A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Digital Darkroom > Scanning>Scanners>Film > Plustek 7400 vs Epson v500

Featured Equipment Deals

Missing Pages: Depth of Field Read More

Missing Pages: Depth of Field

Jon Sienckiewicz offers a juiced-up User Guide for creative people via his "Missing Pages" column on Photo.net. This month covers the topic of Depth of Field.

Latest Equipment Articles

4 Outdoor & Adventure Photo Packs Read More

4 Outdoor & Adventure Photo Packs

Photo packs have come a long way in the past decade, especially those that are targeted toward outdoor and adventure photographers. Alaska-based adventure photographer Dan Bailey takes a closer look...

Latest Learning Articles

25 Autumn Scenery Photos Read More

25 Autumn Scenery Photos

Fall is upon us yet again and to celebrate this colorful season, here are 25 scenes of autumn captured by photo.net members.


Plustek 7400 vs Epson v500

Guy Mor , Jan 01, 2012; 01:26 a.m.

So, I need a scanner mainly for slides and negatives, but also for photos.
That's why I wanted to get the Epson v500.
But then I realized I could get the Plustek Opticfilm 7400 for a similar price.
From what I see, the Plustek is supposed to be a professional, dedicated film/negative scanner.
So, what do you guys think - the Plustek is better, right?

Responses


    1   |   2   |   3     Next    Last

peter carter , Jan 01, 2012; 08:55 a.m.

The plustek is *not* a professional scanner. It will do a better job at 35mm film than the v500.

The plustek you mention does not have infra red ability (unless you left out an 'i' by mistake), so no ice for you. This may be enough of a point to choose the v500. If you are in the monochrome market ice does not work, the the Plustek is the one for you.

I have the 4490 (pre-v500), Plustek 7200i, epson v700. before the v700, I used the 4490 for my 120mm film and the 7200i for my 35mm. It took a bit of convincing to stop using the 7200i over the v700. My work with slides (really dense film) made the v700 win me over. I now have more desk space... ;)

Michael Howard , Jan 01, 2012; 08:56 a.m.

In a word, maybe. I could never get good results out of the 7400 I owned, especially with B&W and color slides. I get much better results with my lowly Epson 3170. It may only be because I know it so much better, know how to set it up and get decent results. I am getting ready to buy the V600, though, because of the LED light and it's a bit faster. The V500 is a good machine, there are many photographers who get excellent results from it.

I think it really depends on what you plan to use it for. I can print 8x10s and the occasional 11x14 with decent scans I get on the 3170, if the negative was good. I also scan 6x6, it gives nice results with that as well. If I were using it for commercial use, though, I would save my money and get a Nikon, or perhaps the new Pacific Image Primefilm 120.

Guy Mor , Jan 01, 2012; 09:34 a.m.

So you guys are saying that the Plustek, which is a dedicated film scanner.. is not as good as the v500, which isn't?
I think I might be able to afford the 7600i or whatever it's called - would that make a difference?
Lastly, should I get the v500 or the v600?

peter carter , Jan 01, 2012; 09:55 a.m.

The plustek is far superior in 35mm scans. I will also say it also works much better under vuescan than silverfast, but that is just my take.

Alan Klein , Jan 01, 2012; 01:22 p.m.

The V600 allows you to scan three medium format 6x7 at one time vs. one for the V500. They both scan the same quantity of 35mm. Also, the V600 does ICE on prints and film while the V500 only does it on film. If you have any beat up prints that might be a buying point too. Also, the V600 is the later model. Whether Epson resolved any design issues left over from the V500, I don't know. But it's possible that the product is made better because of that. I own and use the V600 so there might be some prejudice in the slant of my comments :)

Alan Klein , Jan 01, 2012; 01:24 p.m.

Also, I can't speak for the Plustek but the V600 is so-so for 35mm and better for medium format. You can check my Flickr to see both type scan for comparisons.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/sets

Starvy Goodfellows , Jan 01, 2012; 01:52 p.m.

I had the lower version of Plustek for a short time and it produced better results for 35mm than the replacement Epson 4490. If you don't do MF work and don't intend to start any time soon, personally I would use the Plustek some consideration.

Michael Howard , Jan 01, 2012; 04:24 p.m.

You guys must have figured out how to use the Plustek, then, because I could never get good results with it, especially B&W. I used Vuescan, too, because the Silverfast did not work for me. Here's an idea, Guy, buy the Plustek and scan with it for a month. If you don't like it, sell it on Ebay, I ended up selling it for only $10 less than I paid for it.

Peter, I am surprised you can get FAR better results vs. the Epson V500. Care to share some secrets on how? Seriously, I was ready to throw the 7400 out the window.

Guy Mor , Jan 01, 2012; 08:43 p.m.

I'm hearing mixed comments now..
Alan, those 35mm scans are ridden with noise. Are the Epson scanners really that bad?
I stumbled onto this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dna-shots/5953694744/

Does anyone concur?


    1   |   2   |   3     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses