| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
montecarlo
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 1865
Location: Romania
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 8:42 pm Post subject: Epson vs. Canon |
 |
|
montecarlo wrote:
Unfortunately my and my brother would like to buy and share a scanner for scanning films but the money would be enough gfor about a V200 Epson or a Canon 4400F.
Now, has anyone experience with on of these scanners? I know, they don't have the quality of a V700, a 4990 or a dedicated film scanner but also I spent already too much on scanning films over past two years (I could buy a V200 at least). Or a link or if one have an acquaintance who could send me some full resolution samples. The two important things to me would be the dynamic range and the details to be good.
Thank you very much, everybody.
_________________
Canonet QL17 III
Zenit E , Helios-44 58mm f:2.0 , Tair-11A 135mm f:2.8, Jupiter-9 85mm f:2.0,
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm f:2.4
Pentax MX, ME Super, Chinon CE4/CM4, Petri MC 28mm f:2, smc Pentax-M 50mm f:1.7, Soligor T 135mm f:2.8
Minolta X500, Tokina 28/2.8, Rokkor 50/1.7, 80-205/4.5
Nikon D90, Nikkor 35/2.0, Nikkor 50/1.8, Sigma 24/2.8, Nikkor 18-105 VR |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lulalake
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 1191
Location: Near Austin Texas
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lulalake wrote:
Are you going to scan 35mm, Medium format, or both, and what is the final use of the scans, web presentation, prints or ???
(It helps to know what you are going to do with the scans) 
Jules |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
montecarlo
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 1865
Location: Romania
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
montecarlo wrote:
| lulalake wrote: |
Are you going to scan 35mm, Medium format, or both, and what is the final use of the scans, web presentation, prints or ???
(It helps to know what you are going to do with the scans)
Jules |
It is for 35mm (I think those two scanners can not scan medium format) and the scans would be used for both (from the ~40 films I've done I printed none and the resolution resulted from the lab was 3000 x 2000, so 6Mpx) but mostly for the internet posting.
_________________
Canonet QL17 III
Zenit E , Helios-44 58mm f:2.0 , Tair-11A 135mm f:2.8, Jupiter-9 85mm f:2.0,
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm f:2.4
Pentax MX, ME Super, Chinon CE4/CM4, Petri MC 28mm f:2, smc Pentax-M 50mm f:1.7, Soligor T 135mm f:2.8
Minolta X500, Tokina 28/2.8, Rokkor 50/1.7, 80-205/4.5
Nikon D90, Nikkor 35/2.0, Nikkor 50/1.8, Sigma 24/2.8, Nikkor 18-105 VR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
montecarlo
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 1865
Location: Romania
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
montecarlo wrote:
I've just did a veru quick research and noted some data about "Optical density". Is this the dynamic range ?
Epson v200 is 3.2 http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&infoType=Specs&oid=63070037&category=Products
and the same has V300 and V350.
Canon 4400F has Dmax of 3.3 http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Scanners/Flatbed_with_Film_Scanning/canoscan_4400f/index.asp?specs=1 which is the same as the film dedicate Plustek Optic Film series http://www.plustek.com/oeu/product/film_compare.asp (the cheaper ones 7200/i http://www.plustek.com/oeu/product/7200i.asp ).
Saw that the 4490 Epson (which is out of my reach - financially) has Dmax 3.4 http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&infoType=Specs&oid=53540925&category=Products
Now, how big are these differences ? I noticed that the V700 has Dmax 4.0 and a big price.
A comparison on this kind of scale http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/common/stepexample.gif would be more convincing.
Thanks.
_________________
Canonet QL17 III
Zenit E , Helios-44 58mm f:2.0 , Tair-11A 135mm f:2.8, Jupiter-9 85mm f:2.0,
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm f:2.4
Pentax MX, ME Super, Chinon CE4/CM4, Petri MC 28mm f:2, smc Pentax-M 50mm f:1.7, Soligor T 135mm f:2.8
Minolta X500, Tokina 28/2.8, Rokkor 50/1.7, 80-205/4.5
Nikon D90, Nikkor 35/2.0, Nikkor 50/1.8, Sigma 24/2.8, Nikkor 18-105 VR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 10472
Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
I found a post for a very good scanner but it is in Romanian and I cannot understand everything
Good scanner
_________________
T* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
montecarlo
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 1865
Location: Romania
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
montecarlo wrote:
| poilu wrote: |
I found a post for a very good scanner but it is in Romanian and I cannot understand everything
Good scanner |
That post is more about film resolution. I found this post , on another Romanian forum http://fototarget.ro/forum/showpost.php?p=179996&postcount=24 with a scan from a Canon 4400F (image and a 100% crop).
