brbo
Well-known
So you can actually see noticeable difference in the v850 vs. v700 side-by-side comparison I linked above?
My take from that test is that either lenses are (a)coated (as are in scanners that are much much cheaper) in both Epson PRO and non-PRO series or (b)coatings don't make a difference.
I'm betting on (a).
bluesun267
Well-known
I have the Epson V500, which is sufficient for web viewing. I use it basically as a digital proof sheet to help decide what I would like to print in the darkroom.
I recently ordered a Canoscan 9000F MkII and found it worse (lower resolution and less dynamic range) than the V500 for 35mm. 120 was fine. However it stopped working after 1 day (wouldn't scan above 2400dpi) and it had trapped dust under the glass. I sent it back and got a refund.
I recently obtained an EOS-M (m4/3rds camera) and am using it as a "scanner" on a mini-enlarger with the light source removed (camera in its place pointing down to neg. over light box) with a Schneider enlarging lens. The bellows allows for fine focusing on the negative. I put the negative in a regular negative carrier to keep it flat.
I have to say this method is an absolute revelation in terms of detail. Seeing every grain of the film stock, with sharpness across the full frame. Much less highlight blow-out too. I utilize the camera's auto exposure, and then use Preview on the macbook to reverse, crop and make minimal adjustments.
This is of course more time-consuming than a scanner, but really the bees knees for utmost quality in my opinion. Also, I've found it to be much less finicky in terms of dust compared to the flatbed.
I recently ordered a Canoscan 9000F MkII and found it worse (lower resolution and less dynamic range) than the V500 for 35mm. 120 was fine. However it stopped working after 1 day (wouldn't scan above 2400dpi) and it had trapped dust under the glass. I sent it back and got a refund.
I recently obtained an EOS-M (m4/3rds camera) and am using it as a "scanner" on a mini-enlarger with the light source removed (camera in its place pointing down to neg. over light box) with a Schneider enlarging lens. The bellows allows for fine focusing on the negative. I put the negative in a regular negative carrier to keep it flat.
I have to say this method is an absolute revelation in terms of detail. Seeing every grain of the film stock, with sharpness across the full frame. Much less highlight blow-out too. I utilize the camera's auto exposure, and then use Preview on the macbook to reverse, crop and make minimal adjustments.
This is of course more time-consuming than a scanner, but really the bees knees for utmost quality in my opinion. Also, I've found it to be much less finicky in terms of dust compared to the flatbed.
Dwig
Well-known
It's my understanding that the lenses on both the v700 and v750 were both coated and that it was the flat glass panel that was coated only on the v750. The other difference was the v750 had provision for wet scanning and shipped with full versions of the software.
brbo
Well-known
The "high pass optics" label was passed around by Epson as one of the differences between V700Photo and V750Pro. Same as now with 8XX series. Wherever those high pass optics reside, no reviewer has yet managed to show meaningful differences. I guess we'll just have to believe Epson.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
I hate to say this because of the expected blowback, but yes, I can see a difference. Whether it makes a practical difference to anyone, that’s another story. And thanks for the helpful link.
Disregarding the sharpened scans which just introduces another variable, looking at both the dry scans and the fluid mount scans, there is greater color saturation and greater contrast in the V850 scans. The difference in these two aspects between the two scanners, with the dry mount scans is extremely minor, but it seems to be there, if only barely. His wet mount examples, though, show fairly obvious superiority of the V850 over the V700 in terms of more color saturation and greater contrast. Look at them again without preconceptions, and see if you might not agree. Might not, that’s okay, but I certainly see it in the wet mount examples.
I don’t see any difference, in his results at least, between the two scanners in terms of resolution, but given the identical resolution specs, I would not expect any.
Making the assumption, and it is nothing more than an assumption, that the coating situation on the lenses on both these scanners is the same ignores the fact that Epson clearly states they are not the same, with the V850 coatings being better somehow. Whether this means better coatings or coating as opposed to no coating they don’t say, and we don’t actually know at this point. Or, maybe they are lying as they do about the resolution. I don’t know, but looking at the scans in the test you provided, those look like better results consistent with coating differences. To me.
Will just get the V850 and not worry about it. When considering the nth degree improvement, better to have it and not to need it, than to need it and not to have it. Others who don’t see any difference, or believe identical final results can be achieved by just cranking up contrast and saturation in post are likely to be happier with spending less money, which is great.
Thanks for the link, seriously.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Thank you for this bit of information (V500 vs Canonscan 9000F). I happen to have a V500. Its OK for some cursory scanning tasks, but falls short of my needs for actual "good scans". I use it for medium format only. I was recently considering an opportunity to get a Canonscan 9000F thinking it might be an improvement over the V500. Apparently not. I kind of didn't expect it though.
I'm also glad you mentioned the digital camera method of scanning. I got a Leica BEOON that pairs well with my EL Nikkor 50/2.8 and M9/M240 for scanning 35mm negatives. It is better than my Minolta Scan Dual IV, but I still use the Minolta frequently. I haven't tried scanning MF with the BEOON, and I'm not sure if it would work very well. Most of my MF is 6x6 square negs (and rarely 6x9).
OP may want to keep the digital camera method in mind as a part of his/her scanning repertoir. I can envision how it would fit nicely with a flatbed for flexible capacity.
Bill Clark
Veteran
Just my 2 cents....
For me, my way of thinking,
If I want digital I make the photo with a digital camera. Even the smart phone and tablet computers do a good job.
When I use film, it stays film. I still have an analig darkroom but it’s used much less now. I only use black and white film as color is 100% digital capture and process.
I found scanning is time consuming. I have only 24 hours to each of my days. My choice, thought I would share with you.
For me, my way of thinking,
If I want digital I make the photo with a digital camera. Even the smart phone and tablet computers do a good job.
When I use film, it stays film. I still have an analig darkroom but it’s used much less now. I only use black and white film as color is 100% digital capture and process.
I found scanning is time consuming. I have only 24 hours to each of my days. My choice, thought I would share with you.
gnuyork
Well-known
Each to their own. Smart phones and tablets don't even come close to cutting it for me. I want high quality scans of my film shots, and the ability to make high quality prints digitally. I don't mind scanning. I usually set up a batch and go do something else.
brbo
Well-known
Makes sense. To you and to me, too.
Probably not to the OP, though. If you are used to Frontier/Noritsu look of the scans you get from the lab (and you like the look), the small difference (if there is any) between V800 and V850 will be the last thing you will notice or worry about.