Nikon 8000 vs Nikon 9000

<p>I am unhappy with the scans from my Epson 700 Scanner for MF (Fuji GX680 III and Mamiya 645) and plan to buy a Nikon fil scanner. I already have a 5000ED and i am very happy with it (except for Kodachrome). I can either pay $2300 for a new 9000 or $800 for a good used 8000 (on consignment at a local camera store). I am really looking for advice on what i should do. I generally scan Velvia or B&W and I am not planning to do it commercially. I had a camera store scan a couple of MF frames with a Nikon 9000 at 2800dpi and was happy with the results but paid $25 per scan. Thus the 8000 makes sense after 32 scans but I wonder if I should get the 9000 (although I don't really want to spend that much).</p>

<p>Thoughts ?</p>

<p>The LS-9000 is probably faster and has updated firmware compared to the LS-8000. That said, there's no difference in optics or specs. I've been happy with my LS-8000 and see no reason to trade up.</p>

<p>Used scanners are not always bargains. Nikon scanners tend to collect internal dust and must be cleaned by the factory. Try scanning a piece of leader and see if you get streaks, often blurry, in the lengthwise direction. That's a pretty tough test because it will exaggerate any faults in the optical path, including dust.</p>

<p>Third-party scans are not only expensive, they're usually not as good as you can do yourself. Scanning is both a craft and an art, and it takes practice to be good at it.</p>

<p>Philip, I have the Coolscan 9000 and am very happy with performance. I did not purchase the Coolscan 8000 because I read about banding problems on the Yahoo forums. Nikon corrected these problems on the Coolscan 9000.<br>

<a href="http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/coolscan8000-9000/message/365">http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/coolscan8000-9000/message/365</a><br>

You might want to join the Yahoo group and read about both scanners - almost 5000 post. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks - I have just applied to join the Yahoo group but I have one additional question. Since I can test the 8000 for almost 1 month before I have to commit I am leaning that way. however, it appears that a glass film holder is necessary to get results. there appear to be two available - a rotating one and a non rotating one (869G and 869GR). Which one do you reccomend?</p>

<p>You will find a lot of information about glass film holders on the Yahoo site. The glassless film holder (FH-869S) for medium format film does not work very good. I purchased the FH-869G and it works much better and keeps the film flat for good sharpness edge to edge - I wanted to scan strips of images rather than just one at a time. You will have some problems with Newton rings using the glass film holders - I see newtons rings on 5% to 10% of scans using the FH-869G holder. Nikon supplies spacers to help with this problem, but it does not solve it totally. The FH-869G carrier has clear glass for the bottom glass (the one in contact with emulsion side of film) and AN (anti newton) glass for the top glass. IF you use AN glass for both top and bottom glass I find this solves the Newtons ring problem, but many users consider this degrades the scans - I don't see a problem for my application. I am now using this approach and never see newtons rings with the glass carrier. The other option is a wet mount carrier which also solves the problem - one is availalbe, but not from Nikon. </p>

 

<p>Hi Phillip:<br>

The Epson V700 is a fine scanner if your film is on the proper film plane. On the holders for the V700 it is unlikely your film will be flat or at the optimal film plane for your scanner. You will have a flat film plane if you fluid mount. You can see some sample scans at www.fluidmounting.com. The optimal film plane for the Epson V700 is about 2.1 mm to 2.5 mm. Varies according to the unit in question. With the Epson you will be able to scan to 18X18" prints. The Nikon is a fine machine and with it you can scan to prints about 30" from MF. I wonder if you will justifify the extra expenditure.</p>