What do you think about it ?
My problem is that I can not compare results from different cheap scanners (V200, 4400F, or even 8800F from Canon) and more if there is visible differenced between scanners like V200, 4400F, 8800F, and 4490 . The price of the first two are at half of the last two.
_________________
Canonet QL17 III
Zenit E , Helios-44 58mm f:2.0 , Tair-11A 135mm f:2.8, Jupiter-9 85mm f:2.0,
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm f:2.4
Pentax MX, ME Super, Chinon CE4/CM4, Petri MC 28mm f:2, smc Pentax-M 50mm f:1.7, Soligor T 135mm f:2.8
Minolta X500, Tokina 28/2.8, Rokkor 50/1.7, 80-205/4.5
Nikon D90, Nikkor 35/2.0, Nikkor 50/1.8, Sigma 24/2.8, Nikkor 18-105 VR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
naplam
Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 469
Location: Spain
Expire: 2013-11-30
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
naplam wrote:
Manufacturers lie both in Dmax and resolution. Unfortunately, you won't know the thruth unless you try them. Usually they state "theoretical" Dmax corresponding to a certain number of bits and for resolution they usually state the combined pixel count for all three colors (3 times more than the real reslution). Also focusing and so on isn't perfect so resolution suffers still a bit more. The V700 Dmax 4 is total bullshit for instance, only very expensive dedicated film scanners have such a high dmax.
See here for example http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV700Photo.html
| Quote: |
| Regarding the density range of the Epson Perfection V700 Photo, which is indicated as 4,0 , one must say that it doesn't reach the high-quality film scanners either. Where these still yield information from very dark picture areas, everything is black with the V700, and very bright picture areas are booming out quickly. The results are however better than with most other flatbed scanners |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tonymp
Joined: 22 Sep 2008
Posts: 87
Location: East Yorkshire UK
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:28 pm Post subject: Re: Epson vs. Canon |
|
|
tonymp wrote:
| montecarlo wrote: |
Unfortunately my and my brother would like to buy and share a scanner for scanning films but the money would be enough gfor about a V200 Epson or a Canon 4400F.
Now, has anyone experience with on of these scanners? I know, they don't have the quality of a V700, a 4990 or a dedicated film scanner but also I spent already too much on scanning films over past two years (I could buy a V200 at least). Or a link or if one have an acquaintance who could send me some full resolution samples. The two important things to me would be the dynamic range and the details to be good.
Thank you very much, everybody. |
Hi,
I have an Epson 4990 and it's a fine scanner for neg film - it's very decent indeed with 35mm for a flatbed but, is even better with MF & LF.
If you're unsure about the quality of one of the cheaper new ones then try them out as that is the only way you will be able to tell whether it's up to what you want or, it's worth considering maybe such as a 4990 secondhand. That should give you decent quality and I'd hardly think a secondhand 4990 (if you can find one of course) should not cost more than a new lower spec model and I'd be surprised if they came up to the standard of a 4990.
Here's a forum link I've posted as a simple example of the results from a 4990 - (Canon A1 + 35-70 + Fuji Reala). It wasn't even scanned at it's max resolution. It's worth a thought as I'd personally prefer to choose higher quality s/hand equipment over new but less highly specced.
http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-a1-and-the-humble-fd-35-70-first-post-t10887.html
Regards...
Tony
_________________
www.le-femme.co.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laurence
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 4809
Location: Western Washington State
Expire: 2016-06-19
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Laurence wrote:
If just going for 35mm, you might want to consider a dedicated scanner, such as the Plustek 7200 or similar? Price is about $150-$175 these days, and I think it will give better results than a flatbed scanner.
