Little Difference between Epson 4870 and Dedicated 35mm Scan Scanners

  • Thread starter Thread starter wazzad
  • Start date Start date
W

wazzad

G'day. I have around 1000 35mm slides to scan. My local camera store stated
that for the price difference between the Epson Perfection 4870 Flatbed
scanner and dedicated 35mm scanners, such as, the Nikon Coolscan V and
minolta Dimage 5400, there was not much difference in scan quality,
certainly not enough to justify the extra layout of cash.

Any opinions, advice re: this would be much appreciated?

Cheers.

Ron
 
wazzad said:
G'day. I have around 1000 35mm slides to scan. My local camera store
stated
that for the price difference between the Epson Perfection 4870 Flatbed
scanner and dedicated 35mm scanners, such as, the Nikon Coolscan V and
minolta Dimage 5400, there was not much difference in scan quality,
certainly not enough to justify the extra layout of cash.

Any opinions, advice re: this would be much appreciated?

Cheers.

Ron
Click to expand...

I don't know about the EP 4870 flatbed - it is reported to be pretty
good. It depends on what quality scans you want, I suppose.
In a test
(http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2004/scanner_test_results.html)
the dedicated scanners were better than the flatbeds, if I interpret
the data correctly...

See also my response to the thread "Is dedicated film scanner FASTER
than flatbed scanner?"

I have been disappointed with my flatbed as 35mm scanner - for prints:
great!
Greetings, Alex
 
G'day. I have around 1000 35mm slides to scan. My local camera store stated
that for the price difference between the Epson Perfection 4870 Flatbed
scanner and dedicated 35mm scanners, such as, the Nikon Coolscan V and
minolta Dimage 5400, there was not much difference in scan quality,
certainly not enough to justify the extra layout of cash.

Any opinions, advice re: this would be much appreciated?
Click to expand...


The effective resolution of the 4870 is
somewhere in the neighborhood of 2000-2500 dpi.

You can get a new Minolta Dimage 5400 for
somewhere around $700, and it will blow away
the Epson in terms of resolution.

The Dimage 5400 is, at the moment, about the
sharpest 35mm CCD film scanner you can buy.
I suspect it will out-resolve most drum scanners
as well.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
 
G'day. I have around 1000 35mm slides to scan. My local camera store stated
that for the price difference between the Epson Perfection 4870 Flatbed
scanner and dedicated 35mm scanners, such as, the Nikon Coolscan V and
minolta Dimage 5400, there was not much difference in scan quality,
certainly not enough to justify the extra layout of cash.

Any opinions, advice re: this would be much appreciated?

Cheers.

Ron
Click to expand...
It depends entirely on how important the money difference is to you.
There will definitely be a (huge) quality difference, but if the money
is more important than the quality difference, then go with the
flatbed.

Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/
 
Charlie said:
It depends entirely on how important the money difference is to you.
There will definitely be a (huge) quality difference, but if the money
is more important than the quality difference, then go with the
flatbed.

Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/
Click to expand...


The Epson 4870 photo was discontinued, it was replaced with the Epson
4990 photo. Try this link for a review on the 4990:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson 4990/Page 1.htm

Here is another link to other scanner info:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/BB/index.php?sid=c4fb360fa8f0146925b7e820e1819159
 
there was not much difference in scan quality,
certainly not enough to justify the extra layout of cash.
Click to expand...

The unknown that we can't answer is how "justify" applies to you. If the
price difference isn't that big of a deal to you and your financial
situation, go for the dedicated film scanner. If you only plan to scan
35mm, I would wait and save up the cash if necessary.

Doug
 
The Epson 4870 photo was discontinued, it was replaced with the Epson
4990 photo. Try this link for a review on the 4990:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson 4990/Page 1.htm

Here is another link to other scanner info:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/BB/index.php?sid=c4fb360fa8f0146925b7e820e1819159
Click to expand...



FWIW, the 4870 will most likely
continue to be available in retail
outlets for some time.

