From: Tony on
For a very good (hopefully excellent) film scanner and flatbed? I've read
the UK online and Shutterbug reviews, and it seems like once you use a
little careful USM and get the film the right distance from the sensor that
the V700 / V750 is almost as good as a Nikon L8000. If that's true it may be
quite good enough for most users.

But I've also been looking at the other contenders: the Microtek i900 and
(not yet available?) M1, the HP 8300, and the Canon 9900F. I think the Epson
has a higher optical resolution that most (if not all) of these, but I was
wondering if anyone had any experience with a couple or a few of these to
tell if the Epsons are the hands down winners.


From: Toni Nikkanen on
"Tony" <none(a)none.com> writes:

> For a very good (hopefully excellent) film scanner and flatbed? I've read
> the UK online and Shutterbug reviews, and it seems like once you use a
> little careful USM and get the film the right distance from the sensor that
> the V700 / V750 is almost as good as a Nikon L8000. If that's true it may be
> quite good enough for most users.

No it's not almost as good, but you'll be able to get very good
results anyway. I've used the V700 for a year and the Coolscan 8000
for a day and I've already blown myself out of my chair a couple times
re-scanning some slides.
(And I still haven't even tried the glass carrier yet, but probably
will in a few hours :))

However if you need to scan reflective or large format transparent
materials it's going to be hard to justify getting TWO huge scanners
on your desk, so the Epson might be the choice to make anyway..



From: Toni Nikkanen on

I'd like to add that I have no experience on the other scanner models
mentioned, except I don't think the Canoscan 9950F will be able to
beat the V700 in any respect, though the difference isn't likely huge.
From: Kinon O'Cann on

"Tony" <none(a)none.com> wrote in message
news:9pWdneJ9D6vJLJbanZ2dnUVZ_qWtnZ2d(a)comcast.com...
> For a very good (hopefully excellent) film scanner and flatbed? I've read
> the UK online and Shutterbug reviews, and it seems like once you use a
> little careful USM and get the film the right distance from the sensor
> that the V700 / V750 is almost as good as a Nikon L8000. If that's true it
> may be quite good enough for most users.
>
> But I've also been looking at the other contenders: the Microtek i900 and
> (not yet available?) M1, the HP 8300, and the Canon 9900F. I think the
> Epson has a higher optical resolution that most (if not all) of these, but
> I was wondering if anyone had any experience with a couple or a few of
> these to tell if the Epsons are the hands down winners.
>

No flatbed I've ever used can touch a Coolscan 8000. I use an Epson V750,
and while it is good, it's only about 60% of the Coolscan, at best.


From: Barry Watzman on
My experience with flatbeds for 35mm has not been good. I suspect that
even an old LS-2000 or LS-30 does a better job for 35mm negatives.
Optical resolution is definitely not the issue. An LS-30/2000 is only
2,700 dpi, but that translates into 10 megapixels and, in TIFF format
from the LS-2000, a 50 megabyte file. That's as much resolution or file
size as I would want, even if more were available.


Tony wrote:
> For a very good (hopefully excellent) film scanner and flatbed? I've read
> the UK online and Shutterbug reviews, and it seems like once you use a
> little careful USM and get the film the right distance from the sensor that
> the V700 / V750 is almost as good as a Nikon L8000. If that's true it may be
> quite good enough for most users.
>
> But I've also been looking at the other contenders: the Microtek i900 and
> (not yet available?) M1, the HP 8300, and the Canon 9900F. I think the Epson
> has a higher optical resolution that most (if not all) of these, but I was
> wondering if anyone had any experience with a couple or a few of these to
> tell if the Epsons are the hands down winners.
>
>