Epson 4490/ Minolta DSIV comparison

[aad]

OK, as I mentioned last week, I purchased a Minolta SDIV to compare with my Epson 4490. I've spent too much of the last week comparing the two, and I have some conclusions and a few web-ready shots, with more available if there are requests.

Workflow- all film was scanned at 3200 dpi to eliminate ant difference in result due to the Epson's higher resolution. In reality, the difference between 4800 and 3200 is indistinguishable on screen, and ultimate detail capture is limited by other factors I'll mention later.

No processing was done in the scanner software. All post processing was done in PS Elements 2. Files were saved as TIFF until getting ready to post. I see no image degradation after saving to JPEG 8, but I'm not sure what may have changed on those that I modified to post here.

Quick summary-

Black and white-both scanners captured pretty much the same detail but the Minolta looks harsher and has some scanner noise. I didn't do any multi-pass scans to try to eliminate it. The Epson looks smoother and has the same level of detail. I can make the Epson B&W look identical to the Minolta by over-sharpening, but it took a lot of work to make the Minolta look like the Epson.

Color negatives- The Minolta scans looked just about ready to go as scanned. the colors looked great and details were very sharp. There was some noise in the shadows, but not bad. The Epson came in a little washed out and required color-boosting as well as some USM to get it to a "print ready" stage, but final results were close, and you'd have to see them side-by-side to tell any difference, and even then may still be tough.

Slides- this was where things got interesting. The Minolta scans came in just about right, where the Epson scans had less color and were definitely soft. The colors were easy to fix, and USM brought in a lot more detail, but it never gets quite as detailed as the Minolta, especially with Velvia. The prints I've made off the Epson scans of Ektachrome are really nice, but I think if there's a lot of small detail, 5x7 is about the limit on slides from the Epson.

The epson software is much more developed. It never crashes. The Minolta needs more attention, and locks up often enough that the manual tells you how to re-start the scanner when it locks up. If you follow the procedure exactly, though, it usually works fine.

The Epson film holders are less fiddly than the Minolta's as well, except for the slide holder. The slide holder is simple to use.

My conclusions-the difference between the two scanners is much less than some would have you believe. Maybe older flatbeds were not so good, but the 4490 is pretty darned close to the Minolta film scanner. the higher density of slide film seems to scatter light, and the light source on the Epson just seems to get scatttered more than the collimated one in the Minolta. Edges get fuzzy, and though they can be fixed in USM, the actual detaail just can't be completely recovered, esspecially on Velvia.

If you shoot negatives all the time, the 4490 is probably better overall than the Minolta. If you shoot mostly slides, the Minolta is definitely better. Medium format on the epsson blows all the 35mm stuff out of the water!
Right now you can buy both of these together for less than either the Epson 4990 or the other film scanners. I'm keeping both of mine.

Following is a set of comparisons of Ektachrome, taken in 2002. The first two are Epson, the second are Minolta. both full-scene shots are followed by 100% crops. All post processing has been done. I may post some of the other results if there's any interest.

[bmattock]

Fascinating, thanks! I definitely prefer the motorcycle on the right, whichever scanner did that. The stopsign I can't see enough to say which is better to my eye. I have the Minolta SD IV, and I like it - it does not compare to my Epson 2400 (naturally enough). I agree with you about MF blowing 35mm right out of the water, no matter what the scan rate is. I regularly scan 6x9 on my Epson 2400 and it dazzles me. I'm considering upgrading the flat-bed at some point - maybe after taxes this year. Thanks again!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

[aad]

The pair on the right are Minolta. My cropping skills are developing as I learn PS a little better, but I tried to get the street sign in frame so you could see the difference in detail.

[RayPA]

Excellent! Thanks for the comparison and the report. I'm approaching this crossroad myself, hoping to "step-up" my scanner. I've an Epson flatbed (4180), and I've been considering the Minolta(s), but eyeing the Epson(s). Great to hear the strengths and weaknesses of both. I agree on the MF, software, and the build quality of the holders for the Epson.

