Is the Epson V700 / V750 the best compromise?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Tony, Oct 9, 2007.

  1. Tony

    Tony Guest

    For a very good (hopefully excellent) film scanner and flatbed? I've read
    the UK online and Shutterbug reviews, and it seems like once you use a
    little careful USM and get the film the right distance from the sensor that
    the V700 / V750 is almost as good as a Nikon L8000. If that's true it may be
    quite good enough for most users.

    But I've also been looking at the other contenders: the Microtek i900 and
    (not yet available?) M1, the HP 8300, and the Canon 9900F. I think the Epson
    has a higher optical resolution that most (if not all) of these, but I was
    wondering if anyone had any experience with a couple or a few of these to
    tell if the Epsons are the hands down winners.
     
    Tony, Oct 9, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Tony" <> writes:

    > For a very good (hopefully excellent) film scanner and flatbed? I've read
    > the UK online and Shutterbug reviews, and it seems like once you use a
    > little careful USM and get the film the right distance from the sensor that
    > the V700 / V750 is almost as good as a Nikon L8000. If that's true it may be
    > quite good enough for most users.


    No it's not almost as good, but you'll be able to get very good
    results anyway. I've used the V700 for a year and the Coolscan 8000
    for a day and I've already blown myself out of my chair a couple times
    re-scanning some slides.
    (And I still haven't even tried the glass carrier yet, but probably
    will in a few hours :))

    However if you need to scan reflective or large format transparent
    materials it's going to be hard to justify getting TWO huge scanners
    on your desk, so the Epson might be the choice to make anyway..
     
    Toni Nikkanen, Oct 9, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. I'd like to add that I have no experience on the other scanner models
    mentioned, except I don't think the Canoscan 9950F will be able to
    beat the V700 in any respect, though the difference isn't likely huge.
     
    Toni Nikkanen, Oct 9, 2007
    #3
  4. Tony

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    "Tony" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > For a very good (hopefully excellent) film scanner and flatbed? I've read
    > the UK online and Shutterbug reviews, and it seems like once you use a
    > little careful USM and get the film the right distance from the sensor
    > that the V700 / V750 is almost as good as a Nikon L8000. If that's true it
    > may be quite good enough for most users.
    >
    > But I've also been looking at the other contenders: the Microtek i900 and
    > (not yet available?) M1, the HP 8300, and the Canon 9900F. I think the
    > Epson has a higher optical resolution that most (if not all) of these, but
    > I was wondering if anyone had any experience with a couple or a few of
    > these to tell if the Epsons are the hands down winners.
    >


    No flatbed I've ever used can touch a Coolscan 8000. I use an Epson V750,
    and while it is good, it's only about 60% of the Coolscan, at best.
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Oct 9, 2007
    #4
  5. My experience with flatbeds for 35mm has not been good. I suspect that
    even an old LS-2000 or LS-30 does a better job for 35mm negatives.
    Optical resolution is definitely not the issue. An LS-30/2000 is only
    2,700 dpi, but that translates into 10 megapixels and, in TIFF format
    from the LS-2000, a 50 megabyte file. That's as much resolution or file
    size as I would want, even if more were available.


    Tony wrote:
    > For a very good (hopefully excellent) film scanner and flatbed? I've read
    > the UK online and Shutterbug reviews, and it seems like once you use a
    > little careful USM and get the film the right distance from the sensor that
    > the V700 / V750 is almost as good as a Nikon L8000. If that's true it may be
    > quite good enough for most users.
    >
    > But I've also been looking at the other contenders: the Microtek i900 and
    > (not yet available?) M1, the HP 8300, and the Canon 9900F. I think the Epson
    > has a higher optical resolution that most (if not all) of these, but I was
    > wondering if anyone had any experience with a couple or a few of these to
    > tell if the Epsons are the hands down winners.
    >
    >
     
    Barry Watzman, Oct 9, 2007
    #5
  6. "Toni Nikkanen" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Tony" <> writes:
    >
    >> For a very good (hopefully excellent) film scanner and flatbed? I've read
    >> the UK online and Shutterbug reviews, and it seems like once you use a
    >> little careful USM and get the film the right distance from the sensor
    >> that
    >> the V700 / V750 is almost as good as a Nikon L8000. If that's true it may
    >> be
    >> quite good enough for most users.

    >
    > No it's not almost as good, but you'll be able to get very good
    > results anyway. I've used the V700 for a year and the Coolscan 8000
    > for a day and I've already blown myself out of my chair a couple times
    > re-scanning some slides.
    > (And I still haven't even tried the glass carrier yet, but probably
    > will in a few hours :))
    >
    > However if you need to scan reflective or large format transparent
    > materials it's going to be hard to justify getting TWO huge scanners
    > on your desk, so the Epson might be the choice to make anyway..
    >
    >
    >


    Read the reviews. It is almost as good. Don't comment on an item you haven't
    used. It makes you look like an ass.

    Psygnosis
     
    Psygnosis - Silent Running, Oct 9, 2007
    #6
  7. "Kinon O'Cann" <> wrote in message
    news:3YOOi.384$...
    >
    > "Tony" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> For a very good (hopefully excellent) film scanner and flatbed? I've read
    >> the UK online and Shutterbug reviews, and it seems like once you use a
    >> little careful USM and get the film the right distance from the sensor
    >> that the V700 / V750 is almost as good as a Nikon L8000. If that's true
    >> it may be quite good enough for most users.
    >>
    >> But I've also been looking at the other contenders: the Microtek i900 and
    >> (not yet available?) M1, the HP 8300, and the Canon 9900F. I think the
    >> Epson has a higher optical resolution that most (if not all) of these,
    >> but I was wondering if anyone had any experience with a couple or a few
    >> of these to tell if the Epsons are the hands down winners.
    >>

    >
    > No flatbed I've ever used can touch a Coolscan 8000. I use an Epson V750,
    > and while it is good, it's only about 60% of the Coolscan, at best.
    >


    Apparently you don't know how to use it then.

    Psygnosis
     
    Psygnosis - Silent Running, Oct 9, 2007
    #7
  8. "Barry Watzman" <> wrote in message
    news:470bdde0$0$32517$...
    > My experience with flatbeds for 35mm has not been good. I suspect that
    > even an old LS-2000 or LS-30 does a better job for 35mm negatives. Optical
    > resolution is definitely not the issue. An LS-30/2000 is only 2,700 dpi,
    > but that translates into 10 megapixels and, in TIFF format from the
    > LS-2000, a 50 megabyte file. That's as much resolution or file size as I
    > would want, even if more were available.
    >
    >
    > Tony wrote:
    >> For a very good (hopefully excellent) film scanner and flatbed? I've read
    >> the UK online and Shutterbug reviews, and it seems like once you use a
    >> little careful USM and get the film the right distance from the sensor
    >> that the V700 / V750 is almost as good as a Nikon L8000. If that's true
    >> it may be quite good enough for most users.
    >>
    >> But I've also been looking at the other contenders: the Microtek i900 and
    >> (not yet available?) M1, the HP 8300, and the Canon 9900F. I think the
    >> Epson has a higher optical resolution that most (if not all) of these,
    >> but I was wondering if anyone had any experience with a couple or a few
    >> of these to tell if the Epsons are the hands down winners.


    Ah another brain that has never used the scanner.

    Psygnosis
     
    Psygnosis - Silent Running, Oct 9, 2007
    #8
  9. Tony

    Tony Guest

    "Kinon O'Cann" <> wrote in message
    news:3YOOi.384$...
    >
    > "Tony" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> For a very good (hopefully excellent) film scanner and flatbed? I've read
    >> the UK online and Shutterbug reviews, and it seems like once you use a
    >> little careful USM and get the film the right distance from the sensor
    >> that the V700 / V750 is almost as good as a Nikon L8000. If that's true
    >> it may be quite good enough for most users.
    >>
    >> But I've also been looking at the other contenders: the Microtek i900 and
    >> (not yet available?) M1, the HP 8300, and the Canon 9900F. I think the
    >> Epson has a higher optical resolution that most (if not all) of these,
    >> but I was wondering if anyone had any experience with a couple or a few
    >> of these to tell if the Epsons are the hands down winners.
    >>

    >
    > No flatbed I've ever used can touch a Coolscan 8000. I use an Epson V750,
    > and while it is good, it's only about 60% of the Coolscan, at best.
    >


    You may not have seen this, but take a look here

    http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson V750/page_5.htm

    at the V750 crop after USM. Also read the text.
     
    Tony, Oct 10, 2007
    #9
  10. "Psygnosis - Silent Running" <> writes:


    > Read the reviews. It is almost as good. Don't comment on an item you
    > haven't used. It makes you look like an ass.


    Uh, which part of "I've used the V700 for a year and the Coolscan 8000
    for a day" you didn't get? I have both units sitting right here on my
    desk now, with the V700 going out as soon as I find a buyer.
     
    Toni Nikkanen, Oct 10, 2007
    #10
  11. "Toni Nikkanen" <> wrote:
    > "Psygnosis - Silent Running" <> writes:
    >
    >> Read the reviews. It is almost as good. Don't comment on an item you
    >> haven't used. It makes you look like an ass.

    >
    > Uh, which part of "I've used the V700 for a year and the Coolscan 8000
    > for a day" you didn't get? I have both units sitting right here on my
    > desk now, with the V700 going out as soon as I find a buyer.


    I don't know what gives with "i-photo" but they never seem to find much
    difference between the flatbeds and the Nikon 8000/9000. Here's what I saw
    with one of the first 4800 ppi Epsons that handled medium format, again,
    that i-photo found to be close to indistinguishable from the 8000/9000.

    http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original
    http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325/original

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 10, 2007
    #11
  12. David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "Toni Nikkanen" <> wrote:
    >> "Psygnosis - Silent Running" <> writes:
    >>
    >>> Read the reviews. It is almost as good. Don't comment on an item you
    >>> haven't used. It makes you look like an ass.

    >> Uh, which part of "I've used the V700 for a year and the Coolscan 8000
    >> for a day" you didn't get? I have both units sitting right here on my
    >> desk now, with the V700 going out as soon as I find a buyer.

    >
    > I don't know what gives with "i-photo" but they never seem to find much
    > difference between the flatbeds and the Nikon 8000/9000. Here's what I saw
    > with one of the first 4800 ppi Epsons that handled medium format, again,
    > that i-photo found to be close to indistinguishable from the 8000/9000.
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original
    > http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325/original
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >

    For some more examples:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/drum.vs.flatbed-scanners

    I plan on getting a V750 at some point, but some reviewers say
    it is not much different than an Epson 4990. The largest difference
    I see in the better flatbeds versus dedicated film scanners is the
    glass adds reflections and reduces contrast. However, scanning
    at 16-bits/pixel it is easily corrected. Also, there is a little
    more work involved in careful unsharp masking to improve
    the scans on the flatbeds. A dedicated film scanner does a better
    job with less total user time (I use a sprintscan 4000 for 35mm).
    But for large format, the flatbeds are very good and saves a lot of
    money.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 10, 2007
    #12
  13. Tony

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    "Psygnosis - Silent Running" <> wrote in message
    news:470bf5b8$0$84926$...
    > "Kinon O'Cann" <> wrote in message
    > news:3YOOi.384$...
    >>
    >> "Tony" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> For a very good (hopefully excellent) film scanner and flatbed? I've
    >>> read the UK online and Shutterbug reviews, and it seems like once you
    >>> use a little careful USM and get the film the right distance from the
    >>> sensor that the V700 / V750 is almost as good as a Nikon L8000. If
    >>> that's true it may be quite good enough for most users.
    >>>
    >>> But I've also been looking at the other contenders: the Microtek i900
    >>> and (not yet available?) M1, the HP 8300, and the Canon 9900F. I think
    >>> the Epson has a higher optical resolution that most (if not all) of
    >>> these, but I was wondering if anyone had any experience with a couple or
    >>> a few of these to tell if the Epsons are the hands down winners.
    >>>

    >>
    >> No flatbed I've ever used can touch a Coolscan 8000. I use an Epson V750,
    >> and while it is good, it's only about 60% of the Coolscan, at best.
    >>

    >
    > Apparently you don't know how to use it then.


    Gee. Maybe you could come by and show me?

    God, what a stupid comment.
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Oct 10, 2007
    #13
  14. "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> writes:

    > I plan on getting a V750 at some point, but some reviewers say
    > it is not much different than an Epson 4990. The largest difference
    > I see in the better flatbeds versus dedicated film scanners is the
    > glass adds reflections and reduces contrast.


    I'd add two other points:
    - Flatbeds don't have an autofocus mechanism (not that I know of; height-
    adjustable film holders do exist, though)
    - Flatbeds don't seem to read RGB and IR channels in the same pass; this
    contributes to the factor that Digital ICE doesn't work as well as in
    a dedicated film scanner


    Also, flatbeds have 2 more glass surfaces to keep clean. Of course,
    using the glass carrier of the Nikon or Minolta Multipro means you
    have four extra glass surfaces to keep clean!
     
    Toni Nikkanen, Oct 10, 2007
    #14
  15. Tony

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    "Tony" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >>

    >
    > You may not have seen this, but take a look here


    I did see that, and it doesn't really apply to me. I've done quite a few
    comparisons (not lately) between the V750 and my old Coolscan 9000, and
    they're on different planets. However, the Epson was good enough for my
    purposes and I sold the Coolscan. I had a Coolscan 8000 before that, but
    wore it out.

    Anyway, Even that test shows (to me) that the dedicated film scanner is
    better.

    >
    > http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson V750/page_5.htm
    >
    > at the V750 crop after USM. Also read the text.
    >
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Oct 10, 2007
    #15
  16. Tony

    tomm42 Guest

    On Oct 9, 3:58 pm, Barry Watzman <> wrote:
    > My experience with flatbeds for 35mm has not been good. I suspect that
    > even an old LS-2000 or LS-30 does a better job for 35mm negatives.
    > Optical resolution is definitely not the issue. An LS-30/2000 is only
    > 2,700 dpi, but that translates into 10 megapixels and, in TIFF format
    > from the LS-2000, a 50 megabyte file. That's as much resolution or file
    > size as I would want, even if more were available.
    >
    > Tony wrote:
    > > For a very good (hopefully excellent) film scanner and flatbed? I've read
    > > the UK online and Shutterbug reviews, and it seems like once you use a
    > > little careful USM and get the film the right distance from the sensor that
    > > the V700 / V750 is almost as good as a Nikon L8000. If that's true it may be
    > > quite good enough for most users.

    >
    > > But I've also been looking at the other contenders: the Microtek i900 and
    > > (not yet available?) M1, the HP 8300, and the Canon 9900F. I think the Epson
    > > has a higher optical resolution that most (if not all) of these, but I was
    > > wondering if anyone had any experience with a couple or a few of these to
    > > tell if the Epsons are the hands down winners.



    My LS-2000 is sitting on a shelf after I bought the V700, other than
    convienience the dynamic range of the V700 beat the LS2000 hands down,
    sharpness was about equal on the screen. I had much better shadow
    detail with the V700. Against my Minolta Dimage Multi again the V700
    has bettter dynamic range but the Minolta is sharper, the Minolta
    can't do the res the V700 can either. I would think with the
    improvements Nikon made in their scanners from the LS2000 to the
    LS5000 or the LS8000/9000 the Nikons should be better. Scans I have
    made on the V700 have printed very well to 16x20, it is nice to have
    the range of resolution to scan to print size.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, Oct 10, 2007
    #16
  17. Tony

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Toni Nikkanen" <> wrote:
    >> "Psygnosis - Silent Running" <> writes:
    >>
    >>> Read the reviews. It is almost as good. Don't comment on an item you
    >>> haven't used. It makes you look like an ass.

