Chuck:
Thanks for those comments. Much appreciated. I don't want to spend the
$$$ for the V700/750, period, so that's not even considered.
The reviews, principally for the Epson units as the 9000F is only out a
couple of months, obviously concentrated on 35mm/MF film. The usual
observation was that for photos/paper, scanning resolution is less
important. I believe that all the consumer flatbeds lack focussing, so
effective film holders are key (and to hold film flat).
While I believe that high resolution for prints is overkill, I did do a
one-off photo scan a year or so ago of my parents on their wedding day
(B&W from 1947) on an ageing HP unit we had at work. It's clear from the
scan that the fine detail in the photo was not picked up in the scan.
The lack of detail/resolution/colour depth is quite evident in the
digital file, which spoils the picture a bit. So, I'm prepared to buy
something with good performance. If I do any old MF negs, then better
performance will be, well, better.
As for Silverfast, I'm not worried either. I fully expect to buy Vuescan
one of these days, especially if (when) I end up with a W7 machine. In
the meantime, I gather that the proprietary scanning software is
adequate, for what I'm likely to be doing in the immediate future.
I've just noticed that one of the local camera shops has $50 off the
Canon, which brings it down to $200 (ignoring taxes). That seems like a
mighty good deal. I'll probably drop in tomorrow and ask some questions.
Martin
Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Too bad Moose is off-line as I'm sure he'd join in here. Moose and I
> had a fair amount of discussion about flatbed scanners before we each
> bought one. The candidates had been whittled down to the Epson V700 or
> the Canon 9950F. He bought the 9950F and I had determined to do the
> same. However, I couldn't find one by the time I decided to buy. Just
> about that time I got an email offer from Epson to buy a refurbished
> V700 for $500 so that's what I did.
>
> There is probably no measurable difference in resolution between the
> two. I think the differences come down to scan time performance
> (especially FARE vs Digital ICE and their specific implementations),
> usability of the included film holders and perhaps other odds and ends.
> I don't know about other Epson scanners but the V700 had me concerned
> by it's inclusion of variable height setting spacers on the film holders
> to optimize focus. I don't know why but the V700 has a very shallow
> depth of field. I don't think that is also a Canon 9950F
> characteristic. That's the main reason I had chosen to go with the
> 9950F but actual usage of the V700 hasn't shown that to be a problem.
>
> But much of what I'm discussing here has to do with use of these
> scanners for 35mm film. But you have your Nikon to take care of that.
> If your use of the flatbed is primarily for old photos you can't use
> FARE or ICE. If your MF negs are B&W you can't use FARE or ICE there
> either. If you're scanning old photos practically any scanner can do a
> decent job. At best the print resolution is 300 dpi so a 600 dpi scan
> can capture all the detail in the print. Also, the dynamic range of
> prints is very low so even dynamic range of the scanner is not very
> important. But scanning your MF film will demand good dynamic range but
> again, the resolution requirements won't be as high as 35mm film.
>
> I have no specific information on the models you mention and haven't
> read any reviews. However, I think the actual scanning peformance is
> likely to be so similar from closely priced products that you'll be hard
> pressed to find a difference. If you have access to reviews pay lots of
> attention to usability factors, especially film holders, if they're easy
> to use or fiddly and also how many frames you can do at once.
>
> I give no credence whatsoever to inclusion of Silverfast in the box.
> Epson included Silverfast with the V700. Its interface is the most
> non-intuitive piece of software I can remember trying to use in many,
> many years. I've discarded it after only a brief trial. Epson scan is
> easy to use for simple stuff or well exposed images. VueScan is
> available for the tougher stuff. I can't comment about Canon's scanning
> software other than that Vincent Oliver's review of the Canon 9950F
> found the software's "Basic Mode" easy to use for a beginner but its
> "Advanced Mode" rather too basic for a high end device.
>
> Good luck. Let us know how it all works out.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> Martin Walters wrote:
>> I'm looking to get a flatbed scanner primarily for old photos, though I
>> might use it for occasional MF negs, and for odd documents (I have a
>> Coolscan V-ED for 35mm film).
>>
>> My choices are the Epson V500, V600 and Canon 9000F. In Ottawa the
>> prices are $215(V500) - 270(V600, Canon), ignoring specials, and all are
>> available.
>>
>> I can't see great differences in the specs (the Canon may have greater
>> theoretical resolution) and what comes in the respective boxes. Reviews
>> suggest that there's not much difference between them, and the native
>> scanning software is adequate.
>>
>> Grateful for any suggestions/preferences.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|