Epson 3200 or the Epson 4870?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steve Orens
  • Start date Start date
S

Steve Orens

Greetings,

I am in the market for a film scanner. I have a collection of negatives and
35mm slides from my childhood that I would like to bring into the digital
age. I figure the material is between 20 and 30 years old.

I have received excellent advice from various friends and the odds-on
favorite is the Epson 3200. Searching around for this product has led me to
the conclusion that this product is being fazed out and replaced by the
Epson 4870. So, I did some further research and reading of reviews on the
Epson 4870. And now, I am left in a quandary as to which one would suit me
best.

I am a photography amateur (obviously) and will be learning about scanning
film and slides from the ground up. I am also using Macintosh computers with
Panther (OS 10.3.2).

Many reviewers of the 4870 who also owned a 3200 claim there was no
appreciable difference between the two. There are also some favorable
reviews by users who I am guessing don't or didn't own a 3200 previously.

Epson.com is offering a $100 rebate on the 3200 scanner. Epson.com is also
selling refurbished 3200 scanners for $299 with no shipping charge (no, you
can not use the rebate on a refurbished machine). Still, $299 for the
refurbished unit is a pretty good deal.

Amazon.com is selling the Epson 4870 for $439.99, no shipping and no tax.

For the reviews I have been reading, if I buy the 4870, the latest version
of VueScan is the best software, especially considering the newly added
infrared dust removal support. This would add another $70 bringing the total
to $510.

4870 owners: Are you happy with your purchase?
3200 owners who tried the 4870: If money didn't matter, would you keep the
4870?

Is dust removal only an option with the 4870? I didn't think the 3200 came
with Digital ICE. Does VueScan or SIlverfast have good options for dust
removal for the 3200?

Basically, I wanted to query folks for their opinion on this matter. I have
read the other threads related to this discussion and it seems entirely
focused on previous 3200 owners trying to upgrade to the 4870. I am looking
for what you would do if had neither or were faced with the decision of
buying one or the other today.

Thanks in advance,
steve
 
I am in the market for a film scanner. I have a collection of negatives and
35mm slides from my childhood that I would like to bring into the digital
age. I figure the material is between 20 and 30 years old.
Click to expand...

Though I have a 3200, since you indicated your intention of scanning
film, have you considered a dedicated film scanner such as from
Canon, Nikon, etc.?

Last year I borrowed a friend's Canon FS4000 and it did a great
job, especially with dust removal. The use of Vuescan helped as
well (once you get use to all the options).

J
 
JohnH said:
Though I have a 3200, since you indicated your intention of scanning
film, have you considered a dedicated film scanner such as from
Canon, Nikon, etc.?

Last year I borrowed a friend's Canon FS4000 and it did a great
job, especially with dust removal. The use of Vuescan helped as
well (once you get use to all the options).
Click to expand...

Actually, no. When I started the investigation, it was pointed out that I
could save a great deal of money buy using one of the better flatbed
scanners instead of a dedicated film scanner. I am not a professional
photographer. I have a finite amount of film/slides. Once I am finished with
them, the flatbed has appeal as document scanner.

I was under the impression that the dedicated film scanners were > $500. Is
this perception correct?

Thanks,
steve
 
From your post, it sounds like you are just going to do 35mm. If this is
the case, you should look at a dedicated film scanner.

ICE is a nice option IF it will work with your types of films. Since you
said you were going to be archiving images from your childhood, check to
make sure you film types are compatible with ICE. Kodachrome for instance,
is not.

For the price of a 4870, you can buy a Minolta Dual Scan IV (or III on
closeout) dedicated film scanner and a decent flatbed for print scanning.
These Minoltas don't have ICE but if your films won't work with ICE anyway,
you wouldn't miss it.

Doug
 
Actually, no. When I started the investigation, it was pointed out that I
could save a great deal of money buy using one of the better flatbed
scanners instead of a dedicated film scanner. I am not a professional
photographer. I have a finite amount of film/slides. Once I am finished with
them, the flatbed has appeal as document scanner.

