BACK: PERSONAL PAGE     BACK: HOMEPAGE

EPSON 3200 vs. EPSON 4870 (vs. CANON 9900F)

I added the scans done with a Nikon Super Coolscan 8000ED for comparison (no grain reduction, no ICE, no smoothing)

I need to point out, I think - this comparison is more or less just a comparison of the two Epson scanners as the Canon 9900F was so unsuitable for my applications, that I have used it a few times after I bought it, packed it up and sold it on eBay. Obviously to someone, who requires it for other applications than I would have wanted to use it for – scanning of medium format and 4x5inch negatives.

Let me state it again, I do only conclude, that the Canon 9900F was absolutely unsuitable for my personal applications – I am sure, that there might be lots of uses, where it is most likely a perfect choice, just not for me – ...that was my “disclaimer”.

Now, what did I do? What do I need it for?

As you might have read on my other pages, I am a very passionate photographer - primarily using medium-format and large format equipment. As medium format cameras, I use an Alpa 12SWA, a Mamiya RZ 67 Pro II, and two Rollei SL 66 (SE). For large format photography, I use a Linhof Master Technika with various backs - roll film, sheet film, etc.

For this comparison in B&W, I used the Kodak 100TPX and 320 TPX film in 120 format, for the Color shots, I used Fuji NPS160 and Kodak NPC160, again in 120 format of course. The camera was a Mamiya RZ 67 Pro II, equipped with the 65mm L-A floating elements lens, mounted on a stable tripod - once I used the Super 23. The location was the Rocky Mountains National Park in Colorado and one location close to Santa Fe in New Mexico.

The color negatives had been processed by a renown professional lab in Denver, whereas the B&W films were processed by myself.

I scanned all images with the three scanners and saved them as TIFF files with approximately the same or at least very similar size of the files. Then I took part of the images out, re-assembled them into a new file and that is what you will see in the following evaluation.

I did not do any theoretical evaluation, calculations or such work, as I approached the scanners as a photographer, not with my background in physics. My idea was to understand – what does a photographer get out of these three scanners, nothing more and nothing less.

For those who do not want to read through all the following details and findings, here the conclusion: I was until now quite happy with my Epson 3200 Photo, but the new 4870 Photo scanner is far better and absolutely worth the higher buying price. It is a very, very impressive scanner for my applications – scanning medium format and 4x5inch negatives. I do not cover scanning from photographs or other non-transparent material, this is for me not of interest.

The first image, taken as well in the Rocky Mountains National Park – a highly recommended place for photography, but only during weekdays – on weekends, it is like Waterloo station there – with the RZ 67 Pro II equipped with the 65mm L-A lens on a stable tripod.

This is the complete image at 100% - of course in size and definition significantly reduced to fit the loading constraints of my WebPages (about 1MB file size) – the original image scanned at 3200dpi (66MB) would have been far to large for this web site. 

In the middle, you can see two trees and then one single tree more to the right side – behind that tree the snow covered Rockies.

Here comes now the result of the scanners – I took a small part out of a scan and composed the parts into one new image:

Left: Epson 3200 Photo                               Right: Epson 4870 Photo                            Nikon SuperCoolscan 8000ED

The left image is already rather pleasing but I prefer the right one – for my liking, this is the better image – more details, a better overall definition and very acceptable color rendition.

I tried to sharpen the left one even more, but the outcome was a very grainy image and especially in the blue sky, the longitudinal scanning stripes came out and disturbed the overall impression of the image very much.

The next image was taken on the same day on another place in the same area – all photographic parameters had been similar, the scanning setup the same and the film again Fuji NPS 160.

Here again first the complete image to be able to locate the part, I have taken out and magnified later:

I have taken that little area with the small brush below the middle, which I have enlarged for the following comparison – again, the 4870 scanner revealed a much sharper and crispier image. Interesting also, that the color fringes, which are usually visible at the boundaries between a dark and a light part of an image, are less visible as well on the 4870 scan – an overall better scanning engine.

