A Replacement for Microtek Scanmaker V

SW
Posted By
Searcher Won
Aug 11, 2003
Views
387
Replies
5
Status
Closed
I currently have a Microtek Scanmaker V whose lamp is going out. It is going to cost around $100 to fix it plus shipping.

I am wondering if the newer, low-end Microteks are as good as the older Scanmaker V.

I am primarily using mine to scan photographs which I then repair using Photoshop 7.0.

Thank You — KSC
Related Tags
replace

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

S
Stephan
Aug 11, 2003
"Searcher Won" wrote in message
I currently have a Microtek Scanmaker V whose lamp is going out. It is going to cost around $100 to fix it plus shipping.

I am wondering if the newer, low-end Microteks are as good as the older Scanmaker V.

I am primarily using mine to scan photographs which I then repair using Photoshop 7.0.
You got lucky you were able to scan anything with this brand. Check out the CanoScan D1250 UF2.

Stephan
H
Hecate
Aug 12, 2003
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:02:32 -0400, Searcher Won
wrote:

I currently have a Microtek Scanmaker V whose lamp is going out. It is going to cost around $100 to fix it plus shipping.

I am wondering if the newer, low-end Microteks are as good as the older Scanmaker V.

I am primarily using mine to scan photographs which I then repair using Photoshop 7.0.

Thank You — KSC

Try an Epson. Or an Agfa. Or a Canon. If you want a flatbed.

Otherwise try Nikon or Minolta if all you do is 35mm images.

Otherwise… well, you get the idea.

I had a Microtek once. So old it used a SCSI connection. As I said, I had one ONCE. 😉

—

Hecate
(Fried computers a specialty)
S
Stephan
Aug 12, 2003
"Mike Hide" wrote in message
Stephan I have been using Microtek equipment for at least ten years with excellent results , I currently have a scanmaker 5600 and get presentable film scans at 2400 dpi. It is not as good as a dedicated film scanner I am sure but it comes close to it for $150 and including a cd player I would
say
its a bargain…..mjh
I had one, the optical part was OK but the software was terrible, on top of it it had to be uninstalled and reinstalled a couple of times before you could use it, it was taking a lot of time to scan because of this.

Stephan
MH
Mike Hide
Aug 12, 2003
Stephan I have been using Microtek equipment for at least ten years with excellent results , I currently have a scanmaker 5600 and get presentable film scans at 2400 dpi. It is not as good as a dedicated film scanner I am sure but it comes close to it for $150 and including a cd player I would say its a bargain…..mjh

"Stephan" wrote in message
"Searcher Won" wrote in message
I currently have a Microtek Scanmaker V whose lamp is going out. It is going to cost around $100 to fix it plus shipping.

I am wondering if the newer, low-end Microteks are as good as the older Scanmaker V.

I am primarily using mine to scan photographs which I then repair using Photoshop 7.0.
You got lucky you were able to scan anything with this brand. Check out the CanoScan D1250 UF2.

Stephan

R
Roberto
Aug 12, 2003
I would look at the Epson 3200. Like others I had once had a Microtek and regretted it. I have the Epson 2450 and have love it. Easy to setup, great quality hardware and scans and good software. $399 for the Epson.

R

"Searcher Won" wrote in message
I currently have a Microtek Scanmaker V whose lamp is going out. It is going to cost around $100 to fix it plus shipping.

I am wondering if the newer, low-end Microteks are as good as the older Scanmaker V.

I am primarily using mine to scan photographs which I then repair using Photoshop 7.0.

Thank You — KSC

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections