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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Progressiveabsolution, Dec 29, 2006.

  1. I have researched this in every possible way but have not had hands on
    experienced people give their thoughts on this. I.E. One person will
    boast about the superiority of one device while one will boast about
    another...but neither have used both or they did not optimize one or
    the other to get the best out of them. I will be doing primarily
    medium format 6X7 scanning, but will do 35mm scanning as well.

    Questions:

    1) Are the Epson printers on the same page as the Nikons for either
    MF/35mm format or is the Nikon superior in the end?

    2) How is the Epson V series compared to the 8000 specifically?

    3) Howi s the Epson V series compared to the 9000 specifically?

    4) What are the "primary" differences between the Nikon 8000 and Nikon
    9000 scanners?


    I don't care about figures, just the print (end result).

    Thanks for any advice from users of these scanners.
     
    Progressiveabsolution, Dec 29, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Progressiveabsolution" <> wrote:
    > Questions:
    >
    > 1) Are the Epson scanners on the same page as the Nikons for either
    > MF/35mm format or is the Nikon superior in the end?


    Yep. That's the question. The consensus appears to be that the V700/V750 are
    getting very close. See the comparison on this page.

    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

    I'm not sure the Nikon is enough better to justify the money. But if it were
    my money, I'd save my pennies and get the Nikon. But that's me. (I have the
    impression that there's some amount of variability in the Epsons. Over the
    last 5 years, I've seen some people being very happy with various Epson
    scanners, and others being very unhappy.)

    > 2) How is the Epson V series compared to the 8000 specifically?
    >
    > 3) Howi s the Epson V series compared to the 9000 specifically?
    >
    > 4) What are the "primary" differences between the Nikon 8000 and Nikon
    > 9000 scanners?


    The 8000 is only available used, and is getting to be a rather old machine.
    The possibility of problems with an out-of-warranty machine is much higher
    than I'd be willing to accept. But that's me.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 29, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Progressiveabsolution

    tomm42 Guest

    On Dec 28, 11:00 pm, "Progressiveabsolution"
    <> wrote:
    > I have researched this in every possible way but have not had hands on
    > experienced people give their thoughts on this. I.E. One person will
    > boast about the superiority of one device while one will boast about
    > another...but neither have used both or they did not optimize one or
    > the other to get the best out of them. I will be doing primarily
    > medium format 6X7 scanning, but will do 35mm scanning as well.
    >
    > Questions:
    >
    > 1) Are the Epson printers on the same page as the Nikons for either
    > MF/35mm format or is the Nikon superior in the end?
    >
    > 2) How is the Epson V series compared to the 8000 specifically?
    >
    > 3) Howi s the Epson V series compared to the 9000 specifically?
    >
    > 4) What are the "primary" differences between the Nikon 8000 and Nikon
    > 9000 scanners?
    >
    > I don't care about figures, just the print (end result).
    >
    > Thanks for any advice from users of these scanners.


    I would say that the Nikon LS9000 is the top of sub $5K desktop
    scanners, at $2K it is almost a bargain. If you just have 35 & 2 1/4
    film, the LS9000 should be your target. That said I have an Epson V700
    and for $500 it is a very good buy. At comparable resolution it is as
    sharp and has better dynamic range than my OLD Nikon LS2000, I have
    some materials to test the scanner objectively, just need the time. I
    understand there are some significant advances in 4000 ppi scanners
    from the 2700ppi variety. If I had a choice and didn't have 4x5 film,
    I'd go for the LS9000. But if money is a concern you won't be
    disappointed with the V700 or V750.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, Dec 29, 2006
    #3
  4. Progressiveabsolution wrote:
    > I have researched this in every possible way but have not had hands on
    > experienced people give their thoughts on this. I.E. One person will
    > boast about the superiority of one device while one will boast about
    > another...but neither have used both or they did not optimize one or
    > the other to get the best out of them. I will be doing primarily
    > medium format 6X7 scanning, but will do 35mm scanning as well.
    >
    > Questions:
    >
    > 1) Are the Epson printers on the same page as the Nikons for either
    > MF/35mm format or is the Nikon superior in the end?
    >
    > 2) How is the Epson V series compared to the 8000 specifically?
    >
    > 3) Howi s the Epson V series compared to the 9000 specifically?
    >
    > 4) What are the "primary" differences between the Nikon 8000 and Nikon
    > 9000 scanners?
    >
    >
    > I don't care about figures, just the print (end result).
    >
    > Thanks for any advice from users of these scanners.