 Left: Epson 3200 Photo                               Right: Epson 4870 Photo                Nikon SuperCoolscan8000ED

Again, more sharpening, which I tried of course as well, of the left image did only bring out more grain and not a better definition of the image. If one looks very carefully, one can see that the amount of details in the left image compared to the right one is similar, the details are much better separated in the right scan - in color as well as in contrast.

Now another example in Color – again from a location not far away from the two previous ones:

 More or less in the middle, that is the part, which I have taken out again and compared the two scanners again:

  The upper detail comes from the 4870, the lower one from the 3200.

And here below for comparison again the scan with Nikon's SuperCoolscan 8000ED. In the very smallest details, one can see a difference between the 4870 and the Nikon, which puts the Nikon into the first place - but by not very much! On the other hand, the clear blue sky is grainier in the Nikon scan than in the one of the Epson 4870, but if I take the original large files, this is because of the heavier compression and the overall a bit darker scan of the Nikon scan compared to the smaller and brighter Epson file.

This time, the upper one (where the two are positioned above each other ) is scanned with the 4870 Photo and the lower one with the 3200 Photo scanner. Again, the original file size was about 66MB, the scanning resolution set to 3200dpi and the rest was done in the same way on both images in Photoshop7.

One can see here not only the superior resolving power of the 4870 over the 3200, but also the better scanning engine – the 4870 image has significantly less vertical scan stripes compared to the 3200 scanner. Both images had been sharpened the same way using the unsharp-mask method.

For my liking, no doubt, the 4870 Photo is my first choice (besides the Nikon 8000 ED) and the equipment, which represents the best in flatbed scanners what is available on the market at a reasonable price – which for me is well below USD 1000.00. 

Last but certainly not least, I want to show a comparison, which includes finally also the Canon 9900F scanner. The image was taken in B&W with Kodak’s 320TPX film. I need to point out, that I tried several times to get the best possible scan with the Canon 9900F, but after several hours of trying, gave up – they did not get better as I show here. Don’t be shocked, that’s what I got…

 But again, the full image for orientation purposes… 

 Now the following three enlargements in one row, all taken out of the center of the image – the area with the two trees and the mountains in the background: 

 Left: Canon 9900F,                           Middle: Epson 4870 Photo,                         Right: Epson 3200 Photo    

In the left image, there are no details anymore in the darker parts of the scan – the scanner seems not to be able to resolve small brightness differences and the missing resolving power contributes to that really disappointing result. As I said before, I tried all kinds of tricks to get a better image, but the very limited possibilities provided by the rather unprofessional SW menu did not allow more adjustments nor to get a better scan.

On the other hand, both Epson image scans are fine. I personally prefer again the 4870 over the 3200 scan. The resolution is pretty much similar in B&W, I was able to set the scan parameter so similar that the two outcomes can be compared easily. For my liking, in the scan of the 4870, there are more details in the tree, for me, a better detailed image.

Both negatives have been scanned with 3200 dpi optical resolution – for this B&W scan, I cannot conclude that the 4870 is much better than the 3200, maybe a slightly better overall impression.

       For comparison: Nikon 8000ED - examining the small details, which are probably not very visible on this jpg compressed image, I was able to see that this Nikon scan is slightly more detailed than the Epson 4870 scan - but again, not too much of a difference. As the Nikon file is larger than the Epson 4870, I needed to compress this detail more - the grainy looking sky is caused mostly by compression artefacts - to make the loading time for images reasonable also for those viewers who do not have a broadband connection, I needed to compress all files quite a lot.

Now a direct comparison of two scans – one with the Canon 9900F and the other with the Epson 3200Photo. Note the significant difference in color rendition. All scans have been treated the same way – scanning at 500dpi for 2:1 scan size (6x7negative, Kodak NPC160), auto color and auto contrast, then resized to 200dpi resolution at 1:1 for the web display. 

