Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

any user reports on microtek i900 or 1800f

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 12:56:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

Hello,
I would like to hear from anyone who owns or has used a microtek i900 or
1800f scanner. I hear a lot of comments about epson scanners but not really
anything about microtek. I'm about to dive into the digital world by
scanning my 6x6 and 4x5 transparencies. Generally I like to make large
prints from 20x24 to 30x40. Any comments are appreciated.

Ed M
www.tranquilimages.com
June 30, 2005 11:16:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"edmarg1" <edmarg1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ltGdnSORapCi3l7fRVn-sA@comcast.com...
> Hello,
> I would like to hear from anyone who owns or has used a microtek i900 or
> 1800f scanner. I hear a lot of comments about epson scanners but not
> really anything about microtek. I'm about to dive into the digital world
> by scanning my 6x6 and 4x5 transparencies. Generally I like to make large
> prints from 20x24 to 30x40. Any comments are appreciated.

21" x 21" from 6x6 seems to be max for my standards.
June 30, 2005 5:24:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

>
> 21" x 21" from 6x6 seems to be max for my standards.

Everybody has different standards. My local pro lab had a 24x30" print
made from a 35mm Velvia slide on display. From 5 feet away it looked
beautiful.
Related resources
June 30, 2005 11:49:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

"PGG" <pa_paSPAAMgordygrapes@NO_SP_A_Myahoo.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.06.30.13.24.59.857000@NO_SP_A_Myahoo.com...
>
>>
>> 21" x 21" from 6x6 seems to be max for my standards.
>
> Everybody has different standards. My local pro lab had a 24x30" print
> made from a 35mm Velvia slide on display. From 5 feet away it looked
> beautiful.

Viewing Distance. Yes, it is true that the farther away you get from a 35mm
enlargement, the better it looks. I rather like to stand in the next
neighboring state. :) 
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 5:30:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format (More info?)

In article <ltGdnSORapCi3l7fRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
"edmarg1" <edmarg1@comcast.net> wrote:

> Hello,
> I would like to hear from anyone who owns or has used a microtek i900 or
> 1800f scanner. I hear a lot of comments about epson scanners but not really
> anything about microtek. I'm about to dive into the digital world by
> scanning my 6x6 and 4x5 transparencies. Generally I like to make large
> prints from 20x24 to 30x40. Any comments are appreciated.
>
> Ed M
> www.tranquilimages.com

I have the 1800F, but I can only compare it to my previous Artixscan
1100. I can only say I'm happy with it. When I bought it, the i900 just
came out. I called Microtek and asked about the differences and they
recommended the 1800F over the i900. Also, David Brooks of Shutterbug
has recommended this scanner for 4x5 in his Q&A column.

The glassless carrier would seem, in theory, to be an advantage. The
dynamic range, along with the multiple scan capability, seems to capture
with very low noise whatever shadow detail I can see on the light table.
It also includes Kodak targets so you can create custom profiles.

However, when I compared the 1800F to my 35mm Polaroid Sprintscan film
scanner at 1800dpi, the 1800f was no match in resolution. So don't
expect true 1800 dpi performance.

That said, there's no way for me to know if the Epson scanners (which
I've seen favorable comments) isn't better. Also, I have the impression
that the 1800F is discontinued, but maybe it's still available somewhere.

The few reviews I've seen on the i900 didn't seem to make it a stand
out, but most reviews are usually worthless anyway.

Claude
!