I was under the impression that the dedicated film scanners were > $500. Is
this perception correct?
Click to expand...


It is correct if you're looking to buy a new, current
model branded by Nikon, Minolta, Canon, et. al.

Pacific Image sells several variations of their
PrimeFilm scanners, new, at well under $500.
The PrimeFilm 1800 is $189 at Adorama or
Amazon.

My suggestion would be eBay for a 2700 dpi
film scanner, eg. LS-2000, LS-30, SprintScan
Plus, Canon FS2710, etc. You can probably
get the SprintScan Plus for under $100. I paid
nearly $1400 for mine, new.

Decent flatbed scanners cost next to nothing,
and IMO it's a mistake to choose a scanner on
the "dual functionality" idea.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Steve said:
Greetings,

I am in the market for a film scanner. I have a collection of negatives and
35mm slides from my childhood that I would like to bring into the digital
age. I figure the material is between 20 and 30 years old.

I have received excellent advice from various friends and the odds-on
favorite is the Epson 3200. Searching around for this product has led me to
the conclusion that this product is being fazed out and replaced by the
Epson 4870. So, I did some further research and reading of reviews on the
Epson 4870. And now, I am left in a quandary as to which one would suit me
best.
Click to expand...

If you are going to be doing 35 mm exclusively, as a satisfied Epson
3200 owner, I would recommend that you get a dedicated film scanner
instead. The Minolta Dual series scanners (III or perhaps now IV)
sell for less than the Epson scanners and are well thought of by those
that have them. If you can afford a bit more, you can get an even better
scanner for under $1000.

I use my Epson 3200 for medium and large format, and for that it does a
great job, particularly considering the price. Reports about the 4870
are conflicting. Some have said it does a lot better than the 3200 and
others have claimed it doesn't even deliver as much effective resolution
as the earlier 2450. The improvement going from the 2450 to the 3200
was at best 10 percent, and I would be surprised if the 4870 surpasses
that over the 3200. From my experience, I would definitely say that
results from the 3200 for 35 mm are going to be disappointing if you
have exacting standards. Depending on what you intend to do with the
scans, you may find it adequate, but for a lesser price, you would
probably get better results from one of the Minolta film scanners. If
you feel you also need a flatbed scanner for documents and prints, you
can buy a perfectly adequate 1200 ppi (or higher) scanner for about the
difference in price.
 
Steve said:
Actually, no. When I started the investigation, it was pointed out that I
could save a great deal of money buy using one of the better flatbed
scanners instead of a dedicated film scanner. I am not a professional
photographer. I have a finite amount of film/slides. Once I am finished with
them, the flatbed has appeal as document scanner.

I was under the impression that the dedicated film scanners were > $500. Is
this perception correct?
Click to expand...

The Minoltas cost about $300, and you may be able to get a discontinued
model for less. As I noted separately, you can probably get both one
of these film scanners and a flatbed scanner adequate for documents and
prints for the price of one Epson scanner, certainly for less than $500.
 
Steve Orens said:
Many reviewers of the 4870 who also owned a 3200 claim there was no
appreciable difference between the two.
Click to expand...

There isn't even an appreciable difference between the 4870 and the old
2450. Had them both on my desk, side by side. Returned the 4870.

Ralf
 
- said:
From your post, it sounds like you are just going to do 35mm. If this is
the case, you should look at a dedicated film scanner.

ICE is a nice option IF it will work with your types of films. Since you
said you were going to be archiving images from your childhood, check to
make sure you film types are compatible with ICE. Kodachrome for instance,
is not.

For the price of a 4870, you can buy a Minolta Dual Scan IV (or III on
closeout) dedicated film scanner and a decent flatbed for print scanning.
These Minoltas don't have ICE but if your films won't work with ICE anyway,
you wouldn't miss it.

Doug
Click to expand...