_________________
Assent, and you are sane;
Demur,—you ’re straightway dangerous,
And handled with a chain.
Emily Dickinson
Cameras and Lenses in Use:
Yashica Mat 124 w/ Yashinon 80/3.5,
CV Apo-Lanthar 90/3.5SL, (Thank you Klaus),
Pentax 645,
Flek 50,
Pentax-A 150
Pentax-A 120 Macro
Voigtlander Vitomatic I w/Color Skopar 50/2.8
Konica TC and zoom lenses (thanks Carsten)
Contax AX
Yashica ML 50/2
Yashica ML 35/2.8
Carl Zeiss Contax 50/1.4
Tamron Adaptall SP 17/3.5
Tamron Adaptall 28/2.5
Tamron Adaptall SP 300/2.8 LD (IF)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
montecarlo
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 1865
Location: Romania
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
montecarlo wrote:
Thank you everyone.
Well, I think it will be the Plustek 7200 if we want more quality or the Canon 4400 if we'll only use it to post photos on the net (and print the photos directly from the negative).
_________________
Canonet QL17 III
Zenit E , Helios-44 58mm f:2.0 , Tair-11A 135mm f:2.8, Jupiter-9 85mm f:2.0,
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm f:2.4
Pentax MX, ME Super, Chinon CE4/CM4, Petri MC 28mm f:2, smc Pentax-M 50mm f:1.7, Soligor T 135mm f:2.8
Minolta X500, Tokina 28/2.8, Rokkor 50/1.7, 80-205/4.5
Nikon D90, Nikkor 35/2.0, Nikkor 50/1.8, Sigma 24/2.8, Nikkor 18-105 VR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lulalake
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 1191
Location: Near Austin Texas
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lulalake wrote:
| montecarlo wrote: |
Thank you everyone.
Well, I think it will be the Plustek 7200 if we want more quality or the Canon 4400 if we'll only use it to post photos on the net (and print the photos directly from the negative). |
I think that the dedicated 35mm is the best way for 35mm film. I used to use a Minolta Dimage scan Dual III, (Very inexpensive) and was very happy with the quality as compared with the best flatbed around at the time. It was much better.
Jules |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Katastrofo
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 10405
Location: USA
Expire: 2013-11-19
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Katastrofo wrote:
Cosmin, get an Epson! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
naplam
Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 469
Location: Spain
Expire: 2013-11-30
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
naplam wrote:
Another option would be the Reflecta CrystalScan 7200:
http://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaCrystalScan7200.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nesster
Joined: 24 Apr 2008
Posts: 5883
Location: NJ, USA
Expire: 2014-02-20
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nesster wrote:
on the dmax, here's somewhat independent marketing material:
http://www.silverfast.com/highlights/multi-exposure/en.html
some ways down there's a comparison of four scanners.
VueScan also has a similar two/multi pass mode, I notice it does extend my 4490's shadow details a bit.
_________________
-Jussi
Camera photos
Print Photographica
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
montecarlo
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 1865
Location: Romania
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
montecarlo wrote:
Thank you. Those scanning softwares in fact makes that a frame is scanned more times at , les't say, different eposure values and than makes a HDR like file bringing more details from the shadows/highlights. I understand it well ?
_________________
Canonet QL17 III
Zenit E , Helios-44 58mm f:2.0 , Tair-11A 135mm f:2.8, Jupiter-9 85mm f:2.0,
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm f:2.4
Pentax MX, ME Super, Chinon CE4/CM4, Petri MC 28mm f:2, smc Pentax-M 50mm f:1.7, Soligor T 135mm f:2.8
Minolta X500, Tokina 28/2.8, Rokkor 50/1.7, 80-205/4.5
Nikon D90, Nikkor 35/2.0, Nikkor 50/1.8, Sigma 24/2.8, Nikkor 18-105 VR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 10472
Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
I have a Canon scanner super fast with very high dmax
it is better than flat and slide scanner
it can make multi pass to obtain higher dmax
push here for samples of a film scanned in 8 min
_________________
T* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
montecarlo
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 1865
Location: Romania
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
montecarlo wrote:
It is with your "scanning" equipment ? I mean, that made form a bellowes and a lens. Am I right ?
