Epson V750 vs Nikon 9000 sample scans

[sojournerphoto]

All,

I've just uploaded some sample scans from my Epson V750 and Nikon 9000 to 4shared. There are a couple of 35mm sample frames of Rollei 80S and a 6 by 7 frame of Tmax 100 (Nikon only). All have been inverted, leveled and sharpened in order to give a sense of what a print file might look like - no dodge or burn on these at this stage.

The links can be accessed from my post on Open Photography Forum if you want to download yourself.

Mike

 

[Keith]

Well ... I downloaded the two files and as much as I like my Epson V700 it sure doesn't cut it with 24x36 compared to the Nikon!

That's quite depressing because I can't afford a Nikon and even if I could I'd be concerned about future servicing ... and while the Epson is pretty good with medium format, MF has limitations!

May as well go all digital!

 

[pauld111]

It would be interesting to see the Epson V750 versus the Nikon 9000 using medium format film.

 

[dfoo]

I'm not surprised. For 35mm the 5000ED is quite a bit better than the V700 too.

 

[AusDLK]

It is generally understood that "flatbed scanner + 35mm" = "pretty crappy" particularly when compared to a dedicated film scanner.

 

[Keith]

It is generally understood that "flatbed scanner + 35mm" = "pretty crappy" particularly when compared to a dedicated film scanner.

I think 'pretty crappy' is a little harsh ... for what it costs the Epson does a reasonable job within it's design limitations. I've got quite a few 8x10 prints scanned from 135mm with my V700 and printed with my R2400 hanging on the wall at my girlfriend's place. You do have to sharpen the 35mm scans from the V700 to the point where they look wrong on your monitor before printing though!

The Nikon 9000 is a sh!tload of money here in Oz ... the V700 is a fifth of the price ... you get what you pay for I guess!

None of this makes me feel any better after seeing those scans though! 😛

 

[Bob Michaels]

It would be interesting to see the Epson V750 versus the Nikon 9000 using medium format film.

I have a Minolta MultiPro (at least as good as a 9000). I have two friends with Epson 700's. I shoot 6x7, one of them also shoots 6x7, the other 6x4.5. We all shoot b&w. I have seen a lot of their prints over the years.

My conclusion: My prints are slightly better from a technical standpoint but not by much. Both of theirs are certainly good enough. We are all exhibited but my two friends at a higher level than I am. If you would look at prints from all 3 of us, you would only conclude that both David and Rick are better photographers than Bob. Not that Bob's prints are a bit sharper. So there is no question in my mind that you can get by with an Epson 700 / 750 if you shooting medium format. Of course 35mm is a different story.

 

[dfoo]

I guess it depends on how big you print. If you look at a 2400 DPI medium format image from a V700 at 100% its isn't very sharp at all. If you reduce to 1200 and then sharpen it up it looks quite good (although the fine detail still isn't superb).

 

[Bob Michaels]

I think 'pretty crappy' is a little harsh ... for what it costs the Epson does a reasonable job within it's design limitations. I've got quite a few 8x10 prints scanned from 135mm with my V700 and printed with my R2400 hanging on the wall at my girlfriend's place. You do have to sharpen the 35mm scans from the V700 to the point where they look wrong on your monitor before printing though!

The Nikon 9000 is a sh!tload of money here in Oz ... the V700 is a fifth of the price ... you get what you pay for I guess!

None of this makes me feel any better after seeing those scans though! 😛

Keith: the only advantage to the 9000 is that is scans MF film. Otherwise buy an equivalent 35mm film scanner for less than half the price and get the same output.

The price of a 35mm film scanner and lens is in the same ballpark. Which one do you think has the biggest impact on prints of your photos?

 

[Keith]

Bob ... I've read that the Minolta is right up there in quality with the Nikon for 35mm but Minoltas never seem to come up much here in Oz. I nearly bought one from the US a while ago but was worried it wouldn't survive the trip ... apparently the voltage difference is no big deal to work around.