This is the Canon 9900F scan – it was a rainy afternoon – not far away from Santa Fe in New Mexico, a day of low hanging clouds and a thunderstorm about to come.  But the overall colors were not that blue and not that hard at all.

 I would have to do a lot of color correction to get the overall “impression” right. 

Looking at details, I was able to see the same difference in resolution and definition of the image compared to the Epson scan as seen on all other scans – the Canon scans are less crisp and less refined in all details.

This is the Epson 3200Photo scan of the same Kodak negative. The colors are much more realistic and the overall impression of the image reminds me to what I have seen at the scene – dark clouds, some residual sunshine in the foreground and bad weather coming. These two photos were taken with a Mamiya Super 23, 100mm Sekor lens in 6x7cm format.

I could show many more examples of how these three scanners compare, my conclusion of the comparison, I made for me as photographer of landscapes was, that my first choice is without any doubt the new Epson 4870, followed by the Epson 3200 (which is now available at reduced price). For me, the Canon 9900 F is no choice at all. It is not only the scanning performance, which puts me off, it is also the inadequate SW which comes with the scanner – but this part was very well discussed already at the respective product comparison, published at http://www.photo-i.co.uk and I do not need to repeat the findings and conclusions.

One additional comment, which I need to add now ( November 2004) after having tried it out successfully: I was asked by a fellow photographer from the UK if it were possible to scan 5x7inch film (half plates....) as well. He mailed me one of his negatives and YES it works. No problem, the Epson 4870 scans 5x7 inch film format without a problem. I placed the negative directly on the scanner's glass surface and the VUESCAN scanning program, which I use most of the time, did the AF routine properly and everything went well.

One comment to the Nikon Super Coolscan 8000ED - the quality of the images scanned in medium format is very good, but the Epson 4870 comes very close to it. Where the Nikon 8000 ED surpasses the Epson is first of all speed, then easy of use, repeatability and consistency of the results. Furthermore, the very flexible scanning SW allows many enhancements and customizations which then produce scans, which are better than the Epson 4870.

Again, I did not (yet) test both scanners with 35mm film as I rarely shoot with this format anymore. I presume that the Nikon outperforms the Epson on 35mm format quite clearly...

A last remark – I tried to get into contact with Canon, both in the USA as well as in Japan, to find out how one could enhance the performance of the scanner and also to discuss with them my findings and unhappiness – no feedback, no reply, no one seems to be interested or even willing to reply to any email concerning product (non)performance. And, as I am also a very active Linux user, I want to use my hardware with Linux as well, but Canon does neither provide any drivers nor gives any support and does not even respond to questions who and where I might find support and drivers for the Canon 9900F. Contrary to this, there is full support available from Epson as well as a very well functioning driver set, even for the new Epson 4870 Photo…what a difference!

In one of my next reports, I would like to present a rather not so well known scanning program (like SilverFast), which I use to scan with Suse Linux 9.1 as operating system ( and Windows XP of course as well ) – this program is called VUESCAN. I have compiled a review of this program based upon my own experience and knowledge from scanning primarily 120/220 and 4x5inch film material ( not much 35mm film as I do not use it very often ).

My program review ( with a lot of scanning hints and instructions plus examples ) can be found here: VUESCAN REVIEW

It is not expensive to buy, very powerful and has got features and benefits for an advanced user, which one does not find in other programs, and it runs under Windows, Mac and Linux. You can navigate to the website of Ed Hamrick, who wrote this program: VUESCAN.

I hope this short evaluation and comparison of the scanners was able to convey to you my personal impressions and conclusions. Please email me any comments, suggestions for improvement and general remarks.

Very interesting and worth reading: ALPA12SWA - The ultimate medium format camera

BACK: PERSONAL PAGE     BACK: HOMEPAGE

 

People have
visited my page!