Epson F-3200 - the verdict

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

Here's the result of the tests I've done on the F-3200, so far, and why
I've abandoned them, tonight:

Detail resolution at 3200 dpi is a tad better than that of my Perfection
3200 but still way below that of my Nikon LS-2000 at 2700 dpi.

The noise performance is remarkably better than that of the Perfection
3200 and even the LS-2000.

The speed is incredible. A 3200 dpi scan of a Noblex frame (5 x 12 cm or
2 x 5 inches) takes about as long as a 35 mm frame on the LS-2000! I
won't even try to describe the difference to the Perfection 3200...

I had almost decided to keep it - if only for the speed advantage and
the lower noise - when I noticed a fingerprint on the MF film carrier.
Used one of my good Hama cloths to wipe if away and then spent about
half an hour to get the dust away from the glass inside the carrier. No
way. This isn't glass - it's plastic!!! They have sheets of transparent
plastic in the negative carriers! Hold it against a light and watch dust
gather on its surface as if it were snowing. Spent about 100 liters of
compressed air (thank heavens I own a compressor). Still dust all over
the ...beep... thing.

Back to the Perfection 3200 and 15 minutes per scan for my Noblex negs.
:-(

Already tugged the F-3200 back into its box. Will be returned first
thing on Monday morning. Pity, really.

Anyone interested in a complete Mamiya 645 Pro outfit, lenses, 3 backs
and all?

Ralf

 

[Ronin]

Interesting... So, is this scanner avaiable to the US market? I cannot see
it avaiable in Europe yet... Also, have you done some comparison with the
Epson 4870?

One last question about the 3200... I'm a new 4870 owner: do you prefer to
scan the film using the holders or by placing it directly on the so-called
"glass"? The real damn thing about these scanners is that they're fixed
focus and I'm not very sure about the optiomal film-sensor distance given by
the holders. By the way, they remain the only affordable way to scan 4x5"
sheets. But is there a way to improve MF scanning? (I use mostly 6x6, 6x7
and 6x9)

regards

 

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

Interesting... So, is this scanner avaiable to the US market? I cannot see
it avaiable in Europe yet...

I'd hardly have one here if it weren't available in Europe.

http://www.epson.co.uk/products/scanners/F-3200.htm

Also, have you done some comparison with the
Epson 4870?

I tried and returned a 4870 earlier this year. I'd say the resolution
should be the same as the F-3200.

One last question about the 3200... I'm a new 4870 owner: do you prefer to
scan the film using the holders or by placing it directly on the so-called
"glass"?

Do you mean the Perfection 3200 or the F-3200? With the F-3200 there is
no way of using it without the film holders. With the Perfection 3200,
you need to use the film holders or you'll see your film curl into neat
little rolls when it dries in the heat generated by the scanner.

With the resolution being as poor as it is, I wouldn't expect much
influence from placing the negative a few mils higher or lower.

There was a website somewhere showing the effects of raising the film
holder but I've lost the URL.

Ralf

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

SNIP

Already tugged the F-3200 back into its box. Will be returned
first thing on Monday morning. Pity, really.

Thanks for the feedback. It's a pitty it didn't work out as hoped.

Bart

 

[wim wiskerke]

I had almost decided to keep it - if only for the speed advantage and
the lower noise - when I noticed a fingerprint on the MF film carrier.
Used one of my good Hama cloths to wipe if away and then spent about
half an hour to get the dust away from the glass inside the carrier. No
way. This isn't glass - it's plastic!!! They have sheets of transparent
plastic in the negative carriers! Hold it against a light and watch dust
gather on its surface as if it were snowing. Spent about 100 liters of
compressed air (thank heavens I own a compressor). Still dust all over
the ...beep... thing.

Back to the Perfection 3200 and 15 minutes per scan for my Noblex negs.
:-(

Already tugged the F-3200 back into its box. Will be returned first
thing on Monday morning. Pity, really.

Hold on for a moment.
How big is that piece of plastic? How much would a piece of glass
cost? Could you replace it yourself?
Think for a moment why they might have opted for plastic:
no color cast; no distortion.

Is the scanner grounded?
Have you tried an antistatic spray?

regards, wim

 

[Ronin]

I've heard about this product:

http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mfholderintro.html
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson 4870/DF_holder/MF.htm

does really work, improving image sharpness? is it worth the money?

 

[Craig Schroeder]

The holder link got me thinking.... I've been wrestling with a new
Canon 9950F (not happily, so far). I've noticed that 120 films vary
in width. Some fit nicely into my holders and others are just
slightly wider which puts a slight push tension across the film and
doesn't allow it to relax flat. I would have never thought about this
deviation until I started trying to scan medium format in the Canon.

I'm an admitted newbie at film scanning but would not recommend the
new Canon to anyone at this point. I think I'll keep it as it is
quite adept at flatbed, platen duty and just save up for a proper film
scanner.

I've heard about this product:

http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mfholderintro.html
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson 4870/DF_holder/MF.htm

does really work, improving image sharpness? is it worth the money?

Craig Schroeder
craig nospam craigschroeder com

-Eschew Obfuscation-

 

[jjs]

The holder link got me thinking.... I've been wrestling with a new
Canon 9950F (not happily, so far). I've noticed that 120 films vary
in width. [...]

Very interesting. What film is particularly wide?

OT: Efke 4x5 film is a hair wider than Kodak 4x5, making for a nice snug fit
in Elite film holders.

 

[Craig Schroeder]

I'll try to keep track as I run into examples. One that I recall just
in the last day or so was an old roll of 120 TMY (80's vintage). The
Canon carrier is really quite well designed and it could be that it is
spec'd right on the expected size point and that when film is slit on
new knife sets, it lets a slightly larger portion remain. It's
logical that the small amount I'm noticing would not ever be a factor
in the tolerance range of a camera but when holding these strips by
just the edge and between the limiting rails, it can matter.

The holder link got me thinking.... I've been wrestling with a new
Canon 9950F (not happily, so far). I've noticed that 120 films vary
in width. [...]

Very interesting. What film is particularly wide?

OT: Efke 4x5 film is a hair wider than Kodak 4x5, making for a nice snug fit
in Elite film holders.

Craig Schroeder
craig nospam craigschroeder com

-Eschew Obfuscation-

 

[Christopher Woodhouse]

There is a comparative review at photo-i. The results from the Canon are
very soft without sharpening and it seems the hardware is not that reliable
either. Another opportunity missed. I guess its back to ebay and looking for
a Scan Multi Pro.