 400H, SEP conversion
Epson 4490 scanned @ 1200dpi
hamradio
Well-known
Got it today.
Good god, the supplied 35mm negative holder sucks. Mine is heavily warped. I've yet to try 120, as I don't have any developed 120 laying around.
Good god, the supplied 35mm negative holder sucks. Mine is heavily warped. I've yet to try 120, as I don't have any developed 120 laying around.
hamradio
Well-known
And the scanner makes awesome binding and grinding noises.
This is what I get for buying a freaking refurb.
This is what I get for buying a freaking refurb.
hamradio
Well-known
The grinding noises randomly went away (wasn't the lock), and I've been getting pretty solid 120 results. I think I'll give vuescan a go, as the supplied epson software is kinda clunky.
Pretty satisfied now.
Pretty satisfied now.
scottyb70
Well-known
I have the 4990 with the betterscanning holders and a microtek 120tf. I notice a difference between the quality of the scanners. To me the epson is a little easier to use and seems to get the colors spot on whereas the microtek you have to tweek more.
Nokton48
Veteran
OK,
I just bought one of the 4490 refurbs. Couldn't resist the $95 price. I have needed a better scanner for medium format, my Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II works fine for me for 35mm.
I was going to get the Epson 750 but these results look good to me. Eagerly awaiting my new scanner.
-Dan
I just bought one of the 4490 refurbs. Couldn't resist the $95 price. I have needed a better scanner for medium format, my Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II works fine for me for 35mm.
I was going to get the Epson 750 but these results look good to me. Eagerly awaiting my new scanner.
-Dan
Last edited:
kuzano
Veteran
I acheived as good 35mm scans.....
I acheived as good 35mm scans.....
For some time, I used an Epson 2580 scanner, limited to 35mm. When I bought my Epson V500, I was surprised to see the 35mm scans not really better. Good thing I wanted the V500 for Medium Format. Even then the stock film holders were horrible for MF.
I acheived as good 35mm scans.....
For some time, I used an Epson 2580 scanner, limited to 35mm. When I bought my Epson V500, I was surprised to see the 35mm scans not really better. Good thing I wanted the V500 for Medium Format. Even then the stock film holders were horrible for MF.