From what I can tell, there's no
essential difference between the
4870 and 4990, at least not in
terms of resolution.

Roger Clark reports a software
fix which might or might not
affect typical users. (Relating
to hi-res scans, at 16 bits, of
4x5 transparencies.)


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Roger Clark reports a software
fix which might or might not
affect typical users. (Relating
to hi-res scans, at 16 bits, of
4x5 transparencies.)<<

Rafe - do you have a link for this?

Thanks,
Doug
 
fix which might or might not
affect typical users. (Relating
to hi-res scans, at 16 bits, of
4x5 transparencies.)<<

Rafe - do you have a link for this?

Thanks,
Doug
Click to expand...


Check the recent archives of the USENET
group rec.photo.equipment.large-format.

Specifically, with the 4870, Roger
was unable to scan an entire 4x5 at
full resolution and 16 bits. With
the 4990, this issue is fixed.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
 
G'day. I have around 1000 35mm slides to scan. My local camera store stated
that for the price difference between the Epson Perfection 4870 Flatbed
scanner and dedicated 35mm scanners, such as, the Nikon Coolscan V and
minolta Dimage 5400, there was not much difference in scan quality,
certainly not enough to justify the extra layout of cash.

Any opinions, advice re: this would be much appreciated?
Click to expand...
Go and find a different store to buy from - they obviously haven't got
a bloody clue. :)

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
 
wazzad <[email protected]> said:
G'day. I have around 1000 35mm slides to scan. My local camera store stated
that for the price difference between the Epson Perfection 4870 Flatbed
scanner and dedicated 35mm scanners, such as, the Nikon Coolscan V and
minolta Dimage 5400, there was not much difference in scan quality,
certainly not enough to justify the extra layout of cash.

Any opinions, advice re: this would be much appreciated?
Click to expand...
Ask how much profit they make on each Epson scanner compared to each
Nikon or Minolta they shift, because something other than scan quality
is influencing their advice. ;-)

If you want scans for the web or small prints then perhaps the Epson is
good enough, but if you want to scan for 24" wide prints or even larger
- yes 35mm does go up that far with acceptable results - then the
difference is very significant, good though the Epson is.
 
Hecate said:
Go and find a different store to buy from - they obviously haven't got
a bloody clue. :)
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be quite so harsh - they have probably discussed Ron's
requirements with him a little more than he has divulged here, and the
Epson is a damned good flatbed. Not in the same league as the scanners
they referenced it against for sheer performance, but if the performance
is good enough...

Of course, I always advise on buying for tomorrow's requirements, not
today's. ;-)

Few things are worse than that sinking realisation that the product you
bought yesterday because it met your requirements at the time won't do
today's job. Except the sickness you feel when the product that would
do today's job was cheaper! :-(
 
Thank you all very much for your valued contributions. I thought what he was
saying was a little odd re: little difference in resollution etc between the
epson 4870 and the Nikon V and Minolta Dimage 5400. The question now is
which is the better of the Nikon V or the Minolta Dimage 5400?

Cheers

Ron
 
Flatbed scanner technology is equaling dedicated desktop film scanners,
just as those scanners are catching up to, if not equaling, drum
scanners. I have an Epson 4870 scanner. I also have a Minolta Dimage
Scan Multi II dedicated desktop film scanner. I ran my own comparison
between the two & the 4870 produced better 8 x 10 prints from 35-mm
positives than the Minolta. The Minolta returned to its box. "Better"
means the resolution (sharpness) was better, and shadow detail was
better. Not just as good as, but better.

Maybe the Minolta 5400 is better than the Minolta ...Multi II. Your
salesperson was not kidding in what he told you. If all you want to do
is scan 35-mm film, then ok, go for the dedicated film scanners. But if
you want to scan anything else, as well, the 4870 will handle all you
give it.
 
