epson v700 or coolscan v?

[iridium7777]

for 35mm color only -- for about the same $$, which scanner would you get?

which one would give the best results if paired with canon 9000 printer for prints up to 13x19?

please, don't discuss b&w and other formats, i have no interest in them. only 35mm slide or color negatives.

[gdi]

If you only need 35mm, the Coolscan would be the choice.

[kipkeston]

coolscan..

[thomasw_]

wet print.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Of those two for what you want, price being equal, get the Nikon.

[chrish]

i have the coolscan and love it. I've hear some people complain that the drivers can be quirky on OS X (intel ones) but I've had no problem.

[benlees]

If you are not interested in other formats- the strength of the V700- then you have answered your own question.

[iridium7777]

Originally Posted by benlees

If you are not interested in other formats- the strength of the V700- then you have answered your own question.

i was looking at v700 from the perspective that you can load much more film in it than into the coolscan. and i was also under the impression that v700 is much faster than coolscan.

i was wondering there was some load/speed/quality variant where someone would take v700 over coolscan.

thanks for the answers though, pretty much what i thought.

[photophorous]

I have not used the V700, but I have a Coolscan V and I can say that it works extremely well with slide film. However, I'm not happy with color negative film. It does alright, but the grain is kind of ugly and it's hard to get the colors right. That probably has more to do with my scanning skills and the nature of negative film than it does with the scanner, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. For slides, it works great with very little effort.

Paul

[benlees]

Just to muddy the waters a bit: the V700 does 35mm way better than I thought it would- based on the usual internet flatbed vs dedicated discussions. But, I don't print large so, as they say, YMMV.

Also the V700 is available a lot of places and is often on sale. Unless you have a line on a Coolscan V they seem hard to find these days.

You can do 24 35mm at one time or 12 mounted slides.

[dhpc]

Epson V500 default scan with the Epson software.

(click on the pix for a bigger view)

[Chris101]

I'm gonna buck the trend and suggest that you get the flatbed. The coolscan will probably give you a higher quality scan, but not enormously better than the Epson. Plus the epson will be able to scan those wet prints that Thomasw would have you make. I find that scanning a well made print is better than scanning the negative unless you want to manipulate the image digitally.

[Sam N]

Scanning always involves manipulating the image digitally, whether or not the user does it manually.

For those who use/have V700s, will it automatically split up the 24 or 12 shots scanned at once into separate files?

[EliasK]

Originally Posted by Sam N

For those who use/have V700s, will it automatically split up the 24 or 12 shots scanned at once into separate files?

Yes.

Here you can find a detailed review of the V700 and some scan comparisons with the Coolscan4000.

[MCTuomey]

I would say take the V700 if you will be scanning all your negs after development. But if you intend to examine your negs and then only scan a few select ones, take the Coolscan for the incremental 35mm benefit. Every increment helps when enlarging 35mm files.

[gdi]

Originally Posted by iridium7777

i was looking at v700 from the perspective that you can load much more film in it than into the coolscan. and i was also under the impression that v700 is much faster than coolscan.

i was wondering there was some load/speed/quality variant where someone would take v700 over coolscan.

thanks for the answers though, pretty much what i thought.

I think you have to decide which is more important to you - you initially asked about the better quality, now speed. After that decision, the answer should be clear!

( Unless the CS5000 would fit the budget! )

[wizofz2k]

Originally Posted by iridium7777

for 35mm color only -- for about the same $$, which scanner would you get?

Without a shadow of a doubt, the coolscan V.
And I've got both an Epson 4990 - predecessor to the v700 and just about as good, and a coolscan V.

Quality, sharpness, are so much better on the V there is no comparison. The v700 may have an edge on speed because of the batching, but I doubt it.

I am fully aware of the photo-i site review: I bought my epson based on that.
And now that I have the V, I regret having wasted my time with the Epson.
I do also have a 9000, but that is a totally different beast.

[srichmond]

Coolscan V.

[maddoc]

If you have plenty of time, like fiddling with settings and buy the optional holder FH-3 to scan every frame individually then the Coolscan V is marginally better....

If you want to scan 24 frames easily in one batch while doing something else, and are willing to spent the extra money on the ANR glass inserts from "better scanning" then the V700 is the better choice...

This is from my experience with both scanners. I sold the Coolscan and kept the Epson V700 since I don't have plenty of time to scan my films and had no need for the marginal better results, the Coolscan V delivers.

[iridium7777]

i'm pretty happy with the results i'm getting for the scans from walgreens/costco. in the end, it costs me around 2.50$ to get the roll scanned. taking the median price of either one of these scanners at say, $500, i'm looking at having to scan 200 rolls myself before any one of these pays off. plus, the cost of my time invested. so the more i think about it, the bulk processing of v700 will be lost on me here.

really, it comes down to only the "special images"; do i pay a pro 20-25$ a pop for him to scan those select slides/negatives for me, or do i do it myself?

in that case that's only about 20 professionally scanned slides before one of these units pays off. based on absolute quality, i'm assuming the coolscan would win? but, will the coolscan match what the pro would do for me?

further dilemma would be that some of these images could potentially sell, thus recouping the $20 free.

i guess what i'm really asking, based on all of this, do i buy a coolscan and fuss with it myself or do i pay for the pro for the convenience?

[maddoc]

If you talk about selected scans on the quality level of a pro-scan, none of the scanners you mentioned will give these results. When I need a good scan, I go to a pro-lab where a Fuji Frontier is available. The scans from this machine (manually adjusted) are of much higher quality than scans from both, the Coolscan V ED or Epson V700.

For really good scans from color film think about buying a Coolscan 9000 or better Imacon ...

[venchka]

Nobody mentioned getting the Betterscaning holders for the Epson. Those may help you get closer to the quality of the Nikon. AND, when you decide to get larger formats, you'll be all set with the Epson.

[RicardoD]

Anybody know if the V750 is worth the extra money than the V700? (No I am not interested in wet mounting with volatile chemicals with the V750 offers)

[MikeL]

Originally Posted by RicardoD

Anybody know if the V750 is worth the extra money than the V700? (No I am not interested in wet mounting with volatile chemicals with the V750 offers)

I think Silverfast software is the big difference otherwise.

[mh2000]

I have read that the optical glass used is much better in the 750 and worth it if you are after the best possible results, especially for 35mm. For large negatives you will rarely even want to save a full res scan IMO, so it doesn't make a lot of difference.

[RicardoD]

This reviewer concludes the V700 is the better buy with marginally better results with the V750

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/int...50/page_13.htm

I plan to keep using Vuescan (I have an Epson 4180 now) and to invest in the betterscanning.com holders which will probably have the bigger impact that "optical glass" and Epson's standard holders.