I agree that a decent dedicated 35mm scanner would be an asset and leave the MF up to the Epson.

One thing that is really noticable in the two sample scans the OP provided is the sharpness of the grain in the Nikon output.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Bob ... I've read that the Minolta is right up there in quality with the Nikon for 35mm but Minoltas never seem to come up much here in Oz. I nearly bought one from the US a while ago but was worried it wouldn't survive the trip ... apparently the voltage difference is no big deal to work around.

I agree that a decent dedicated 35mm scanner would be an asset and leave the MF up to the Epson.

One thing that is really noticable in the two sample scans the OP provided is the sharpness of the grain in the Nikon output.

Keith: while I am a proponent of real film scanners for 35mm, I still think it is important to view the results by looking at prints, not magnified pixels on the screen. And nobody really cares what you do for sharpening so long as the prints look good. There is also the technical concept of "good enough".

Now this may sound odd at first from someone who owns a real MF film scanner, but I am also realistic. You mentioned prints hanging on your girlfriends wall from files scanned on an Epson 700 that you were happy with. You may already be at that "good enough" point.

 

[sojournerphoto]

A couple of thoiughts from the OP:

- The scans were provided to allow an OPF member to decide if he could get sufficient quality for his needs from a falt bed scanner. He wishes to rpint 35mm to 18 by 12 inches. The only way to tell is to print a copy of the files at your preferred size and see what differences there are in print. These are often much less than appears on the screen at 100%.

- The comparison of epson vs Nikon for MF gives exactly the same result, but with bigger files. Both scanners scan 35mm and MF at the same quality. Referring back to the test above, I have printed 20 by 16 inch prints from 6 by 7 MF scans and there is precious little difference between the epson and the Nikon at that (approx 7*) magniification. Of course, bigger magnification makes the differences more obvious and smaller prints (i.e. 35mm) are subject to more detailed scrutiny.

- The epson doesn't resolve grain in Tmax 100 or Rollei 80S, the Nikon does… just about. If you habitually shoot fast film like TriX or HP5 then the grain is more easily resolved and then the scanners fair more equally at the image resolution level, but may look more different due to grain rendition. Again, needs a new set of tests.

- FWIW, I think the epson does remarkably well given the very large difference in cost between the two devices. There was no intent here to create equipment dissatisfaction (sorry Keith) or to knock the epson.

Mike

 

[pauld111]

I have a Minolta MultiPro (at least as good as a 9000). I have two friends with Epson 700's. I shoot 6x7, one of them also shoots 6x7, the other 6x4.5. We all shoot b&w. I have seen a lot of their prints over the years.

My conclusion: My prints are slightly better from a technical standpoint but not by much. Both of theirs are certainly good enough. We are all exhibited but my two friends at a higher level than I am. If you would look at prints from all 3 of us, you would only conclude that both David and Rick are better photographers than Bob. Not that Bob's prints are a bit sharper. So there is no question in my mind that you can get by with an Epson 700 / 750 if you shooting medium format. Of course 35mm is a different story.

Thanks for addressing this issue, I have an Epson V750 for medium format and always wondered about the Nikon / Minolta MultiPro versus the Epson.

 

[literiter]

I have a CS 9000. A friend has the V700. When I compare scans, at the level I work at I see no difference with 2 1/4 scans. I can see a difference with 35mm scans at equal resolution but not enough to get really excited about.

Depending on what output you expect for 35mm and 2 1/4 I think it would be fair to say the CS9000 has an advantage, but the V700 I feel is far more versatile in that it will scan larger negs and printed matter. Scans of 2 1/4 negs seem to me to be almost identical.

I only shoot 35mm and 2 1/4 or I'd consider the V700 as well.

 

[Stuart John]

Heres a reasonable scan from 35mm TriX with a V500. With some sharpening the flatbed files the results can be quite good.

 

[LeicaFoReVer]

I use V300 and it is enough for my needs. I am not printing huge prints...