    Independant reviews are available for most scanners by Googling.
     
    Dennis Pogson, Dec 29, 2006
    #4
  5. On 28 Dec 2006 20:00:47 -0800, "Progressiveabsolution"
    <> wrote:

    >I have researched this in every possible way but have not had hands on
    >experienced people give their thoughts on this. I.E. One person will
    >boast about the superiority of one device while one will boast about
    >another...but neither have used both or they did not optimize one or
    >the other to get the best out of them. I will be doing primarily
    >medium format 6X7 scanning, but will do 35mm scanning as well.
    >
    >Questions:
    >
    >1) Are the Epson printers on the same page as the Nikons for either
    >MF/35mm format or is the Nikon superior in the end?
    >
    >2) How is the Epson V series compared to the 8000 specifically?
    >
    >3) Howi s the Epson V series compared to the 9000 specifically?
    >
    >4) What are the "primary" differences between the Nikon 8000 and Nikon
    >9000 scanners?
    >
    >
    >I don't care about figures, just the print (end result).
    >
    >Thanks for any advice from users of these scanners.



    If you take your scanning very seriously and can afford the
    Nikon LS-9000, buy one. You won't regret it -- though lots
    of folks have "startup pains" with the Nikon scanners.

    If not, the newest Epsons are surely a great value, and will
    probably deliver (rough guess) 2/3 the effective resolution of
    the Nikon.

    I have a very old Nikon LS-8000 that has served me well.
    Alas, I've seen some evidence that the LS-9000 is even
    better. <frown>



    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Raphael Bustin, Dec 29, 2006
    #5
  6. "Raphael Bustin" <> wrote:
    >
    > I have a very old Nikon LS-8000 that has served me well.
    > Alas, I've seen some evidence that the LS-9000 is even
    > better. <frown>


    My frown's bigger than your frown: The LS-9000's almost US$3000 over here.
    Sigh.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 29, 2006
    #6
  7. The Epson is 99% as good and unlike the Nikon it isn't a one trick pony.
    Unless you plan to shoot film for another 5 or 10 years the Nikon is a waste
    of money. Once you have all of your film scanned it will be a dead one trick
    pony. The Epson on the other hand can do things other than film so it is a
    two trick pony that will have use long after your done with film. Unless
    like I said you plan to shoot film for the next 5 or 10 years. Myself even I
    was to do that I still wouldn't put out $2000 for a scanner that was less
    than 1% better than what I could get for $700 or less.

    ljc


    "Progressiveabsolution" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I have researched this in every possible way but have not had hands on
    > experienced people give their thoughts on this. I.E. One person will
    > boast about the superiority of one device while one will boast about
    > another...but neither have used both or they did not optimize one or
    > the other to get the best out of them. I will be doing primarily
    > medium format 6X7 scanning, but will do 35mm scanning as well.
    >
    > Questions:
    >
    > 1) Are the Epson printers on the same page as the Nikons for either
    > MF/35mm format or is the Nikon superior in the end?
    >
    > 2) How is the Epson V series compared to the 8000 specifically?
    >
    > 3) Howi s the Epson V series compared to the 9000 specifically?
    >
    > 4) What are the "primary" differences between the Nikon 8000 and Nikon
    > 9000 scanners?
    >
    >
    > I don't care about figures, just the print (end result).
    >
    > Thanks for any advice from users of these scanners.
    >
     
    Little Juice Coupe, Dec 29, 2006
    #7
  8. On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:35:16 -0800, "Little Juice Coupe"
    <> wrote:

    >The Epson is 99% as good and unlike the Nikon it isn't a one trick pony.
    >Unless you plan to shoot film for another 5 or 10 years the Nikon is a waste
    >of money. Once you have all of your film scanned it will be a dead one trick
    >pony. The Epson on the other hand can do things other than film so it is a
    >two trick pony that will have use long after your done with film. Unless
    >like I said you plan to shoot film for the next 5 or 10 years. Myself even I
    >was to do that I still wouldn't put out $2000 for a scanner that was less
    >than 1% better than what I could get for $700 or less.



