Epson 2450 vs Epson 4180 and 4990 Scanners ?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

MATT WILLIAMS - 23 Mar 2005 04:58 GMT

I have had an Epson 2450 for the last four years. I have been fairly happy
with it. I scan my 6x6 slides and have some of the best blown up to 12X18
inches. If I have a great shot I would have a pro lab do a larger
enlargement. Would the Epson 4180 be that much better than my 2450 ? Would I
notice a great improvement ? The Epson 4990 is the top of the line, but at
$450 dollars is a little out of my budget. I know it has digital ice, but I
have a Polaroid scratch and dust software remover that does well for my
needs. Thanks for any feedback. Matt

Reply to this Message

- - 23 Mar 2005 16:38 GMT

Yes, there is a significant difference in resolution. Just yesterday, a
person emailed me a comparison scan he made on his 2450 and new 4990. The
difference in optical performance between these flatbeds was more
significant than I previously realised (I only had a 3200 to use in my own
comparison with a 4870 and the difference is not so dramatic). Since the
4990 and 4870 are basically the same in terms of resolution, you might want
to look for a clearance deal on a 4870.

Doug

Signature

Doug's "MF Film Holder" for batch scanning "strips" of 120/220 medium format
film:
http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mainintro.html

Reply to this Message

Gregory Blank - 23 Mar 2005 18:28 GMT

> Yes, there is a significant difference in resolution. Just yesterday, a
> person emailed me a comparison scan he made on his 2450 and new 4990. The
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Doug

Except that it will be nice to be able to scan 8x10 Transparencies.

Signature

LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Reply to this Message

Borghesia - 23 Mar 2005 19:04 GMT

> I have had an Epson 2450 for the last four years. I have been fairly happy
> with it. I scan my 6x6 slides and have some of the best blown up to 12X18
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> have a Polaroid scratch and dust software remover that does well for my
> needs. Thanks for any feedback. Matt

Interesting question, I also have an Epson 2450 and so far I liked the
results. At the moment I am contemplating on an expensive Konica Minolta
Scan Multi Pro. But an Epson 4990 would save alot of money if the
results of it are aproaching the multi pro.
Does anyone know how the multi Pro compares with the Epson 4990 ?

BTW : sorry that I took a sidestep to the multi pro. But I am also very
interested in the quality of the Epson 4990 scans vs. the Epson 2450 .

Reply to this Message

Gregory Blank - 23 Mar 2005 19:17 GMT

> Interesting question, I also have an Epson 2450 and so far I liked the
> results. At the moment I am contemplating on an expensive Konica Minolta
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> BTW : sorry that I took a sidestep to the multi pro. But I am also very
> interested in the quality of the Epson 4990 scans vs. the Epson 2450 .

My question is: (Now that we know the "res" is a great improvement)
how about the dynamic range is it a lot better?

Signature

Reply to this Message

- - 23 Mar 2005 20:39 GMT

>> Does anyone know how the multi Pro compares with the Epson 4990 ?

If you have the money for a dedicated medium format film scanner like the
Multi Pro or 9000, go for it over the flatbeds. With that said, flatbeds
offer good performance for the price. Good scanning and Photoshop skills
(all scans still will need some unsharp masking) will allow you to produce
very nice results.

> My question is: (Now that we know the "res" is a great improvement)
> how about the dynamic range is it a lot better?

If you are still talking about a 2450 compared to a 4870 or 4990, yes there
has been a good increase in real-world dmax. A 4990 still isn't going to be
as good as a Nikon 9000 in pulling out detail from very dense film but it
will do a good job with well exposed film (and cost about 1/4 the price).

Doug

Signature

Doug's "MF Film Holder" for batch scanning "strips" of 120/220 medium format
film:
http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mainintro.html

Reply to this Message

MATT WILLIAMS - 24 Mar 2005 03:28 GMT

The 4990 seems quite a bit better than my 2450, but how much better is the
4990 than the 4180 ? I just had to pay $400 dollars to the vet so my " mad"
money is diminished. Thanks for all feedback. Matt

>>> Does anyone know how the multi Pro compares with the Epson 4990 ?
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Doug

Reply to this Message

rafeb - 23 Mar 2005 19:21 GMT

>> I have had an Epson 2450 for the last four years. I have been fairly
>> happy with it. I scan my 6x6 slides and have some of the best blown up
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> BTW : sorry that I took a sidestep to the multi pro. But I am also very
> interested in the quality of the Epson 4990 scans vs. the Epson 2450 .

