Epson perfection 4870 vs 3200?

Hi.

I have had an Epson 3200 scanner for a year or so and find it very
good for medium format colour negs but rather poor for 35mm and not
comparable to a 3200 dpi film scanner. Estimates, by others, guess
that its top dpi resolution is limited to about 2200 dpi. partly due
to having to scan through glass and the lack of a focussed lens
system.

Have any of you had experience to report of the 3200 vs the latest
4870 scanner? Could I expect any visible improvement using the newer
model? Perhaps the same limitations apply?

Experienced advice welcome. TIA.

Tony.

In article <15sr90dghq84pdir27tl4m58ltv2ocg8pj@4ax.com>,
tony_brown@esatclear.ie says...
> Hi.
>
> I have had an Epson 3200 scanner for a year or so and find it very
> good for medium format colour negs but rather poor for 35mm and not
> comparable to a 3200 dpi film scanner. Estimates, by others, guess
> that its top dpi resolution is limited to about 2200 dpi. partly due
> to having to scan through glass and the lack of a focussed lens
> system.
>
> Have any of you had experience to report of the 3200 vs the latest
> 4870 scanner? Could I expect any visible improvement using the newer
> model? Perhaps the same limitations apply?
>
> Experienced advice welcome. TIA.
>
> Tony.
>
If you plan to use the 4870 for 35mm you won't find the change from
the 3200 worth the price. Buy a dedicated 35mm film scanner for that.
You can see my discussion of the 4870 and others in the tips section
on my web site.
--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail: robertdfeinman@netscape.net

Tony wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I have had an Epson 3200 scanner for a year or so and find it very
> good for medium format colour negs but rather poor for 35mm and not
> comparable to a 3200 dpi film scanner. Estimates, by others, guess
> that its top dpi resolution is limited to about 2200 dpi. partly due
> to having to scan through glass and the lack of a focussed lens
> system.
>
> Have any of you had experience to report of the 3200 vs the latest
> 4870 scanner? Could I expect any visible improvement using the newer
> model? Perhaps the same limitations apply?
>
> Experienced advice welcome. TIA.
>
> Tony.

Repoorts vary, but the evidence suggests the 4870 is at best 20 percent
better in resolving fine detail than the 3200. You would probably do
better for 35 mm with a dedicated film scanner. The Minolta SD IV will
probably do better at lower price.

On Sun, 09 May 2004 07:57:02 -0500, Leonard Evens
<len@math.northwestern.edu> wrote:

>Tony wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> I have had an Epson 3200 scanner for a year or so and find it very
>> good for medium format colour negs but rather poor for 35mm and not
>> comparable to a 3200 dpi film scanner. Estimates, by others, guess
>> that its top dpi resolution is limited to about 2200 dpi. partly due
>> to having to scan through glass and the lack of a focussed lens
>> system.
>>
>> Have any of you had experience to report of the 3200 vs the latest
>> 4870 scanner? Could I expect any visible improvement using the newer
>> model? Perhaps the same limitations apply?
>>
>> Experienced advice welcome. TIA.
>>
>> Tony.
>
>Repoorts vary, but the evidence suggests the 4870 is at best 20 percent
>better in resolving fine detail than the 3200. You would probably do
>better for 35 mm with a dedicated film scanner. The Minolta SD IV will
>probably do better at lower price.

Thanks to both posters for useful comments.

Tony.

On Sun, 09 May 2004 22:25:23 +0100, Tony <tony_brown@esatclear.ie>
wrote:
>
>Thanks to both posters for useful comments.
>
>Tony.

I switched from an Epson 2400 to a Minolta Scan Dual Scan IV and
noticed a significant increase in sharpness. But the sharpness also
brings out film defects that you would never have noticed on a flatbed
scanner. The Nikon Coolscan V ED has the digital ICE feature that
would be an advantage if you are scanning scratched or dusty film, but
it costs twice as much. So it depends on your budget and the condition
of your film. Good luck!

In article <kc8t90toj3m8b0bfsur43chnil3ubhdov2@4ax.com>, Tony
<tony_brown@esatclear.ie> wrote:

> On Sun, 09 May 2004 07:57:02 -0500, Leonard Evens
> <len@math.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>
> >Tony wrote:
> >> Hi.
> >>
> >> I have had an Epson 3200 scanner for a year or so and find it very
> >> good for medium format colour negs but rather poor for 35mm and not
> >> comparable to a 3200 dpi film scanner. Estimates, by others, guess
> >> that its top dpi resolution is limited to about 2200 dpi. partly due
> >> to having to scan through glass and the lack of a focussed lens
> >> system.
> >>
> >> Have any of you had experience to report of the 3200 vs the latest
> >> 4870 scanner? Could I expect any visible improvement using the newer
> >> model? Perhaps the same limitations apply?
> >>
> >> Experienced advice welcome. TIA.
> >>
> >> Tony.
> >
> >Repoorts vary, but the evidence suggests the 4870 is at best 20 percent
> >better in resolving fine detail than the 3200. You would probably do
> >better for 35 mm with a dedicated film scanner. The Minolta SD IV will
> >probably do better at lower price.
>
> Thanks to both posters for useful comments.

Between my Epson 4870 and my Minolta Multipro, I'd take the Epson.
It's not just the scanner; it's also the software. And the Minolta
seems to have a LOT of digital noise.

--Ron Bruck

Would you still recommend the purchase of the older Epson 2400? I'm
looking for a scanner, but would like to know if there is something
better out there now at around the same price range.

(I can get the 2400 for $130USD right now.)

Thanks,
Chad

me@nospam.net (Al) wrote in message news:<409fcc53.885839@news.mr.net>...
> On Sun, 09 May 2004 22:25:23 +0100, Tony <tony_brown@esatclear.ie>
> wrote:
> >
> >Thanks to both posters for useful comments.
> >
> >Tony.
>
> I switched from an Epson 2400 to a Minolta Scan Dual Scan IV and
> noticed a significant increase in sharpness. But the sharpness also
> brings out film defects that you would never have noticed on a flatbed
> scanner. The Nikon Coolscan V ED has the digital ICE feature that
> would be an advantage if you are scanning scratched or dusty film, but
> it costs twice as much. So it depends on your budget and the condition
> of your film. Good luck!