    >>
    >> Uh, which part of "I've used the V700 for a year and the Coolscan 8000
    >> for a day" you didn't get? I have both units sitting right here on my
    >> desk now, with the V700 going out as soon as I find a buyer.

    >
    > I don't know what gives with "i-photo" but they never seem to find much
    > difference between the flatbeds and the Nikon 8000/9000. Here's what I saw
    > with one of the first 4800 ppi Epsons that handled medium format, again,
    > that i-photo found to be close to indistinguishable from the 8000/9000.


    You're not the only one who gets radically different results than the guy in
    England. I made the same comparison between the Epson and a Coolscan, and
    found that they're on different planets for film scanning.

    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original
    > http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325/original
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Oct 10, 2007
    #17
  18. Tony

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote in
    message news:...
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >> "Toni Nikkanen" <> wrote:
    >>> "Psygnosis - Silent Running" <> writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Read the reviews. It is almost as good. Don't comment on an item you
    >>>> haven't used. It makes you look like an ass.
    >>> Uh, which part of "I've used the V700 for a year and the Coolscan 8000
    >>> for a day" you didn't get? I have both units sitting right here on my
    >>> desk now, with the V700 going out as soon as I find a buyer.

    >>
    >> I don't know what gives with "i-photo" but they never seem to find much
    >> difference between the flatbeds and the Nikon 8000/9000. Here's what I
    >> saw with one of the first 4800 ppi Epsons that handled medium format,
    >> again, that i-photo found to be close to indistinguishable from the
    >> 8000/9000.
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original
    >> http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325/original
    >>
    >> David J. Littleboy
    >> Tokyo, Japan
    >>
    >>

    > For some more examples:
    > http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/drum.vs.flatbed-scanners
    >
    > I plan on getting a V750 at some point, but some reviewers say
    > it is not much different than an Epson 4990. The largest difference
    > I see in the better flatbeds versus dedicated film scanners is the
    > glass adds reflections and reduces contrast. However, scanning
    > at 16-bits/pixel it is easily corrected. Also, there is a little
    > more work involved in careful unsharp masking to improve
    > the scans on the flatbeds. A dedicated film scanner does a better
    > job with less total user time (I use a sprintscan 4000 for 35mm).
    > But for large format, the flatbeds are very good and saves a lot of
    > money.


    For large format, what other choices do you have?

    >
    > Roger
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Oct 10, 2007
    #18
  19. Tony

    John Guest

    On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 12:54:36 -0400, "Tony" <> wrote:

    >For a very good (hopefully excellent) film scanner and flatbed? I've read
    >the UK online and Shutterbug reviews, and it seems like once you use a
    >little careful USM and get the film the right distance from the sensor that
    >the V700 / V750 is almost as good as a Nikon L8000. If that's true it may be
    >quite good enough for most users.
    >
    >But I've also been looking at the other contenders: the Microtek i900 and
    >(not yet available?) M1, the HP 8300, and the Canon 9900F. I think the Epson
    >has a higher optical resolution that most (if not all) of these, but I was
    >wondering if anyone had any experience with a couple or a few of these to
    >tell if the Epsons are the hands down winners.


    Hi. I have also been looking for something to scan a wide variety of
    things but mainly a large quantity of photographs, but also quite a
    number of slides and negatives too.

    I've come to the conclusion, based on a lot of advise from people in
    this group as well as my own research, that as good as the V700/750
    is, it is still not going to beat a dedicated film scanner, even one
    that is a number of years old and doesn't have the same stats or
    resolution, is still going to beat the V700/750/4990 when it comes to
    scanning slides and negatives etc.