Have a look at these scans:

Image overview:
<http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~trubshaw/assets/images/Lincoln.jpg>

Howtek (drum) unsharpened scan:
<http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~trubshaw/assets/images/Howtek.jpg>

And this is the Epson after using FocalBlade to sharpen.
<http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~trubshaw/assets/images/Epson_Sharpened.jpg>

I'v been badmouthing the Epson flatbed scanners
for some time. I may be changing my tune.

rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Reply to this Message

Wilfred - 24 Mar 2005 16:10 GMT

> Have a look at these scans:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> I'v been badmouthing the Epson flatbed scanners
> for some time. I may be changing my tune.

Which Epson scanner is this and at which resolution have these images
been scanned?
I'm also wondering whether the Howtek scan would further improve with USM.

Signature

Wilfred van der Vegte.
Replace 'invalid' with my first name to reply by e-mail

Reply to this Message

MATT WILLIAMS - 24 Mar 2005 17:28 GMT

These are very good, is the Epson scan from the 4990 or the 4180 ?

>> Have a look at these scans:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> scanned?
> I'm also wondering whether the Howtek scan would further improve with USM.

Reply to this Message

rafeb - 24 Mar 2005 18:36 GMT

> These are very good, is the Epson scan from the 4990 or the 4180 ?
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>>scanned?
>>I'm also wondering whether the Howtek scan would further improve with USM.

I don't know the answers.
These were posted on a listserv
that I'm lurking on.

rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Reply to this Message

Fernando - 25 Mar 2005 00:33 GMT

>I have had an Epson 2450 for the last four years. I have been fairly happy
>with it. I scan my 6x6 slides and have some of the best blown up to 12X18
>inches. If I have a great shot I would have a pro lab do a larger
>enlargement. Would the Epson 4180 be that much better than my 2450 ?

Not at all.
I have both scanners, and conducted extensive tests on both (I had to
do that for work).
Some tests involved a Slanted Edge Test MTF analysys, a real,
objective way to measure resolving power.
The difference in resolution power between the 2450 and the 4180 was
0, null, none. By the way, both scanners failed to deliver better than
say 1400-1500 ppi with discernible contrast.
This is due to poor optical system on both machines: the sensor could
resolve a lot more, but the optics just can't transmit enough details.

I can't speak about the 4990 since I've not tested it.

Fernando

Reply to this Message

Jos. Burke - 26 Mar 2005 02:25 GMT

Well, I have a 2450 that I bought new at its introduction and thought it did
a fair job. My opinion drastically changed when I had a particular 6x6
transparency scanned at my lab (Nikon LS-8000) and printed on a lightjet.
They gave me the scan on CD since I paid for the scan. Now since we can't
compare an inkjet print to a lightjet print we can compare the two scans
since I had the Nikon scan and the Epson 2450 to compare. Keep in mind I'm
sure that the person making the scan has a great influence upon the final
result!!
The comparison results--------------------NO COMPARISON!! The Epson scan was
DUD on arrival in comparison--nowhere near the detail of the Nikon scan.
I now use an LS-8000 for my Hassy's pos. and neg. scans and they're
fantastic. The 2450 is still used for it's ability to scan 4x5 for previews
but I would not print ( for a customer ) from that scan.

Sorry
J Burke

Reply to this Message

Gregory Blank - 26 Mar 2005 02:59 GMT

> Well, I have a 2450 that I bought new at its introduction and thought it did
> a fair job. My opinion drastically changed when I had a particular 6x6
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Sorry
> J Burke

Problem is that does not say much regarding the new Epson.
I found a review that indicates the 4990 is a better scanner. However to
my eye its not great still for smaller formats like 35 & MF.

But it does have a much better dynamic range than the 2450.

Here's what I found:

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204990/Page%201.htm

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204990/Page%208.htm

There's multiple pages on the review for anyone interested,...I am still
undecided although the price is attractive for the pro model and they
seem to be readily available,...my dealer says I can get one in 3 days
if I choose.

Signature

Reply to this Message