I was thinking to buy a zoom slide copier (Ohnar, Jessops, etc.) but having a crop camera I would catch only the center of the frame 
Thanks.
_________________
Canonet QL17 III
Zenit E , Helios-44 58mm f:2.0 , Tair-11A 135mm f:2.8, Jupiter-9 85mm f:2.0,
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm f:2.4
Pentax MX, ME Super, Chinon CE4/CM4, Petri MC 28mm f:2, smc Pentax-M 50mm f:1.7, Soligor T 135mm f:2.8
Minolta X500, Tokina 28/2.8, Rokkor 50/1.7, 80-205/4.5
Nikon D90, Nikkor 35/2.0, Nikkor 50/1.8, Sigma 24/2.8, Nikkor 18-105 VR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 10472
Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
| Cosmin wrote: |
| I was thinking to buy a zoom slide copier (Ohnar, Jessops, etc.) but having a crop camera I would catch only the center of the frame |
a slide copier will probably catch only the center except if it is adjustable
with a bellow you can adjust to get the whole frame
a dedicated scanner is a easy choice, you don't need to adjust anything
but if you have a lot to scan, the bellow is faster
I have added samples without pushed contrast
_________________
T* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
montecarlo
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 1865
Location: Romania
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
montecarlo wrote:
Thanks. Well, for the first I'll try the bellows or the duplicator. Here http://forum.mflenses.com/scanning-a-slide-with-5d-t10668,start,45.html#89989 Orio says that he managed to open the box of the duplicator. I like in the case of the duplicator that it has a mechanism to catch/hold the film and / or the slides.
I saw in one of your posts that you use in fat two bellows and a flash. Unfortunately I have no flash light (except the one on the camera). Is it necessary ?
Thanks again.
_________________
Canonet QL17 III
Zenit E , Helios-44 58mm f:2.0 , Tair-11A 135mm f:2.8, Jupiter-9 85mm f:2.0,
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm f:2.4
Pentax MX, ME Super, Chinon CE4/CM4, Petri MC 28mm f:2, smc Pentax-M 50mm f:1.7, Soligor T 135mm f:2.8
Minolta X500, Tokina 28/2.8, Rokkor 50/1.7, 80-205/4.5
Nikon D90, Nikkor 35/2.0, Nikkor 50/1.8, Sigma 24/2.8, Nikkor 18-105 VR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 57865
Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Perhaps a cold light source (energy saving bulb also fine)
_________________
-------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
montecarlo
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 1865
Location: Romania
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
montecarlo wrote:
I've just found two links ragarding the inversion of the colour negative image to a positive one
http://www.tedfelix.com/Photography/ColorNegative.html
and
http://old.macedition.com/feat/film/feat_film_20030626.php
_________________
Canonet QL17 III
Zenit E , Helios-44 58mm f:2.0 , Tair-11A 135mm f:2.8, Jupiter-9 85mm f:2.0,
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm f:2.4
Pentax MX, ME Super, Chinon CE4/CM4, Petri MC 28mm f:2, smc Pentax-M 50mm f:1.7, Soligor T 135mm f:2.8
Minolta X500, Tokina 28/2.8, Rokkor 50/1.7, 80-205/4.5
Nikon D90, Nikkor 35/2.0, Nikkor 50/1.8, Sigma 24/2.8, Nikkor 18-105 VR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
montecarlo
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 1865
Location: Romania
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
montecarlo wrote:
Well, I think we'll go for a Epson V200 in the end and will split cost with my brother.
If we'll have more money and more results from photography we'll go after a more expensive film scanner. Until then I think this one will do the job.
Thank you again everybody.
_________________
Canonet QL17 III
Zenit E , Helios-44 58mm f:2.0 , Tair-11A 135mm f:2.8, Jupiter-9 85mm f:2.0,
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm f:2.4
Pentax MX, ME Super, Chinon CE4/CM4, Petri MC 28mm f:2, smc Pentax-M 50mm f:1.7, Soligor T 135mm f:2.8
Minolta X500, Tokina 28/2.8, Rokkor 50/1.7, 80-205/4.5
Nikon D90, Nikkor 35/2.0, Nikkor 50/1.8, Sigma 24/2.8, Nikkor 18-105 VR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
