Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Epson V600 vs Canon 8800F ???
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:00 pm    Post subject: Epson V600 vs Canon 8800F ??? Reply with quote

A Very Happy New Year to all..

I need to have my own scanner now since I shoot only film till now. Good scanning is getting frightfully expensive here and I have thousands of slides to get scanned from the past.

I have narrowed my search to these models due to the similar price range which fits my budget and most importantly both can scan 120 films.

I need to decide which one to buy. Looking for user comments on even small things which could prove to be a deciding factor. The main difference that I can see between the two is the max resolution where the V600 has an edge (6400 dpi vs 4800dpi). Is this important enough? (given my ignorance on the digital side of photgraphy, I need help seriously here)

All help is appreciated.

Thanks


PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have the same problem at the moment for 6x6 film.

Have a look at this side

http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV700Photo.html

He rated the Canon 8800F higher than th Epson V600, but he likes to sell the Canon with Silverfast !!

Wink


PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chances are, either the Epson V600 or the Canon 8800F will do a good job with medium format negatives or slides. But chances are just as likely that the job either one does with 35mm will be only acceptable.

Scanner manufacturers tout resolution numbers that are blatantly false. My Epson 4990 is rated at 4800 ppi, but its actual tested resolution is somewhere around 2000 ppi. The new Espon 700/750, which replaced the 4990, does a bit better -- about 2300 ppi. And I'll wager that the Canon delivers similar numbers.

If you have a lot of 35mm images you want to digitize, then I would recommend something beside a flatbed scanner. Good quality dedicated film scanners are not cheap, and tend to be in high demand on places like eBay. I've researched this topic quite a bit, and plan to buy one of the Plustek models that operates at a claimed 7200 ppi:

http://www.plustek.com/product/series.asp?s_id=4

Even if their output is really only half their claimed resolution, that will still be much better than what I'm getting with my Epson.

Another option is to rig up a slide/strip film duplicating rig to use with your DSLR. I've had quite a bit of experience using this sort of device too, and have gotten very good results. The best results I've gotten were using a 55mm Micro Nikkor with a short extension tube coupled to the duplicator tube of an Opteka slide duplicator. I further modified the tube so that it would accept the film stage from another old slide duplicator I own -- did this so I could duplicate mounted slides as well as film strips.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Michael,

do you have any experiences with a scanner for 6x6 film or slide ?

regards


PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey Rolf,

Yes, I have quite a bit of experience with using my Epson scanners with 6x6 film. They work great for 6x6 because the film frame is so large. I scan typically at 2400 ppi indicated. Here are some links to some of my medium format scans:

Yashica Mat 124 6x6
http://forum.mflenses.com/an-afternoon-at-the-duck-pond-yashica-mat-124-and-400tx-t23867.html

Yashica Mat 124 6x6
http://forum.mflenses.com/harleys-on-the-strand-yashica-mat-124-and-400tx-t23587.html

Yashica Mat 124G 6x6
http://forum.mflenses.com/yashica-mat-124g-fujichrome-100-t21745.html

Zeiss Super Ikonta BX 6x6
http://forum.mflenses.com/zeiss-super-ikonta-b-with-ektachrome-100-t23040.html

Bronica ETRSi 645
http://forum.mflenses.com/first-test-shots-bronica-etrsi-with-kodak-portra-160-t23760.html

Bronica EC-TL 6x6
http://forum.mflenses.com/bronica-ec-tl-fujichrome-100-t21746.html


PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Canon 8800F is heapest scanner ,just 210$ for scanning 135 and 120 film. If you use VueScan you can get better pic Wink
I have not used V600 but I know Epson 4490 can not scan 120 film, but its price is higher than 8800F.
Wink


PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 5:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tuananhmap wrote:
Canon 8800F is heapest scanner ,just 210$ for scanning 135 and 120 film. If you use VueScan you can get better pic Wink
I have not used V600 but I know Epson 4490 can not scan 120 film, but its price is higher than 8800F.
Wink


Not true. Both the Epson 4490 and the V600 will scan both 35mm and medium format film. And if you buy the V600 from Epson (USA) direct -- dunno about other locations -- it's $220. Not much of a price difference. And if you're willing to buy used, you can pick up an Epson 4870 or 4990 (which offer practically identical results) for less than $200 typically. And these two will not only scan 35mm and medium format, they'll scan 4x5 large format also.

VueScan may provide better color balance and/or contrast (which I consider debatable because I've used it with my Epsons), but it will not provide any better sharpness. That's a hardware issue. Also a big drawback to VueScan is that, if you're scanning a batch of images, there is no way -- at least no way I've found at least -- to optimize color/contrast/saturation, etc. settings for each image. You can do this with Epson Scan. I don't know about the Canon software.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agonised for ages over a Plustek or a flatbed. For my needs, the flatbed works fine and the film scanners were just too limiting.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

martinsmith99 wrote:
I agonised for ages over a Plustek or a flatbed. For my needs, the flatbed works fine and the film scanners were just too limiting.


For my needs, a flatbed works great with medium format, but it aggravates me that I can't get sharper scans of my 35mm slides and negs with a flatbed.

I think that one of the big reasons why film does often not compare well to digital is the difficulty involved in digitizing film. I mean, I can examine my slides with a loupe and see very fine detail, but when I scan the slides, the detail is lost. Even when I use a DSLR and a duplicator not all the detail is captured. This is very frustrating to me. So, I've accepted the fact that my scanner is useful for medium format and for lower resolution scans of my 35mm slides and negatives. My duplicating rig improves matters, but I'm still hoping to find something even better. I wish I could try-before-I-buy one of the Plustek models. I suppose if I do get one, I'll buy it from a place that allows for refunds without restocking charges, just in case I don't like it.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I still have a lot to learn about scanning, but I am quite happy using Canon 8800F.

