sper
Well-known
I have a V700, and as we all know it's fast, and great for larger formats. As we've discussed, at length, the V700 lacks with 35mm. It's just soft, and forget about chrome film. Can't handle it. My largest print size is 13X19. I used to have a Coolscan V and it was great, but I sold it when I was doing mostly 4x5 and 120mm for a while. But the Plusteks are cheap enough to be attractive and if I can get a good sharp scan from a chrome then for me it would be worth it.
I'd just like to see some 100% crops or some comparisons between the two models. I haven't found any straight image quality comparisons specifically between the two. The Luminous Landscape review is bad, too much technicality, as they often do.
So Plustek owners! Show me some detail!
I'd just like to see some 100% crops or some comparisons between the two models. I haven't found any straight image quality comparisons specifically between the two. The Luminous Landscape review is bad, too much technicality, as they often do.
So Plustek owners! Show me some detail!
sper
Well-known
Nobody? C'mon guys! Somebody must be a user.
jcrutcher
Veteran
I have one which I like. I shoot too many rolls to do all of my own scanning. I have the lab scan 8x12 300dpi tif files. Then if I have a shot I want to blow up or improve I'll use the 7600. I may scan 20 per month. Here is a velvia 50 with lots of colors, it was shot underdeveloped but with the 7600 I was able to draw enough detail and color for my taste. It takes me about 10 minutes per scan which limits me, I just don't have the time. I do like it however and glad I bought it.
[URL="http://
R3MV50-(2)-(CV4014)-4 by rootbeer2004, on Flickr
[URL="http://
R3MV50-(2)-(CV4014)-4 by rootbeer2004, on Flickr
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
To be honest I've seen nothing from the Plustek that convinces me it's siginificantly better with 35mm film than the Epson ... one example and a crop here from my V700.
af_
andrei
I've got the Plustek 7200 and later bought the Canon 8800F (flatbed) for medium format.
I have compared Tri-X400 (35mm) scans and the Plustek was slightly better when looking at 100% enlargement, but I could not see any difference when looking at the entire photo on a 24 inch monitor. But scanning color might be a different story.
I haven't used the Plustek since, because it's much more convenient to scan 12 frames in one go instead of moving the film holder for each frame in the Plustek (although the Plustek is much faster).
I have compared Tri-X400 (35mm) scans and the Plustek was slightly better when looking at 100% enlargement, but I could not see any difference when looking at the entire photo on a 24 inch monitor. But scanning color might be a different story.
I haven't used the Plustek since, because it's much more convenient to scan 12 frames in one go instead of moving the film holder for each frame in the Plustek (although the Plustek is much faster).
So Plustek owners! Show me some detail!
Sper, I tried the Plustek, then sold it and went to a V700 because manually advancing every frame with the Plustek was a hassle.
The Plustek resolves a tiny bit more detail but it also resolves more grain that equates to a harsher scans overall.
The V700 is smoother. Any difference I see is at 100% magnification and clearly pixel peeping. I dont think it matters in practice.
By the way I got sharper results with Silverfast than with Epson Scan. I dont know what software you are using with your V700. It does come with both programs.
Have you seen this thread?
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=89032