    I believe the best compromise, and one that will also save you money,
    would be to buy a Canon Flatbed Photo Scanner with Qare for scanning
    all your photographs. Models like the Canoscan 8800F, 8600F, 9950F
    etc. These are a lot faster at scanning than the Epsons with Digital
    Ice and the quality is no different. For slides and negatives I think
    the best thing is to buy one of the Nikon Coolscans. Would be quite
    expensive maybe £500 but there would be a noticeable difference in
    quality over the flatbeds for doing this sort of stuff.

    You don't have to keep it though, you could scan everything you needed
    to, all your slides and negatives and then sell it. You would still
    get a good price for it because they are in demand, and one that was
    really new and had only scanned a small number of things since it had
    been bought you would get quite a lot back from what you paid for it
    when you then sold it on after you'd scanned everything you needed to.

    I am going to get a Canoscan 8800F to scan all my old photos. I
    believe it will cost around £150. A lot less than the 4990 £250 and
    V700/750 £350+. Plus it scans faster and has LEDs instead of lamps.
    V500 also worth mentioning as that would be good for scanning photos
    as well. Not sure what the speeds would be like though, if the past is
    anything to go by the Canon probably still wins, plus the V500 is a
    bit more expensive than the 8800F. Will be keeping the 8800F once I
    get it. Once I've scanned all my old photos though I'll be getting a
    Coolscan to scan all my slides and negatives with. Once that's done
    sell it on ebay or something but I'll keep the flatbed for other
    stuff.

    Cheers

    John
     
    John, Oct 10, 2007
    #19
  20. Tony

    John Guest

    On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:08:55 +0300, Toni Nikkanen
    <> wrote:

    >
    >I'd like to add that I have no experience on the other scanner models
    >mentioned, except I don't think the Canoscan 9950F will be able to
    >beat the V700 in any respect, though the difference isn't likely huge.


    The Canon will blow the Epson out of the water in terms of speed and
    the results wont be much better as the 9950F as far as
    photographs/transparencies go if at all. You'll be three times more
    productive with the Canon and get more done whereas with the Epson
    you'll be waiting until the cows come home if you need to do a lot of
    scanning with dust removal.

    The 9950F has been one of the better scanners Canon have made. The
    Epson with Ice you will be waiting several minutes whereas the Canon
    with Qare only a couple. See here (bottom of page):
    http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Scanners/Canon_9950F/page_14.htm

    Essentially it is the same thing as the V700, its the same ICE, and
    the same cold cathode fluorescent lamp. I wouldn't be able to comment
    on the V500 because I don't know how much the speed would improve with
    LEDs, but I would guess compared to the 8800F from Canon also with
    LEDs, that the Canon would always probably still win in terms of speed
    with dust removal turned on.

    V700/750 is very good, one of the best flatbeds you can buy. I just
    don't think it is good value based on its price premium and only small
    gain. I think you'd be better off buying a Canon like the 8800F,
    8600F, 9950F etc for a lot less, then the extra £200+ you would have
    otherwise spent on the V700/750 put that towards a Nikon Coolscan for
    your slides etc. You would already nearly have half the cost of the
    Coolscan by not buying the V700/750 and getting a Canon with Qare for
    your photographs and transparencies instead.

    John
     
    John, Oct 10, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Epson 4990 vs. V700

    , Dec 18, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    819
    Gregory Blank
    Dec 19, 2006
  2. Progressiveabsolution

    Scanners: Epson V700/V750 vs. Nikon 8000/9000

    Progressiveabsolution, Dec 29, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,923
    Progressiveabsolution
    Dec 31, 2006
  3. semoi

    Re: Firewire vs USB with Epson V700 scanner

    semoi, Feb 14, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    460
    semoi
    Feb 14, 2009
  4. Misifus

    Re: Firewire vs USB with Epson V700 scanner

    Misifus, Feb 18, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    790
    Misifus
    Feb 18, 2009
  5. kayko2000

    Big Troubles with Epson V750

    kayko2000, Aug 14, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    701
    kayko2000
    Aug 15, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page