    What is your basis for this claim, that that "Epson is 99% as good"
    as the LS-8000 or LS-9000?

    I've seen no such evidence, and some counter-evidence. But if
    you or anyone else would like to submit a worthy scan snippet
    from the V750, I'd love to see it.

    See further info here (info for sample submissions and many scan
    samples...)

    www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Raphael Bustin, Dec 29, 2006
    #8
  9. Rafe,

    Just how much better is the 9000 version than the 8000? The difference
    between a used 8000 and new 9000 can be as significant as $1000 right
    now. I have seen 8000's go for $800 and you can get a squaretrade
    warranty for $60 that gives you 2 years of warranty for it. You can
    get a 9000 for $1500 (if lucky) on auction. This is quite a
    significant difference in one sense BUT in another sense, if one is
    "clearly" better than the other, money should not be an option. It
    goes for digital cameras. I can clearly see a difference in the level
    of "authority/presentation" of the Canon 5D over the smaller sensored
    cameras (maybe it is just my eyes???), so if I can see this clear
    difference between the 9000 and 8000, it makes no sense having the 8000
    (instead of 9000) just like it makes no sense having the
    300D/20D/30D/etc. when I can have the 5D. NOW...if we are talking
    cars, audio, houses, etc. where we are talking thousands of dollars of
    difference, then I can see a point of diminishing returns OR a settling
    for something we cannot have since we cannot afford it. But I mean,
    spending $800 on the V750, then the proper holder for it is no
    different than spending $800 for a used Nikon 8000 and buying for a bit
    more, the glass holder...and likewise, making no sense that one would
    get the 8000 knowing the 9000 is "that much better" and only $800
    more...etc...Now if we are talking "that much better" $5000-$15,000
    scanner, I wouldn't even bother...it would be a similar ratio of
    getting a $30K car vs. a $100K one...Would make no sense when I can
    drive the WRX STI instead of the Porche 911...Both will go about the
    same speed and do the same thing, but one will look
    classier/sophisticated.

    Sooooooo.....

    Just how much better is the Nikon 9000 than the 8000 for both MF and
    35mm film?
     
    Progressiveabsolution, Dec 29, 2006
    #9
  10. On 29 Dec 2006 14:08:31 -0800, "Progressiveabsolution"
    <> wrote:

    >Rafe,
    >
    >Just how much better is the 9000 version than the 8000? The difference
    >between a used 8000 and new 9000 can be as significant as $1000 right
    >now. I have seen 8000's go for $800 and you can get a squaretrade
    >warranty for $60 that gives you 2 years of warranty for it. You can
    >get a 9000 for $1500 (if lucky) on auction. This is quite a
    >significant difference in one sense BUT in another sense, if one is
    >"clearly" better than the other, money should not be an option. It
    >goes for digital cameras. I can clearly see a difference in the level
    >of "authority/presentation" of the Canon 5D over the smaller sensored
    >cameras (maybe it is just my eyes???), so if I can see this clear
    >difference between the 9000 and 8000, it makes no sense having the 8000
    >(instead of 9000) just like it makes no sense having the
    >300D/20D/30D/etc. when I can have the 5D. NOW...if we are talking
    >cars, audio, houses, etc. where we are talking thousands of dollars of
    >difference, then I can see a point of diminishing returns OR a settling
    >for something we cannot have since we cannot afford it. But I mean,
    >spending $800 on the V750, then the proper holder for it is no
    >different than spending $800 for a used Nikon 8000 and buying for a bit
    >more, the glass holder...and likewise, making no sense that one would
    >get the 8000 knowing the 9000 is "that much better" and only $800
    >more...etc...Now if we are talking "that much better" $5000-$15,000
    >scanner, I wouldn't even bother...it would be a similar ratio of
    >getting a $30K car vs. a $100K one...Would make no sense when I can
    >drive the WRX STI instead of the Porche 911...Both will go about the
    >same speed and do the same thing, but one will look
    >classier/sophisticated.
    >
    >Sooooooo.....
    >
    >Just how much better is the Nikon 9000 than the 8000 for both MF and
    >35mm film?



