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/
|