Epson V700/750 or V800/850 for B&W

[ajk]

I have currently a dilemma: I want to buy a new Epson flatbed scanner for 120/4x5" (B&W negatives only). What is better: Epson V700/750 (give still new to buy) or already V800/850?

 

[xvvvz]

If you are in the US and can get the refur'b V700 from the clearance center at the EpsonStore for $450, that is a heck of a deal considering the v7xx/V8xx series use the same optics. It looks like you may be in Germany so you ought to go check the Epson website for Germany to see if they offer similar deals.

Doug

 

[ajk]

Thank you Doug. I particularly wanted to confirm whether the light source (LED instead of cold light lamp) has an influence on the quality of silver grain scan. Maybe someone has used both scanner models?

 

[Pherdinand]

No. LED only makes warmup time much, much shorter - if that matters.
I usually scan in batches, not single frames, so those 20-30 extra seconds in the beginning make no difference. If it's 30sec for each frame, that could matter.
Also, the new holders for 120 and 4x5 hold less frames so the V700 holders are more work-efficient (but flimsier holders without anti-Newton glass). For 120 film, i had no flatness issues with the V700's simple holders (but one of the hold-down frames broke already). With 4x5 i have no experience, still wrapped in its plastic packaging 🙂

 

[lawrence]

No. LED only makes warmup time much, much shorter - if that matters.

With respect why wouldn't it make a difference when scanning traditional b&w film? It certainly makes a difference on the majority of Nikon scanners and I would assume it does on the Epson too, since LED is a collimated light source whereas cold cathode (V700/V750) is diffuse. Does the Epson V800/V850 have some kind of diffuser?

 

[ajk]

chikne,
your critique is devastating for 800/850 - I got really doubt.

 

[noimmunity]

Sounds like the only cost-efficient solution is to use a V600 for web scans and do printing at labs.

Otherwise the cost of a home-use MF scanner...

 

[Pherdinand]

With respect why wouldn't it make a difference when scanning traditional b&w film? It certainly makes a difference on the majority of Nikon scanners and I would assume it does on the Epson too, since LED is a collimated light source whereas cold cathode (V700/V750) is diffuse. Does the Epson V800/V850 have some kind of diffuser?

the Nikon scanners i assue you mean dedicated film scanners which is a completely different animal.
A flatbed is a flatbed, with...a flat glass bed. No focusing of lens on the film, no
Don't expect magic from LED.

Dont misunderstand me. I use my v700 a lot and get good scans even from 35mm, occasionally good enough for a 40x60 cm print.
I don't think the LED source would be worth upgrading to v800.

 

[Pherdinand]

Sounds like the only cost-efficient solution is to use a V600 for web scans and do printing at labs.

Otherwise the cost of a home-use MF scanner...

i strongly disagree. If you don't want the extra niceness of darkroom wet prints, the v700 is definitely good enough for MF and 4x5 printing. Even for 35mm if the neg is good, you know what you're doing, and you don't print postersize.

 

[John Stimson]

the Nikon scanners i assue you mean dedicated film scanners which is a completely different animal.
A flatbed is a flatbed, with...a flat glass bed. No focusing of lens on the film, no

I have had the Nikon ED-4000 apart, and the scanning mechanism is very much like a flatbed, only smaller. I'm sure that's the case for the ED-9000 as well. Of course the Epson focuses the light! There is no way it could achieve any useful resolution with the light source and sensor that far away from the film without focusing optics. Are you perhaps alluding to the fact that the Nikon has auto-focus and the Epson has a fixed focal height?

Don't expect magic from LED. (...) I don't think the LED source would be worth upgrading to v800.

I don't think that's what has been suggested. There is some internet folklore that the Nikon scanners that use an LED light source produce scans with more pronounced film grain, while Nikon scanners which use fluorescent light give less contrast to the grain. So I think that the question is whether the new Epson with the LED lamp might produce worse results.

I agree that it doesn't seem like it's worth upgrading.

 

[lawrence]

I don't think that's what has been suggested. There is some internet folklore that the Nikon scanners that use an LED light source produce scans with more pronounced film grain, while Nikon scanners which use fluorescent light give less contrast to the grain.

I think I'm right in saying that all Nikon film scanners use an LED light source although the Coolscan 9000 ED has a diffusion system so that the light is not so harsh.

The 'folklore' regarding Nikon scanners (other than the 9000 ED) has some basis in fact. I previously owned a Nikon Coolscan IV and compared to my Canoscan FS4000 the light was quite harsh, however this was relevant only when scanning traditional mono film stock due the Callier effect. Essentially the difference is similar to that between a diffusion and condenser enlarger.