[John]

35 mm colour negative film is almost 100% of my shooting. I may delve into B&W sometime in the future. This Epson scanner sounds very good for my needs. You may remember my posting last week regarding this same subject. Thank you for this test, it is an eye opener.
I have been holding out for a Nikon coolscan which so far has been cost prohibitive. :) :)

[Bertram2]

OK, as I mentioned last week, I purchased a Minolta SDIV to compare with my Epson 4490. .

many thanks for these infos ! It is what I expected to come. The Minolta is surely good worth for the money and it would have been my choice if not 6X6 would play a role for me and if I had not I wanted the option of scanning those prints too for which I have no negs anymore.

Considering these requirements and that I still don't jet-print from the scans (I had taken the KM 5400 I for that) the Epson 4490 is hard to beat.

I think you have shared a worthful and reliable information here, which will be very helpful for all who have to make similar decisions.

Best,
Bertram

[xichlo]

I thought that the Epson 4490 is unable to do Medium format , I didn't see it on the spec.

[aad]

I've been doing my MF on the 4490. It comes with a holder, but I just got the Doug Fisher holder which does a nice job of keeping the film flat as long as you don't trim the negatives down to 1 or 2 frames (like I did).

[aad]

One more thing on slides-if you have only looked at a slide through a viewer, you may think your slides are better than they really are. The slower film speed makes camera shake a real problem as I discovered when I got a light table and a quality 5X loupe. Suddenly my masterpieces didn't look so "masterful"!

[xichlo]

Thank you aad for your review and your quick reply . I am on the edge of choosing Epson 4490 .

[FrankS]

Great info and timely for me, thank you!

Wanting to buy in Canada, Vistek sells 4490 for $330Cdn, Future Shop for $340. Any better prices out there?

[John]

Frank,

Henry's has them for $320 Can. with a $50 rebate. I believe the rebate is applicable from other dealers as well. :)

[wrenhunter]

Thanks for a great review, very helpful.

[matti]

Thank you! This is just what I wanted to see.
/matti

[Bertram2]

I've been doing my MF on the 4490. It comes with a holder, but I just got the Doug Fisher holder which does a nice job of keeping the film flat .

Significantly better then the Epson original ? Price ?

Thanks,
Bertram

[aad]

It definitely holds the film better, and flatter, and you can scan several frames at a time. It keeps the curling under control. I got the optional anti-newton glass too, but haven't tried it yet. The whole setup, including shipping (in the US) and extra locks, was about $70.00 US.

[jano]

Wow, thank you! Very much appreciate your time!

Do you have any examples of MF scans? I'm curious to see that.. a resized full frame and a 100% crop if/when you have the time?

[Bill58]

This is for 35mm or MF?

[Trius]

aad: Very informative and helpful. My interpretation of the full frame scans is that the Minolta has better dynamic range, specifically there is more shadow detail. The crops are interesting. The Minolta looks sharper, but I can see the noise.

[jan normandale]

I'm looking for a MF scanner in the 'affordable' category. This looks pretty good for my uses. I was thinking about the 4990 which has been reviewed as very good.

You only have two shots that are comparable , the two street shots with the table in the foreground. I think there is more colour saturation in the Epson, the Minolta actually appears closer to reality in it's scan in your comparitive shots. Most people default towards saturation.

Appreciate the work and examples.

[aad]

Thanks, folks. Bill, the holder is for MF. Jano, when I get a little time I'll resize and post some more shots, including some Velvia, but the MF files are huge! Jan and Trius, the surprising thing is how well the Minolta does with the color on the slides. It actually saturates more than the Epson, especially on color negatives.

[allthumbs]

Thanks for the review! What are typical scan times? I assume you would have mentioned any great difference there. Do you plan to check out scanning utilities like Vuescan or Silverfast?

[aad]

Scan times are about the same, though the ease and stability of the Epson makes it faster, and you can scan 12 frames in a batch on the Epson.

I tried Vuescan, but the Epson software seems better- I prefer all the image work be done after the scan. Multi-pass on the Epson didn't add anything except time. Sort of like ICE- I don't use it on the Epson, and don't miss it on the Minolta. Way too long, and a good cleaning works as well.

[sockeyed]

I've heard good things about the Canoscan 8400f, and it does MF. I can get it shipped to Canada, all-in for $230 from etronics.com

Any user opinions on this one?