It seems to me that the BIG reason for buying the 4870 is *hardware*
dust removal. I am in a similar position to the OP - I have a load of
very old and dusty negs and slides that I want to scan, not necessarily
at very high resolution but to avoid ultimate complete loss.

I really don't know which way to go:

(1) My time is valuable, so if ICE saves me a modest amount of it then
the extra money for the 4870 is well worth it. And the old stuff is on a
variety of films over at least three decades so I guess that most will
work with ICE.

(2) On the other hand I also want to digitize new film and maybe I
should get a Minolta DS IV for maximum quality with film straight back
from the lab.

(3) But if the 2450 is nearly as good then why pay GBP200 extra?

You say "ICE is nice", but how much is it worth? If film is dusty,
rather than scratched, will I get just as good scans with a blower brush
or a can of air for a few seconds work?

I'd be grateful for any insight - I'm still confused!

Mark Atherton
 
Raphael Bustin said:
It is correct if you're looking to buy a new, current
model branded by Nikon, Minolta, Canon, et. al.

Pacific Image sells several variations of their
PrimeFilm scanners, new, at well under $500.
The PrimeFilm 1800 is $189 at Adorama or
Amazon.

My suggestion would be eBay for a 2700 dpi
film scanner, eg. LS-2000, LS-30, SprintScan
Plus, Canon FS2710, etc. You can probably
get the SprintScan Plus for under $100. I paid
nearly $1400 for mine, new.
Click to expand...

The problem with this option is that most (all?) of those types of scanners
available on eBay are using SCSI connections. I have not had a computer that
uses SCSI since 1999. Are there any good used models that are recommended
that have a USB or FireWire connection? Any that have been proven reliable
when working with Mac OS X?

I see that new versions of the Nikon scanners are USB and FireWire but they
are listing for $569.99 and greater on amazon.com.

The CanoScan FS2720U seems like a possible good match. Canon's documentation
claims it works with Mac OS 9. Anyone out there using this scanner with Mac
OS X (with VueScan)?
Decent flatbed scanners cost next to nothing,
and IMO it's a mistake to choose a scanner on
the "dual functionality" idea.
Click to expand...

Possibly not.

steve
 
I have both scanners sitting on my desk as I write.
I have been able to scan negatives with the 4870 which I could never quite
get right with the 3200. The 3200 is sadly lacking in the areas or colour
correction and dust control. I believe the God awful 'Sivlerfast' software
works OK with a Mac but I never got any joy from it - ever, under Windows.

Vuescan works pretty well under Windows. Presumably it does under Mac OS too
but it too has some 'issues' with colour management that does not quite
equal the automatic settings from Epson's new driver for the 4870.
Definitely Firewire is the only connection I would use on the 4870 although
I had no problems with USB and the 3200.

If the cost is no concern, why would you buy an obsolete scanner? The 4870
is at the forefront of flatbed film scanning technology. You can set the
Epson interface to scan 24 individual frames (if your PC has enough RAM) and
go on with something else. When it's finished, just do whatever you do to
clean up a scanned picture and it's done. Great stuff!
You don't need the Pro version of Vuescan either, if that is the way you go.
Personally I'd try what comes with the scanner first.

I only bought vuescan because I had trouble getting the scanner up and
running on my PC. It turned out to be a PC problem which I fixed with a BIOS
upgrade and new power supply. I will have to change the motherboard because
the one I have is not the best but for now, it is working well enough.

Douglas
----------------
 
You made a mistake Ralf. If you'd have made the effort to get the 4870 up to
speed, you would have seen a very big difference.

Douglas
 
Douglas MacDonald said:
You made a mistake Ralf. If you'd have made the effort to get the 4870 up to
speed, you would have seen a very big difference.
Click to expand...

Sure, Douglas. How stupid of me.

Ralf
 
I agree. A film scanner with Digital Ice does not have to cost you an
arm and a leg. Since you indicate your are not a professional (how
many of us are) you should consider a used model from Ebay.
I have the Epson 3200 and I use it for scanning medium format film. I
then bought a used Minolta Scan Elite F-2900 for $180. That included
shipping and a scsi card. It has a fixed focus (I don't find that a
problem) and it has Digital Ice. The Digital Ice is amazing and I
consider it a must!