    I can't say for sure, since I don't own the 9000. All I have is
    a hunch based on the following:

    a) The sharpest scan samples on my site (at least, from a
    CCD scanner) are from Max Perl's LS-9000

    b) The word of Dane Kosaka, moderator of the LS-8000/9000
    yahoo listserv. (Dane owns both, I've known him for a long
    time, and I take him at his word.)

    c) The fact that the very sharpest scanner in Jim Hutchison's
    2005 "scanner bake-off" was an LS-9000. Jim's results are
    tabulated here:

    http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2005/numbers.html

    ... which shows the LS-9000 with about 20% better MTF than
    the closest LS-8000s.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Raphael Bustin, Dec 30, 2006
    #10
  11. Raphael Bustin wrote:
    > On 29 Dec 2006 14:08:31 -0800, "Progressiveabsolution"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >Rafe,
    > >
    > >Just how much better is the 9000 version than the 8000? The difference
    > >between a used 8000 and new 9000 can be as significant as $1000 right
    > >now. I have seen 8000's go for $800 and you can get a squaretrade
    > >warranty for $60 that gives you 2 years of warranty for it. You can
    > >get a 9000 for $1500 (if lucky) on auction. This is quite a
    > >significant difference in one sense BUT in another sense, if one is
    > >"clearly" better than the other, money should not be an option. It
    > >goes for digital cameras. I can clearly see a difference in the level
    > >of "authority/presentation" of the Canon 5D over the smaller sensored
    > >cameras (maybe it is just my eyes???), so if I can see this clear
    > >difference between the 9000 and 8000, it makes no sense having the 8000
    > >(instead of 9000) just like it makes no sense having the
    > >300D/20D/30D/etc. when I can have the 5D. NOW...if we are talking
    > >cars, audio, houses, etc. where we are talking thousands of dollars of
    > >difference, then I can see a point of diminishing returns OR a settling
    > >for something we cannot have since we cannot afford it. But I mean,
    > >spending $800 on the V750, then the proper holder for it is no
    > >different than spending $800 for a used Nikon 8000 and buying for a bit
    > >more, the glass holder...and likewise, making no sense that one would
    > >get the 8000 knowing the 9000 is "that much better" and only $800
    > >more...etc...Now if we are talking "that much better" $5000-$15,000
    > >scanner, I wouldn't even bother...it would be a similar ratio of
    > >getting a $30K car vs. a $100K one...Would make no sense when I can
    > >drive the WRX STI instead of the Porche 911...Both will go about the
    > >same speed and do the same thing, but one will look
    > >classier/sophisticated.
    > >
    > >Sooooooo.....
    > >
    > >Just how much better is the Nikon 9000 than the 8000 for both MF and
    > >35mm film?

    >
    >
    > I can't say for sure, since I don't own the 9000. All I have is
    > a hunch based on the following:
    >
    > a) The sharpest scan samples on my site (at least, from a
    > CCD scanner) are from Max Perl's LS-9000
    >
    > b) The word of Dane Kosaka, moderator of the LS-8000/9000
    > yahoo listserv. (Dane owns both, I've known him for a long
    > time, and I take him at his word.)
    >
    > c) The fact that the very sharpest scanner in Jim Hutchison's
    > 2005 "scanner bake-off" was an LS-9000. Jim's results are
    > tabulated here:
    >
    > http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2005/numbers.html
    >
    > .. which shows the LS-9000 with about 20% better MTF than
    > the closest LS-8000s.
    >
    >
    > rafe b
    > www.terrapinphoto.com


    This obviously demonstrates a need to make a choice one way or another
    because a used 9000 on a usual day is about $1500 WITHOUT the glass
    carrier. So figure at least $1750 after shipping and all for that
    alone. Then spend $750 more for a Pentax camera w/wide lens and we're
    talking $2500. I know I have priced the Canon 5D after Canon rebate
    for $2K and I know you can put a few nice pieces of glass on there from
    Zeiss/Rollei/etc. for the extra $500. Really comes down to does one
    want to get at least good quality from an $800-$1000 scan with the 8000
    or...

