Canon 9950F vs. Epson 4870

Both can be had for about $340.

I'm interested in scanning 4x5", 6x7, and some 35mm (max print size or
8x10" for 35mm).

Is one better than the other? Seems like the Epson 4990 is gonna be a
month or two and it will cost a hundred bucks more.

Thanks,
PGG

PGG wrote:
> Both can be had for about $340.
>
> I'm interested in scanning 4x5", 6x7, and some 35mm (max print size or
> 8x10" for 35mm).
>
> Is one better than the other?

Did you check out the review on photo.i-co.uk?
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/in...950F/page_1.htm
It includes a comparison with the Epson. There used to be a separate
review of the Epson too but it seems it has been removed.
I have the Canon 9950F for scanning 6x4.5 but I don't have the Epson so
I don't know how they compare apart from what I've seen on photo-i.co.uk.
I did make a comparison with my Minolta 5400 just because I was curious
how well the flatbed performed against a dedicated filmscanner and
because I wanted an impression what the actual resolving power of the
Canon is:
homepages.ipact.nl/~wilfr/CanoScan9950F-MinoltaDSE5400comparison.html
My conclusions aren't final yet, but it looks like the Canon is actually
somewhere below 2700ppi.





--

Wilfred van der Vegte.
Replace 'invalid' with my first name to reply by e-mail

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 08:43:54 +0100, Wilfred wrote:

> PGG wrote:
>> Both can be had for about $340.
>>
>> I'm interested in scanning 4x5", 6x7, and some 35mm (max print size or
>> 8x10" for 35mm).
>>
>> Is one better than the other?
>
> Did you check out the review on photo.i-co.uk?
> http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/in...950F/page_1.htm
> It includes a comparison with the Epson. There used to be a separate
> review of the Epson too but it seems it has been removed.

I did see this review. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the results
are too close to call??

> I have the Canon 9950F for scanning 6x4.5 but I don't have the Epson so
> I don't know how they compare apart from what I've seen on
> photo-i.co.uk. I did make a comparison with my Minolta 5400 just because
> I was curious how well the flatbed performed against a dedicated
> filmscanner and because I wanted an impression what the actual resolving
> power of the Canon is:
> homepages.ipact.nl/~wilfr/CanoScan9950F-MinoltaDSE5400comparison.html My
> conclusions aren't final yet, but it looks like the Canon is actually
> somewhere below 2700ppi.

Nice comparison. Yup...dedicated is superior for 35mm

PGG wrote:
> Both can be had for about $340.
>
> I'm interested in scanning 4x5", 6x7, and some 35mm (max print size or
> 8x10" for 35mm).
>
> Is one better than the other? Seems like the Epson 4990 is gonna be a
> month or two and it will cost a hundred bucks more.
>
> Thanks,
> PGG
>
>

Photography Monthly in the UK recently did a comparison. The major
difference was the speed, with the Epson considerably faster. However, i
seriously doubt the valididty of these results, as the test was
conducted using USB 1 connections.

Steve

PGG wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 08:43:54 +0100, Wilfred wrote:
>
>
>>PGG wrote:
>>
>>>Both can be had for about $340.
>>>
>>>I'm interested in scanning 4x5", 6x7, and some 35mm (max print size or
>>>8x10" for 35mm).
>>>
>>>Is one better than the other?
>>
>>Did you check out the review on photo.i-co.uk?
>>http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/in...950F/page_1.htm
>>It includes a comparison with the Epson. There used to be a separate
>>review of the Epson too but it seems it has been removed.
>
>
> I did see this review. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the results
> are too close to call??

"Verdict. Canon have some stiff competition from Epson with their
similarly specified 4870, but Canon is ahead by a whisker with their 9950F"

Personally I couldn't see that much differece but here in Europe the
Canon is considerably cheaper than the Epson. That was the main reason
for me to buy the Canon.

