V500 vs V700 for MF

[sanmich]

I wonder:

I have spent the big bucks on a coolscan for 35mm.
Now I would like a decent scanner for MF only.

Is the V500 far from the V700 in terms of image quality?
Is there something else, maybe cheaper?
I don't need the extra quality, sincce I believe only wet print will extract somthing really nice from MF negs. I just need a decent way to edit and share my pictures.

Thanks

 

[wayneb]

I have a v500 - if you go to my flickr tags and click yashicamat, mamiya645 or fujiga645, all of these photos are MF camera shots scanned with the v500.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bremser/tags/

My review is, for the price, it's a 'no brainer'. It's great for online and smaller prints. Sometimes I consider upgrading if only because you spend a lot of time scanning, why not do it only once.

It's easiest scanning b/w film. Next is probably kodachrome, the colors that come off represent the slides fairly well. After that other slide films which come off a bit blue and with more contrast than I would like. C41 film has always come off this scanner with major issues, if you aren't good at color correcting in photoshop, it might be a hassle. I'm not sure if it is my scanner or my settings, but that's my experience.

 

[sevo]

Haven't had the V500 or V700, but there was no visible difference between the 4490 and 4990, and the same should go for the V500/700.

 

[Gerry M]

This is a 6X9 image scanned at 1200 dpi. on my V500. As usual, much is lost in compression. It was very suitable for print at about 7X10. I had an Epson 4490 and I think the V500 is a bit sharper. Maybe the change in light source helped. Also, this image was made with an Agfa Record III/ Solinar. Since sold on this forum. My mistake!

Gerry

 

[wayneb]

Very nice Gerry 🙂 Agree with you about losing a level of detail, but in this photo, just from the screen resolution, I can tell from the details in the bridge in the distance that it was probably MF not 35mm.

 

[sanmich]

Good shot Gerry
Thanks all for the answers.
Since Sevo mentioned the 4490...
what about it vs V500? (again for MF only, and for B&W)?

 

[Gerry M]

Very nice Gerry 🙂 Agree with you about losing a level of detail, but in this photo, just from the screen resolution, I can tell from the details in the bridge in the distance that it was probably MF not 35mm.

Yes, it is an image from a 6X9 camera.
gm

 

[Gerry M]

Good shot Gerry
Thanks all for the answers.
Since Sevo mentioned the 4490...
what about it vs V500? (again for MF only, and for B&W)?

I think the only difference (aside from changing the color) is the change from florescent to LED for a light source. They may have tweaked the software, but not sure about that. Until just the last couple of days, I only scanned MF, both b&w and color. I will post a 35mm scan (my first attempt). You can see that it is not as sharp as the MF scan, but I think that is to be expected. One thing is for sure, I am only a beginner at this scanning business.
gm

 

[wray]

I've owned both and honestly the V500 scanned medium format as well as my V700. In fact, the LED light source on the 500 warmed up quicker and will probably outlast that of the 700!

 

[Cron]

you asked if there is a cheaper way and I say yes - Canon 8800F;
take a look in my flickR - Bronica RF, you will see the quality in color, eg "white dressed" and my latest b/w "Stadtrundfahrt" which is cropped to about half size