    Film people are in such a tough position with the choice of scanners
    per price, not to say all the disadvantages that already come along
    with it all...the main one having to send film in!!! If it were 35mm,
    that would be a totally different story...cheaper, if exposed fine,
    will look great off a Fuji Frontier with a good person behind the desk,
    etc. But you get into MF (not LF) and that's where the fun can begin
    and end. If only the 4X5 format was in a nice package at such a small
    price it would be the obvious choice for me since a flatbed can handle
    it darn well.

    Thanks for the posts...one thing that surprises me about that bakeoff
    is how many of the scanners that came out on top are also ones people
    would never consider to come out ahead of the others. It's so
    surprising seeing an LS40 almost at the 9000 level and ahead of
    scanners like the Konica 5400II, your 8000 (which I've seen some say is
    better than the LS40 for 35mm). Very odd, but I have to go now to the
    8000/9000 forum because that will really help enlighten me about these
    machines. I've already read countless hours and sources on all this
    stuff, but it's very good to finally hear from you more about the 8000
    and 9000 differences because speed is one thing that can be dealt with,
    but final product is an entirely different thing. In other words, I
    would take the 8000 over the 9000 even if it cost more, was slower,
    etc. if it had a better outcome. Given the 9000's speed...makes it a
    difficult choice at its pricepoint, though as others have said, it is
    likely still a steal at its pricepoint.

    Thanks again Rafe and others that have responded. Just so everyone
    knows what I'm kinda looking for in my images, that I have not seen
    else where, please see this person's images...he uses ZOOMS for
    basically 99% of his images...but I have not seen anything near this
    level in terms of landscapes w/exception of this one guy's work with
    4X5 on flickr that shows some really crazy detail/resolution.

    http://www.pbase.com/image/66794395

    Click the rest of his stuff called Transient Light. I dunno what it
    is, but this is what provoked me to try out a Pentax in spite I haven't
    even shot a roll due to such horrendous weather on the Oregon coast.
     
    Progressiveabsolution, Dec 30, 2006
    #11
  12. On 29 Dec 2006 22:39:30 -0800, "Progressiveabsolution"
    <> wrote:


    >This obviously demonstrates a need to make a choice one way or another
    >because a used 9000 on a usual day is about $1500 WITHOUT the glass
    >carrier. So figure at least $1750 after shipping and all for that
    >alone. Then spend $750 more for a Pentax camera w/wide lens and we're
    >talking $2500. I know I have priced the Canon 5D after Canon rebate
    >for $2K and I know you can put a few nice pieces of glass on there from
    >Zeiss/Rollei/etc. for the extra $500. Really comes down to does one
    >want to get at least good quality from an $800-$1000 scan with the 8000
    >or...
    >
    >Film people are in such a tough position with the choice of scanners
    >per price, not to say all the disadvantages that already come along
    >with it all...the main one having to send film in!!! If it were 35mm,
    >that would be a totally different story...cheaper, if exposed fine,
    >will look great off a Fuji Frontier with a good person behind the desk,
    >etc. But you get into MF (not LF) and that's where the fun can begin
    >and end. If only the 4X5 format was in a nice package at such a small
    >price it would be the obvious choice for me since a flatbed can handle
    >it darn well.



    Well, this is why the LS-8000 will most likely be my last film
    scanner, unless it dies or something vastly better comes up,
    within my budget -- which I kind of doubt.

    The newest full-frame DSLRs have pretty much caught up
    to well-scanned 645 film ("small" MF format) and shooting
    digital is a whole lot less bother than shooting & scanning
    film. So rather than go for the LS-9000, I'll most likely just
    retire my MF gear and get a 5D, if it comes to that.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Raphael Bustin, Dec 30, 2006
    #12
  13. The reviews I have read that is why. Ever hear of Google?

    ljc


    "Raphael Bustin" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:35:16 -0800, "Little Juice Coupe"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>The Epson is 99% as good and unlike the Nikon it isn't a one trick pony.
    >>Unless you plan to shoot film for another 5 or 10 years the Nikon is a
    >>waste
    >>of money. Once you have all of your film scanned it will be a dead one
    >>trick
    >>pony. The Epson on the other hand can do things other than film so it is a
    >>two trick pony that will have use long after your done with film. Unless
    >>like I said you plan to shoot film for the next 5 or 10 years. Myself even
    >>I
    >>was to do that I still wouldn't put out $2000 for a scanner that was less
    >>than 1% better than what I could get for $700 or less.

