Epson 4870 or Canon 9950f?

[Steve Bell]

I'm shortly about to buy a flatbed scanner for medium and large format, and
have settled on either an Epson 4870 or Canon 9950f. The 4870 with the third
party MF holder will meet my needs (I already have a Minolta 5400 for 35mm)
, but the 9950f based upon Canon's blurb may be better. I've only seen one
review on Zdnet, a poor review, not thorough at all. Has anyone actually
seen the Canon 9950f yet, if not, what do Canon users think of the software
it uses, Scangear?

Steve Bell

 

[Roy G. Biv]

I have a 9900f, not a 9950. If it's the same software, in my opinion it's
just plain awful. In my experience, Canon's FARE (their substitute for ICE)
produces extremely variable results, fixing some defects, missing others,
and sometimes creating artifacts where there were no scratches or dust. I'm
hoping Ed Hamrick can update viewscan to read the infrared channel in the
9900. My advice: if you're going to buy one, go to a store with a very
liberal return policy. Sorry due to spam I shall not provide a valid e-mail
address. Please reply to group.

 

[-]

My guess is that Silverfast will support the 9950 since they already support
the 9900. Silverfast isn't cheap though, so that starts to negate the cost
savings of the 9950. Of course if Canon has somehow made a quantum leap in
true resolution, then that is a totally different game!

Doug

 

[Roy G. Biv]

According to the Silverfast website: "FARE and ICE functions not supported"
for the 9900.
Sorry due to spam I shall not provide a valid e-mail address. Please reply
to group.

My guess is that Silverfast will support the 9950 since they already support
the 9900. Silverfast isn't cheap though, so that starts to negate the

cost

 

[Ed Hamrick]

I'm
hoping Ed Hamrick can update viewscan to read the infrared channel in the
9900.

Yes, I have this working, and infrared cleaning works.

The test version of VueScan also reads the infrared
channel from the LiDE 80 (in transparency mode).

Regards,
Ed Hamrick

 

[Mark Besonen]

I'm shortly about to buy a flatbed scanner for medium and large format, and
have settled on either an Epson 4870 or Canon 9950f. The 4870 with the third
party MF holder will meet my needs (I already have a Minolta 5400 for 35mm)
, but the 9950f based upon Canon's blurb may be better. I've only seen one
review on Zdnet, a poor review, not thorough at all. Has anyone actually
seen the Canon 9950f yet, if not, what do Canon users think of the software
it uses, Scangear?

Steve Bell

There is a $50 rebate on the non-Pro version of the Epson Perfection
4870 scanner available--check the Epson website under promotions. You
can get the Epson 4870 (non-Pro version) for as little as $382 shipped
online from a reputable dealer such as newegg.com. After rebate, this
means the scanner would end up at ~$332. Check out the "Hot Deals"
forum at FatWallet.com, search for "Epson scanner", and you'll find a
thread about this.

The replacement for the 4870 has already been announced in Japan, and
can found on sale at several Japanese-language price comparison
websites. Converting yen values to dollars, it seems to be coming in
around the $400 price point. Anyway, the replacement model number/name
is "GT-X800"--google for it and you'll find a bunch of links in
Japanese. I imagine it will have a different model number/name in the
U.S. and elsewhere.

If the timing of past scanner introductions is any indication of what
might happen at the present, the "GT-X800" may be announced in the U.S.
after the holiday season in like January or February 2005.

Hope this message actually helps your decision, and doesn't confuse it
even more! Good luck, and once you make your eventual choice, let us
know how you like it.

Mark Besonen
UMass Geosciences

 

[Joe Cash]

Forget about the CNET review. Seems it was written by a newbie for newbies.

There's an on-going review of this scanner at www.photo-i.co.uk

 

[-]

Here are some example scans from the 9950. Looks like it isn't the huge
jump in performance out of the flatbed ranks and into the dedicated film
scanner performance range that many were hoping. Now we just need to see if
it at least sets a new standard for flatbeds.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009wp6

Doug

 

[Steve Bell]

Here are some example scans from the 9950. Looks like it isn't the huge
jump in performance out of the flatbed ranks and into the dedicated film
scanner performance range that many were hoping. Now we just need to see if
it at least sets a new standard for flatbeds.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009wp6

Doug

I've been looking at this thread
<http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/499875.htm> and the link
to a 9950F scan. It looked good other than some odd lines that didn't show
on the Epson, see
<http://www.largeformatphotography.net/images/fineprint/9950fcrop3web.jpg>
and compare it to the Epson 3200 scan
<http://www.largeformatphotography.net/images/fineprint/3200crop3.jpg>. I
suspect the 9950F will be crap compared to dedicated film scanners scanning
35mm, but hopefully better for medium and large format. The review at
http://www.photo-i.co.uk is progressing, but hasn't yet covered film.

Steve Bell