Should I replace my microtek 1800f or buy epson

I've had an Epson 3200 which has continued to function for many years. At some point I expect to replace it with a 4990 in hopes of achieving slighly better resolution, but I'm in no hurry to do so. You might also try the Yahoo Epson user forums which might give you a better sampling of user experiences. But, I don't remember seeing too many complaints of either Microtek or Epson scanners failing. If you were completely happy with the Microtek except for your recent experience, you probably shouldn't switch just because of your recent bad experience. I wouldn't consider the 1680 for your purposes. Its main advantage is the capability of scanning larger transparencies, which you don't need. It can also focus, I believe, but that extra advantage is probably not worth the difference in price.

Leonard, don't upgrade your 3200 to a 4990 in hopes of better output -- you won't see it. I had a 3200 and now use a 4990 and the scans are indistinguishable, regardless of the marketing hype. Upgrade to the 4990 if you need the larger transparency scanning area. Otherwise, stick with the 3200.

Sanders McNew

I use a 4990 to scan my 10x8 color negatives, and I am not really happy with it. The scans are great for online and small prints, but I recently did some 22x26 prints on an Epson 9800, and I was less than satisfied with the results. And this is not a huge stretch for 10x8. The scans had more color noise than I would like, and also were not very sharp. With really careful sharpening and toning, decent prints can be made from the printer, but I would give one a try if you can before buying one. I've heard better things about the microtek, but have never tried one. When I get a bigger apartment with more space, I plan to shop around for an old drum scanner.

Well I can't speak for the 1800f. I was longing for one for about two years but could not bring myself to part with the cash. I bought the 4990 earlier this month and am pleased with it.

The conclusion I came to was that athough there are probably some differences between the ccd (flatbed) scanners on the market, the differences are small (or at least inconsistent from one source to another) and if I really need the better quality, I will pay for the drum scan.

I will say that so far I have only used the 4990 for web images from 8x10 chromes so I have not really stretched it very far in the resolution department with large prints. (Although a few tests show very good results. (Subjective, not side by side I'll admit.)) I am thrilled with the creative control (scanning) I get compared to none when sending my 8x10 chromes out for a drum scan. (And a lot less $!) For many of my images, I don't need the dmax of the drum scanner so I suspect I will be happy when I get to large prints.

I also purchased, but have not yet used, a wet mounting kit for the 4990. Some sources report that a significant part of the difference between flat bed and drum scans is due to the wet mounting. I'll find out. In any case I suspect that this difference is bigger than any you will find among the current breed of flat bed scanners.

I have noticed some noise--particularly in very dense areas. But I find this goes away with the Silverfast software averaging tool. Noah have you tried this feature yet?

Finally, wrt sharpness. With the 4990 and 8x10, you have a problem because the film curl assures that the film is not always positioned at the optimal point of focus. That's the second reason for the wet mounting kit. Maybe Noah can tell us... How are you keeping the film flat and in the right spot? I suspect that wet mounting will keep the film flat and allow me to position it correctly. (Again, I'll find out.) BTW, This might be less of an issue with 4x5 since the holder will flatten the film and supposedly positions film at the right point.

Hope this helps.

"I also purchased, but have not yet used, a wet mounting kit for the 4990."

Could you tell us where you got it and how much it cost? Quite a few LF photographers have the 4990 so I think many of us here would be very interested in hearing of your experience after using the wet mount with the 4990.

I bought the wetmounting kit from Julio Fernandez at Scanmax. JULIO FERNANDEZ [scanmax@sympatico.ca]

Julio is the moderator of the Yahoo WETMOUNTING user group. He was very helpful in offering advice. http://groups.yahoo.com/search?query=wetmounting

As far as film flatness, I made a custom film holder from black plastic. I find that it holds the film relatively flat, and a bit above the glass, which seems to be sharper than when you put the film directly on the glass.

Before I made the holder, I was having lots and lots of newton ring problems, and the scans were even less sharp. Of course for 5x4 or MF, you can use the epson holders, which work fine.

I've considered the wet-mount kit, but I'm not convinced that it's worth the hassle for proof or web prints. But if you want to get every bit of quality out of the scanner, I'm sure it would help.

I have the Microtek 1800f and an Epson 4870, a slightly earier version of the scanner you mention. I've had the 1800 for about three years and use it weekly, sometimes daily - it hasn't let me down so far... touch wood!

As for quality, the 1800f has, at least in my experience, been superior in general use. The Epson's images are noisier and exhibit more chromatic aberation, though this might not be noticable unless you were to print big - 16x20 and up. It also fails to dig out so much shadow detail, a crucial fault in my opinion.

However, the Epson produces slightly sharper scans, though those of the 1800f respond very well to sharpening post scan, and my 1800f struggles to hold detail in VERY bright highlight areas. This is the only criticism of it I have and only really becomes an issue when I've goofed on the original exposure so that the detail is right on the edge anyway - it's rarely a big deal and, for me, the 1800f's ability to retain more detail in dark areas is far preferable.

I prefer the 1800f's trays too and I don't really know why I keep the Epson - just haven't got around to selling it yet!

Another small but related point. Yesterday I had the chance to view some work done by a friend using the top of the range Canon DSLR and compare the images to those I'd shot on 5x4 and scanned with my 1800f. Out in the field I'd been blown away by the Canon and especially its ease of use. Know what? On the screen the tables were turned and it was my scans that held more detail, had a more creamy tonal range, better corner resolution and freedom from CA. I guess I should have expected Large Format to triumph but with all the digital hype its easy to doubt the old ways of doing things.

Net result? I'm keeping with my existing equipment, 1800f and all.

Hope this is helpful.

Malc

Thanks to all who took the time to respond. Especially to Malcom Farrow who directly addressed my concerns. I believe I will replace the Microtek with another 1800f and hope for the best.

Mike