    >
    >
    > What is your basis for this claim, that that "Epson is 99% as good"
    > as the LS-8000 or LS-9000?
    >
    > I've seen no such evidence, and some counter-evidence. But if
    > you or anyone else would like to submit a worthy scan snippet
    > from the V750, I'd love to see it.
    >
    > See further info here (info for sample submissions and many scan
    > samples...)
    >
    > www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis
    >
    >
    > rafe b
    > www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Little Juice Coupe, Dec 30, 2006
    #13
  14. Ever hear about the Nikon 8000/9000 group or the review that says the
    V750 is better than the Nikon 9000 with 35mm and the same with medium
    format film? Do I run circles around the google net to find that all I
    have found is that the 9000 is better than the 8000 when it comes to
    time...but nothing about it being a superior scanner based on
    performance. Likewise, I have read results on a 4990 where they did a
    tiny little section of what would be a massive blowup...and I know I
    would not tell a difference between it and the Nikon 8000 it was
    compared to. The author stated the same thing...that unless you did a
    40X50" or some massive blowup, you would not see these "very fine"
    differences between the flatbed and 8000. But others will
    disagree...Since it has been a while and ALL of these reviews have
    featured a "mixed" generalization on the subject, I felt it necessary
    to ask a question again now that many have gotten their hands on the
    V750 during google searches where the only one that showed up was the
    person from UK showing the V750 to be as good as the Nikon 9000. Rafe
    says the Nikon 9000 is better than the 8000 based on the other people
    he knows that have a reputeable/respectable view. This means that UK
    guy feels the V750 is "better" than the 8000 based on this.

    Can you see why googeling is helpful but also confusing with all the
    questions I have asked you? Why do you not have an answer like Rafe or
    others who have spoken on the subject? Rafe may be right or wrong, but
    he has a legitamate answer to the question, and raised a point that I
    have "never" seen in any froogled thread..well, two points=1) 9000 is
    better by 20% and confirmed better by a few very
    reputeable/discriminating photographers and 2) There is an 8000/9000
    group for yahoo.

    Happy New Years!!!


    Little Juice Coupe wrote:
    > The reviews I have read that is why. Ever hear of Google?
    >
    > ljc
    >
    >
    > "Raphael Bustin" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:35:16 -0800, "Little Juice Coupe"
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > >>The Epson is 99% as good and unlike the Nikon it isn't a one trick pony.
    > >>Unless you plan to shoot film for another 5 or 10 years the Nikon is a
    > >>waste
    > >>of money. Once you have all of your film scanned it will be a dead one
    > >>trick
    > >>pony. The Epson on the other hand can do things other than film so it is a
    > >>two trick pony that will have use long after your done with film. Unless
    > >>like I said you plan to shoot film for the next 5 or 10 years. Myself even
    > >>I
    > >>was to do that I still wouldn't put out $2000 for a scanner that was less
    > >>than 1% better than what I could get for $700 or less.

    > >
    > >
    > > What is your basis for this claim, that that "Epson is 99% as good"
    > > as the LS-8000 or LS-9000?
    > >
    > > I've seen no such evidence, and some counter-evidence. But if
    > > you or anyone else would like to submit a worthy scan snippet
    > > from the V750, I'd love to see it.
    > >
    > > See further info here (info for sample submissions and many scan
    > > samples...)
    > >
    > > www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis
    > >
    > >
    > > rafe b
    > > www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Progressiveabsolution, Dec 31, 2006
    #14
    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. nobody nowhere
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,282
    David J. Littleboy
    Apr 10, 2004
  2. Epson 4990 vs. V700

    , Dec 18, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    815
    Gregory Blank
    Dec 19, 2006
  3. Tony

    Is the Epson V700 / V750 the best compromise?

    Tony, Oct 9, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    46
    Views:
    7,908
    Obakesan
    Dec 14, 2007
  4. semoi

    Re: Firewire vs USB with Epson V700 scanner

    semoi, Feb 14, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    455
    semoi
    Feb 14, 2009
  5. kayko2000

    Big Troubles with Epson V750

    kayko2000, Aug 14, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    694
    kayko2000
    Aug 15, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page