[allthumbs]

I've heard good things about the Canoscan 8400f, and it does MF. I can get it shipped to Canada, all-in for $230 from etronics.com

Any user opinions on this one?

I have one, but I haven't used it a whole lot yet. I paid $150US, although $50 of that was covered by a coupon. For the price I think you get a lot. I like the 35mm carrier--it's sturdier than I expected from others I've seen, and is designed to spread the film flat as it clamps down on the edges. The scanner feels pretty sturdy, and is larger and heavier than my old second-hand Visioneer.

Now, keep in mind I don't have a lot of experience in photography or film or scanning!

It can thumbnail 12 frames in less than a minute. You can use these to set cropping, rotation, and adjust curves, levels, contrast, color balance, etc. for each frame from within the driver.

It can do 16-bit monochrome and 48-bit color, if you're willing to wait. It has infrared dust and scratch removal (FARE, not ICE), if you're willing to wait. It can scan 12 negative frames at a time, if you're willing to wait.

I harp on the waiting, but the fact that the driver crashes occasionally (in Win98) during batch scans makes slow even slower. I like the driver interface--it gives me enough control that I don't need to do much post-processing if I don't want to, on the easier negs.

By the way, to scan 12 frames at once you need two strips of 6. Everyone I know cuts strips of 5. I can get it to scan beyond the image area on three sides but not all four, which really bums me out.

On BW negs it does wonders with "thin" areas, does lousy with dense highlights. You might have to adjust your technique if this is going to be your darkroom.

Slides you just place on the glass, inside a frame. They come out soft, and rather dark. I haven't scanned any MF. I've only scanned a couple of prints, but I was pleasantly surprised with what I got.

Styling: It would not look out of place in an early Star Trek movie, as a photon torpedo perhaps, or sitting next to a recent Dell Dimension.

[aad]

I got around to doing this-

This is a shot of Tri X (over) developed in HC110. The first shot is the Epson, the second the Minolta. The Epson scan may have had some levels work done, otherwise they're raw scans-excuse the dust please! Oversharpening the Epson scan will make it look like the Minolta.

Those are my new glasses. Time marches on.

[Todd.Hanz]

I see some moire on the epson scan in the glasses, did you use a doug fisher holder on this one?

Todd

[aad]

Oh, I was going to mention that! No, my test roll of film was curly, and it touched the scanner glass there. I should have put it in emulsion-down and mirrored, or waited 'til it flattened. Not an issue with the Minolta, obviously.

[taffer]

Btw, nice Barcelonian shots on the first post ;)

[jano]

What, no medium format tests? Pffffffffft :p

of course, i'm just joshin ya, thanks for your time in doing this :)

[aad]

OK, OK!

Actually, my MF "career" got sidetracked when my "new" Mamiya C330 needed a lens replacement, so the portrait below is from the Yashica 635 I gave away last week or so. I put it on the table, set the timer, and hoped the shutter chose to work. I cropped out the mess, otherwise as is including another moire pattern (which made me buy the Doug Fisher holder). Film is Fuji Portrait 160, subject me and the love of my life.

For Taffer, the second shot is near Begur, Ektachrome, Olympus Stylus Zoom 140, scanned with Epson. This is my computer wallpaper. I have another scan on the Minolta that has nicer resolution, but this one was web-ready.

I now use the Epson for all black and white, and the Minolta for all slides.

[sherm]

aad:

you said in your first post that if you use the Epson with chromes don't go any higher than 5 x 7. In your opinion is the print at this level good? I have just purchased the 4470 and haven't even unwrapped it yet! Before I do just wanted to check. Let me know if you think that this will be a problem. I don't anticipate prints larger than 5 x 7 and I shoot 35mm exclusively.

Thanks,

Scott

[aad]

I think the prints will look fine at 5x7, especially compared to prints made from slides optically years ago. You will need to do some post processing, mostly unsharp mask, and some slide film seems easier to scan than others. I've printed Minolta slide scans at 8x10 and they were wonderful-so if you compare the two pictures in the first post, you shoud get an idea.

[matti]

Can you make some 100% crops from the sharp part of the Tri-x picture? I think the Epson look fine at this size, except for the Newton rings.

/matti