>>I have the Canon 9950F for scanning 6x4.5 but I don't have the Epson so
>>I don't know how they compare apart from what I've seen on
>>photo-i.co.uk. I did make a comparison with my Minolta 5400 just because
>>I was curious how well the flatbed performed against a dedicated
>>filmscanner and because I wanted an impression what the actual resolving
>>power of the Canon is:
>>http://homepages.ipact.nl/~wilfr/Ca...comparison.html My
>>conclusions aren't final yet, but it looks like the Canon is actually
>>somewhere below 2700ppi.
>
>
> Nice comparison. Yup...dedicated is superior for 35mm

.... which was no surprise to me either. Yet, I have to say that I've got
many 35mm photographs that, when scanned with the Minolta, look worse
than the Canon sample in the comparison (probably hand-motion blur), but
still look sharp when printed on A3 paper. In many cases the sharpness
of the photograph itself is the bottle-neck, unless you use a tripod for
everything. I haven't tried printing MF scans from the Canon yet, but my
expectations are high, considering the 2.7x increase in the size of the
original compared to 35mm.

BTW I also posted some 6x4.5 samples here:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a...g?msg_id=00AgCQ


--

Wilfred van der Vegte.
Replace 'invalid' with my first name to reply by e-mail

In article <csgjoj$6bn$1@news.tudelft.nl>,
Wilfred <invalid@vandervegte.com> wrote:

>... which was no surprise to me either. Yet, I have to say that I've got
>many 35mm photographs that, when scanned with the Minolta, look worse
>than the Canon sample in the comparison (probably hand-motion blur), but
>still look sharp when printed on A3 paper. In many cases the sharpness
>of the photograph itself is the bottle-neck, unless you use a tripod for
>everything. I haven't tried printing MF scans from the Canon yet, but my
>expectations are high, considering the 2.7x increase in the size of the
>original compared to 35mm.

I'm getting very acceptable results from a 4870 with 6*6 Velvia and Provia.
Lovely sharp prints at about 30cm square which are jaw-droppingly sharp
compared to similar sized prints from 35mm or my DSLR. I guess the Canon
should be similar.

I expect I would be getting slightly better end results with a dedicated MF
scanner, but those things are *expensive*.

>>>>> "W" == Wilfred <invalid@vandervegte.com> writes:

W> PGG wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 08:43:54 +0100, Wilfred wrote:
>>

<snip>

W> "Verdict. Canon have some stiff competition from Epson with their
W> similarly specified 4870, but Canon is ahead by a whisker with their
W> 9950F"


W> Personally I couldn't see that much differece but here in Europe the
W> Canon is considerably cheaper than the Epson. That was the main reason
W> for me to buy the Canon.

Here in Norway, the price difference isn't that much, 3800 NOK (465
EUR) vs. 4300 NOK (525 EUR), so I ended up with the Epson 4990, as I
assumed it would be easier to get the software to work without much trouble.
So far both Epson Scan and Silverfast seems to work well on my old 266
MHz PII ....

<snip>

>>> conclusions aren't final yet, but it looks like the Canon is actually
>>> somewhere below 2700ppi.
>> Nice comparison. Yup...dedicated is superior for 35mm


W> ... which was no surprise to me either. Yet, I have to say that I've
W> got many 35mm photographs that, when scanned with the Minolta, look
W> worse than the Canon sample in the comparison (probably hand-motion
W> blur), but still look sharp when printed on A3 paper. In many cases
W> the sharpness of the photograph itself is the bottle-neck, unless you
W> use a tripod for everything. I haven't tried printing MF scans from
W> the Canon yet, but my expectations are high, considering the 2.7x
W> increase in the size of the original compared to 35mm.

I bought this scanner mainly for digging into an old negative archive,
mainly medium format film from my parents, and for that purpose, it is
certainly adequate. As you say, the sharpness of the photograph is
often the limiting factor, it may be old grainy film emulsions,
motion blur or improper focusing. B&W emulsions are certainly a lot
better these days than they were 40 years ago, on the other hand, old
Kodacolor and Ektachrome scans surprisingly well. At the moment I'm
batch scanning mostly with Epson scan, 2400 ppi, with medium grain
reduction and unsharp mask on low. If I find any gems, I'll go back
and try to squeeze some more out of those pictures.

If and when I come to archiving my own 35mm slide archive with 15000+
slides, it will be with a dedicated film scanner. I won't even try to
scan that many slides without a slide feeder, but I'll probably try
the 4990 a little bit for 35mm anyway, as it seems to give acceptable
results up to A4.

<snip>

--
C++: The power, elegance and simplicity of a hand grenade.