Digital BW, The Print

Does anyone have experience of either the CanoScan 9900f or the Epson 
3200?

I am planning to buy a new scanner and both of these fit the 
requirement (Flatbed+Film).  I have heard some negative comments about 
the Epson, not so much the actual result but that it didn't meet its 
spec. - the optical resolution seems to be lower than it says.

I have also considered the Microtek ArtixScan 1800f but this is MUCH 
more expensive and the spec doesn't quite seem to justify it (except 
for the Dmax figure of 4.8! - does anyone believe that is real?)

Any feedback would be welcome

Thanks,

Simon Whitehead
s.whitehead@...

I bought the 9900f and hated it. It was slow and the quality was really
poor. Specifically I got vertical streaking in smooth areas like skies.
You can see an example here:
http://download.petraflux.com/streaking.html

Full review here:
http://download.petraflux.com/

To be fair to the 9900 the streaking is present to a much smaller degree
on the 3200 as well, I believe this is a limitation of flatbed scanners
in general.

I returned it and got a 3200 instead, which I'm very happy with. The
3200 doesn't have dust removal, which was sort of nice on the 9900,
although not up to the quality of my FS4000US slide scanner.

The optical resolution of the 3200 is probably not much more than 1800.
This is also true for the 9900.

If you can afford to buy a dedicated slide scanner that takes medium
format you probably should. Even with lower dpi the quality will exceed
that of the 3200. 

I plan to scan the same pictures on the 3200 and do a comparison review
of the two on my web-site... When time allows...

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Whitehead [mailto:s.whitehead@...] 
> Sent: 13. mai 2003 12:07
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] CanoScan 9900f & Epson 3200
> 
> 
> Does anyone have experience of either the CanoScan 9900f or the Epson 
> 3200?
> 
> I am planning to buy a new scanner and both of these fit the 
> requirement (Flatbed+Film).  I have heard some negative 
> comments about 
> the Epson, not so much the actual result but that it didn't meet its 
> spec. - the optical resolution seems to be lower than it says.
> 
> I have also considered the Microtek ArtixScan 1800f but this is MUCH 
> more expensive and the spec doesn't quite seem to justify it (except 
> for the Dmax figure of 4.8! - does anyone believe that is real?)
> 
> Any feedback would be welcome
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Simon Whitehead
> s.whitehead@...
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
> ---------------------~--> Rent DVDs from home. Over 14,500 
> titles. Free Shipping & No Late Fees. Try Netflix for FREE! 
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/BVVfoB/hP.FAA/uetFAA> /ucIolB/TM
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------~->
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, 
> Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being 
> updated. The page is at:
> 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

>>Does anyone have experience of either the CanoScan 9900f or the Epson
3200?<<

There is a comparison review of the two at photo-i which you might want to
read.  You can find a link to this review and a number of other reviews for
the 2450/3200 in the "Links" area of the 2450/3200 user's group found at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/epson3200/.  While both are comparable
scanner's, from the feedback on the photo-i feedback forums it sounds like
the supplied Canon software really handicaps that scanner.  Additionally,
Vuescan does not support the 9900F and it sounds like it won't ever do so in
the future.

When you consider the price to performance equation (35mm, medium format,
large format AND a flatbed scanner), the 3200 is a great scanner.  With that
said, it isn't as good as a dedicated film scanner like the Nikon 4000 or
8000.  This is especially true with 35mm.  Read some of the reviews found at
the "links" section at the webpage listed above for examples.  If you just
shoot 35mm and are on a budget, I have heard very favorable comments about
the Minolta DualScan III which costs in the same range as the 3200.

Doug

In a message dated 5/13/2003 6:06:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
s.whitehead@... writes:

> I am planning to buy a new scanner and both of these fit the 
> requirement (Flatbed+Film).  I have heard some negative comments about 
> the Epson, not so much the actual result but that it didn't meet its 
> spec. - the optical resolution seems to be lower than it says.
> 

i have heard that the Epson produces better color
than the Canon, but i have not used them myself,
so cannot say for sure

dl


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]