I just posted a test-roll scan here: http://forum.mflenses.com/yashica-mat-testroll-t23863.html

Not bad I think, but still lots of room for improvement.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

***For my needs, a flatbed works great with medium format, but it aggravates me that I can't get sharper scans of my 35mm slides and negs with a flatbed. ****

Well this guy seems to get the best out of an Epson flatbed:-

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V750/page_1.htm

and esp:-
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V750/page_8.htm


PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Michael,

many thanks for your links. Sorry for my question - at the time I asked I had forgotten for a moment your fine images with the Bronica.

Many thanks to the other members providing links and information.

I think that I will look for a V700. I had a trial version of Silverfast to use it with my Nikon Coolscan 5000ED but for my taste this software has too much option, sliders etc.

I like it a little bit easier.

Wink


PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 7:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excalibur, yes, I've seen this review before. I don't entirely agree with his conclusions. On one page he shows scans of a single image at various resolutions, and I can see no appreciable difference between his 2400 ppi and 4800 ppi scans.

Recently I started a thread here about using a duplicator vs. a scanner:

http://forum.mflenses.com/slide-copying-scanner-vs-duplicator-t22881.html

I used a 10 mp DSLR to take the duplicate. Its maximum resolution image size is 3888x2592. APS-C, but the slide itself is 36mm x 24mm, so setting up a simple proportion shows that this DSLR is recording information in this case equivalent to 2743 ppi. [(2592 pixels/24 mm) x (25.4 mm/inch) = 2743 ppi] Not bad, but when I place the slide under high magnification, it quickly becomes apparent that there is even more detail to be had. I am doubtful at this point that any flatbed scanner will be able to record this fine detail.

Rolf, I think you will be very happy with the V700. It will do a very nice job with your medium format images.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
Excalibur, yes, I've seen this review before. I don't entirely agree with his conclusions. On one page he shows scans of a single image at various resolutions, and I can see no appreciable difference between his 2400 ppi and 4800 ppi scans.

Recently I started a thread here about using a duplicator vs. a scanner:

http://forum.mflenses.com/slide-copying-scanner-vs-duplicator-t22881.html

I used a 10 mp DSLR to take the duplicate. Its maximum resolution image size is 3888x2592. APS-C, but the slide itself is 36mm x 24mm, so setting up a simple proportion shows that this DSLR is recording information in this case equivalent to 2743 ppi. [(2592 pixels/24 mm) x (25.4 mm/inch) = 2743 ppi] Not bad, but when I place the slide under high magnification, it quickly becomes apparent that there is even more detail to be had. I am doubtful at this point that any flatbed scanner will be able to record this fine detail.




Well the guy did say the V750 was good for 3200 in his opinion and if he knew this why did he scan higher? But the subject of scanning is complicated to get the best out of scanner and different links suggest different methods. e.g. some say scan a neg as positive and then invert in Photoshop...doesn't work for me.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well I've gone and done it. I sold my lil' Canoscan 700f for $75 (not bad considering it is a year old and I bought it for $115) and bought a brand new v700 from B&H for $500. Can't wait to use it!

~Marc


PostPosted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

themoleman342 wrote:
Well I've gone and done it. I sold my lil' Canoscan 700f for $75 (not bad considering it is a year old and I bought it for $115) and bought a brand new v700 from B&H for $500. Can't wait to use it!

~Marc


Perhaps you can give a first short review when the scanner will arrive. Many thanks for your assistance in advance.

Wink


PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks to all the members for sharing their experiences. Apologize also for vanishing during the past couple of days Embarassed

Ok... so this is firmly established that flatbed scanners are not the best way for 35mm. For me my budget and availability is a deterrent for a dedicated film scanner.

Given this limitation of budget, availability and not to forget the option of 120 scanning, my choice would have to be around either the 8800F or the V500/600.

What is the maximum print size that is practically achievable with these scanned 35mm images from these particular scanners?

Betterscanning.com height adjustment holders seems to be available only for 120 format. Is it not true that the same can be applied for 35mm to get sharper scans (does this mean that one gets more details in the scan?)

Thanks


PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 6:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, Marc, since you will have a V700 at your disposal shortly, please if you would, do us a favor. Scan a well-focused slide at various resolutions and post the results here so we can see for ourselves.

The folks over at the Hybridphoto.com forum claim that the V700/750 has an actual resolution of about 2300 ppi.


Last edited by cooltouch on Mon Jan 11, 2010 6:22 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 6:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shiladitya wrote:

What is the maximum print size that is practically achievable with these scanned 35mm images from these particular scanners?

Betterscanning.com height adjustment holders seems to be available only for 120 format. Is it not true that the same can be applied for 35mm to get sharper scans (does this mean that one gets more details in the scan?)


I would say that you can certainly get acceptable scans from 35mm up to 11" x 14" in size. But any higher than that, you may begin to see some degradation. I have some 8" x 10" prints that I've made from 3200 ppi scans of my slides that I am very happy with. So I expect that I could also get nice looking 11" x 14" prints as well. But for sizes above this, I simply cannot say.

As for the BS holders, I would also think that what's good for 120 is equally as good (if not more so) for 35mm, but sadly BS does not offer adjustable height holders for 35mm.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can do that, no problem.