Good luck.
 
If the cost is no concern, why would you buy an obsolete scanner? The 4870
is at the forefront of flatbed film scanning technology.
Click to expand...


Not to burst your bubble, but that statement isn't
remotely true. The 4870 is a masterpiece of
marketing, and one might even say it's a great
value but it is by no means at the forefront of
any kind of technology, except the low-cost kind.

Flatbeds "at the forefront of technology" would
include for example the Creo/Scitex Eversmart,
IQSmart, etc, which sell *preowned* for five or ten
thousand dollars or more and will make film scans
far superior this newest Epson.

Or taking it down a notch, perhaps the Umax
Powerlook 3000, Fuji FineScan 5000, etc.

For that matter, my ArtixScan 2500 will beat
the Epson, I'm sure, for real resolution. I'm
quite willing to post comparative scans if
you are. Please see

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis

for examples of such scan samples and
basic "ground rules" for comparison.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
 
The problem with this option is that most (all?) of those types of scanners
available on eBay are using SCSI connections. I have not had a computer that
uses SCSI since 1999. Are there any good used models that are recommended
that have a USB or FireWire connection? Any that have been proven reliable
when working with Mac OS X?
Click to expand...


There's nothing wrong with SCSI. A useable
SCSI card for a PC (PCI bus) will most likely
come with the scanner and if it doesn't will
set you back around $20 max.

IMO, that's not a good reason to favor one
scanner over another.

Firewire (IEEE 1394) is a relatively new
development in scanners, so it's not likely
to be found on those three-year-old models.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
 
There's nothing wrong with SCSI. A useable
SCSI card for a PC (PCI bus) will most likely
come with the scanner and if it doesn't will
set you back around $20 max.

IMO, that's not a good reason to favor one
scanner over another.

Firewire (IEEE 1394) is a relatively new
development in scanners, so it's not likely
to be found on those three-year-old models.
Click to expand...

It is not an admonishment, it is just impractical. i have all laptop models
with no possibility of putting in a standard SCSI card. my current laptop
doesn't even have a PCI slot so I can not even use a PCI-SCSI adapter.

thanks for the info,
steve
 
It is not an admonishment, it is just impractical. i have all laptop models
with no possibility of putting in a standard SCSI card. my current laptop
doesn't even have a PCI slot so I can not even use a PCI-SCSI adapter.

thanks for the info,
steve
Click to expand...


These are constraints that I normally give
no thought to. It had not occurred to me that
you might be running a film scanner from
a laptop.

For a minute there, I thought your priority
was the best possible image quality from
35 mm film at a reasonable cost.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Actually, no. When I started the investigation, it was pointed out that I
could save a great deal of money buy using one of the better flatbed
scanners instead of a dedicated film scanner. I am not a professional
photographer. I have a finite amount of film/slides. Once I am finished with
them, the flatbed has appeal as document scanner.

I was under the impression that the dedicated film scanners were > $500. Is
this perception correct?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you may be in a similar situation as I am. I'm scanning hundreds
of old family prints (up to 90 years) and would like a decent scans for
archive but not going to spend a lot of time with corrections to make
them perfect. I have some negatives to scan, but not too many.

Some things to consider:
Is scanning at 3200 dpi going to be enough resolution for your scans?
i.e. what do you plan on doing with the scans (print, web, archive, ...)
How picky are you with dust/scratches which may require an ICE.

J
 
It is not an admonishment, it is just impractical. i have all laptop models
with no possibility of putting in a standard SCSI card. my current laptop
doesn't even have a PCI slot so I can not even use a PCI-SCSI adapter.

thanks for the info,
steve
Click to expand...

You can run SCSI PCMCIA card. They're fairly inexpensive on eBay also.

Mac
 
Back
Top