I bought a V500 new for $147. I just need 35mm and 120, and I only post, never print. I'm perfectly happy with it for my purposes. If I shoot something than needs to be printed large, I'll take it to a lab to be scanned big and printed big.
All of these scanners are flawed from a technical perspective compared to scanning using a DSLR. I have a Epson V700 and even with the better scanning ANR glass the epson is easily beaten by my Nikon D7000 when i use it as a scanner. The gulf in quality is probably much greater if a D800 were to be used.
I bought a v500 a few years ago. It's OK not great. I scan mostly 35mm film with a bit of 120. I've made a few 8x10 prints from 35mm scans of trix negs. They are not as detailed as a tradition darkroom print but the ease of manipulation in software makes it worth it sometimes for smaller 5x7 inch prints.
Here is one from my Leica IIIa canned with v500.
Why has Epson seemed to have stopped flatbed scanner development. If they could of built on the v700/750 we might have had a really workable scanner by now
Why has Epson seemed to have stopped flatbed scanner development. If they could of built on the v700/750 we might have had a really workable scanner by now
just looked around the 2013 aio printers seem to have ceased film scanning capability at all in favor of: 1. disc printing 2. duplex. i supposed the additional they can't justify the cost on manufacturing/R&D.
Why has Epson seemed to have stopped flatbed scanner development. If they could of built on the v700/750 we might have had a really workable scanner by now
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.