Thank you all very much for your valued contributions. I thought what he was
saying was a little odd re: little difference in resollution etc between the
epson 4870 and the Nikon V and Minolta Dimage 5400. The question now is
which is the better of the Nikon V or the Minolta Dimage 5400?
Click to expand...
I've got a Dimage that I'm very happy with. Other people have Nikon's
that they'#re very happy with. In fact, when I bought the Dimage, it
was almost a coin toss. There were just one or two things that I
preferred. You really need to read the specs and make your own mind
up because people who have Nikon will tell you Nikon and people like
me will tell you Minolta ;-)

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
 
I've got a Dimage that I'm very happy with. Other people have Nikon's
that they'#re very happy with. In fact, when I bought the Dimage, it
was almost a coin toss. There were just one or two things that I
preferred. You really need to read the specs and make your own mind
up because people who have Nikon will tell you Nikon and people like
me will tell you Minolta ;-)
Click to expand...


Y'all know that I'm really fond of Nikon
scanners, but I've been *very* impressed by
the sharpness of some of the scans I've
seen from the Minolta 5400.

It's about the only CCD I know of that's
measurably sharper than the Nikons.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Hecate said:
I've got a Dimage that I'm very happy with. Other people have Nikon's
that they'#re very happy with. In fact, when I bought the Dimage, it
was almost a coin toss. There were just one or two things that I
preferred. You really need to read the specs and make your own mind
up because people who have Nikon will tell you Nikon and people like
me will tell you Minolta ;-)

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
Click to expand...

Hi.

Entirely True, but I think it has something to do with experience. Have the
Nikon users ever used any other Brand? I suspect not, simply because Nikon
were one of the first out of the box.

I have been using Nikon Cameras and lenses since the early 80s.

I had a semi permanent loan of a Nikon Scanner (Coolscan iv), but was not
exactly impressed with either the output or its way of working.

When it came time for me to buy my own machine, I went for the Minolta 5400,
and am very glad that I did. Since then I have had the opportunity to use
one of the newer Nikons, but was still unimpressed.

However I would never consider buying a Minolta Camera, but might have
changed to a Canon when going Digital, if I could have got the 20D at a
price I could have justified to "Her Indoors".

Roy G
 
Roy said:
Entirely True,
Click to expand...

Beg to differ on that conclusion - and cite the archives of this forum
in my defence! ;-)
but I think it has something to do with experience. Have the
Nikon users ever used any other Brand? I suspect not
Click to expand...

Another disagreement - I have used several film scanners. None,
admittedly, as regularly as the Nikons but I evaluated most of those
that were on the market each time I have upgraded - and have always
ended up with a Nikon so far. As I mentioned above though, I am on
record here as having stated that if the Minolta 5400 had been on the
market at the time I was last upgrading I would probably have gone for
that. As it was, there was nothing even close to the LS-4000 at the
time, so buying another Nikon was an easy choice to make.
 
However I would never consider buying a Minolta Camera, but might have
changed to a Canon when going Digital, if I could have got the 20D at a
price I could have justified to "Her Indoors".
Click to expand...
Me no buy Minolta either. I wouldn't mind a Pentax 67II though <g> My
35mm kit is Canon. :) I'm fairly agnostic about brands, but I do tend
to stick with the brand that does the job I want, and I think that's
true of most people. Hence, my comments :)

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
 
Beg to differ on that conclusion - and cite the archives of this forum
in my defence! ;-)


Another disagreement - I have used several film scanners. None,
admittedly, as regularly as the Nikons but I evaluated most of those
that were on the market each time I have upgraded - and have always
ended up with a Nikon so far. As I mentioned above though, I am on
record here as having stated that if the Minolta 5400 had been on the
market at the time I was last upgrading I would probably have gone for
that. As it was, there was nothing even close to the LS-4000 at the
time, so buying another Nikon was an easy choice to make.
Click to expand...

I can understand that. I was considering only Nikon before the 5400
came on the market. I still like the apparent warmth of Nikon camera
lenses even though I use Canon exclusively (but I wouldn't say no to
an FM3n <g>).

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
 
Back
Top