Epson V700 vs Coolscan (Image inside)

[literiter]

I've got the Nikon CS9000 and I've had the pleasure of using the Epson V700 for about a month. Overall I have to say that the CS9000 does a somewhat better job on 35mm, especially when I use a glass holder. ( I use the FH869GR holder and the 35mm panorama mask one frame at a time.) It seems to equal out for 6x6 in that I would be perfectly content with the Epson. There is nothing wrong with the CS 9000 and I really like it for what I do.

For a all round scanner I'd have the Epson for it's ability to scan up to 5x7 and maybe 8x10 negs. Then you have a real good flatbed scanner as well.

I did not realize how good the Plustek scanner is. Maybe the Plustek as well as the Epson would be a good pair. Some basic 'rithmatik; Plustek about $550 add Epson about $650 = $1200.00 or Nikon CS 9000, no longer manufactured at about $2500.00 (or more?)

Just a thought.

 

[berlincontemporary]

Use a sharper image.

Try some bluefire or other microfilm in a super sharp rangefinder for a better judge of exactly what the real resolution is and the enlargement potential of each.

Again, I see film grain in the examples above. There is no signal beyond grain. What practical relevance would a test with microfilm and lab conditions have? No one is shooting microfilm in the wild anyway.

The V700 looks pretty good to me for practical use. I also actually like the fact that it slightly smoothes out film grain compared to the dedicated scanners that seem to pronounce it.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Simple. If someone shoots a really fine grain film like Pan-F or Tmax 100, a real film scanner still shows the grain. Will the Epson have enough resolution to do so? That's why you should test with a very fine grain film. Microfilm may be going too far, but you do need something finer grained than the slide the OP scanned.