Would I be happy with flatbed in place of Nikon 9000 scanner?

<p>I'm posting this question here because I know that this forum has deep expertise in film scanning. I have a Nikon Coolscan 9000ED scanner. I'm not a heavy user of it, so it is tempting to sell it on some large auction site and pay off a few bills. But I still like to scan now and then, and have a Hasselblad which I like to use sometimes. I don't print very often, and usually not larger than 8 by 8 or 8 by 10. So my thinking is to sell the scanner and buy an under $200 flatbed, like the Epson V600 or Canoscan 9000F. I figure that if I ever want a very large print, or an exceptional print to give to relatives and display in a frame (which is seldom), I could always have a negative professionally scanned. I usually shoot C-41, such as Portra or Ektar 100. So my question is: Having had the Nikon 9000 for several years, do you think I will be happy with the output of an inexpensive flatbed scanner for computer slideshows and prints not larger than 8 by 8, or 8 by 10?</p>

<p>Well, no, an Epson - say a v600 - will not give you the same image quality you're used to.</p>

<p>BUT it's pretty quick and easy to use (particularly with an aftermarket film holder) and the quality is certainly there to make a 10" print. You can expect to get about 4000x4000 pixels worth of "real" resolution (measured in details resolved, bot pixels spit out by the scanner) and my usual strategy (I have a lot of computer power) is to scan a 16-bit-per-channel TIFF at a high res and do color corrections then downsize in Aperture to get a 4000x4000 compressed file. Printing at 10" I can't imagine having any complaints.</p>

<p>BTW I'm having a somewhat similar experience - just sold my 500CM. Not pressing finances, but I wasn't getting enough use out of it to justify the luxury and the buyer is going to get a lot more out of it than I will. I still have a Mamiya C220, which, being honest, is quite enough for my purposes, and if I start longing for a big camera I can order an RB67 or something that's a lot less money than a 500CM.</p>

<p>If it were me, and unfortunately it's not, I would keep the 9000.</p>

<p>It would be really difficult to replace it these days. The flat beds work OK, but they are just not to the same standard as scanners like the 9000. IMHO</p>

<p>I have an older, and very much slower, Canoscan 4000 and a Canoscan 9950 flatbed scanner. The latter works, but not up to the dedicated film scanner.</p>

<p>Apart from the fact that I chose a V700 not a V600 and the fact that I exclusively used 120 film, I did what you're thinking of doing and I'm happy enough. Sure the Nikon will give you better scans, but unless your application is demanding enough to use that quality, so what? Many people with scanners will find that what you're considering - getting a flatbed to cope with the bulk of the volume and sending out the odd bigger scan for when you need to make a larger print. </p>

<p>My V700 does all the work for screen-based applications, for my website, and for the odd self-published book where I effectively print up to say 10" across. I find it faster and easier to use than the Coolscan albeit that I have a third party film holder to keep the material flat. The only doubt in my mind would be if you scan mainly 35mm film- I assume you must use some MF at least since otherwise why have the 9000? But I have no experience to tell me how large I'd want to print from a 35mm original.</p>

<p>If you only do negs, the v600 may just be fine. If you have positives (e6 or reversal), the light hood on the v700/750 is second to none. The difference in dmax is a jump from 3.2->4.0.</p>

<p>I have a 4490, Plustek 7200i and a V700. My brother has the v600 and aside from my 4490 using a tradition lamp vs the v600 using leds, it is the same unit. Before the arrival of the V700, the 4490 handled all my MF (6x6,6x45,6x9) and did it well. About 6 months before I got the v700 I started to do a lot of slide.</p>

<p>I didn't notice the difference a good dmax would do until I got the V700. It's not so much a resolution jump as a everything else jump. Inside it has a lot more 'tunables' the software uses to get a better scan. These thing you have on the 9000 as well. Going to a V700 may be an easy move, and going to a v600 will be quite a noticeable move.</p>

<p>My Plustek 7200i, resolution wise, is a pretty tight race to the v700. Not enough to do an upgrade, by itself. However E6 or Reversals are night and day.</p>

<p>With all this, I wet mount and don't have a clue where I put my epson stock film mounts. They are pretty useless. The DOF is much broader on the V700 which makes the holders more acceptable, but you will miss the 9000 ability to actually focus.</p>

<p>If it is all about the money, do the v600 and go here.... <a href="http://myfilmstuff.blogspot.com/2010/04/5-wet-mount.html">http://myfilmstuff.blogspot.com/2010/04/5-wet-mount.html</a> You will at least get a decent scan out of the thing.</p>

<p>If it more about the money, but you still want some decent quality, get a V700 instead.</p>

<p>If you scan 35mm at all, forget about the V600 and get the V700.</p>

<p> I have a V500 scanner and think it is unsuitable. Maybe the V600 is better.</p>

<p>I know exactly where you are coming from. I also have a Nikon 9000, but I have only had mine for about a year and a half. I bought it when the last few new ones could be had for a relatively sane price. It is one thing I have that I could easily sell for twice what I paid for it. However, that very fact is one reason I do not sell it. It is still in high demand and almost like the "holy grail" of home scanners. I think I would soon be sick if I sold it. I also could sure use the cash, but that money would soon be gone, and then I would be left with no Nikon scanner and no ability to replace it, except with something much less capable. I do not use it very often, but when I do, it is so nice to be able to make a 16bit true 4000 ppi Tiff scan. Getting the same quality from an outside source would cost at least $50 for a drum scan. I have a series of film shots I have done with a pinhole camera at the 6 x 9 format. I can do a full size scan on all of them, and still be able to crop into it as much as needed and still make an excellent 16 x 20 print. With no cropping, a print the size of a large poster is not even a strain. Since I enter lots of calls for entries to photo galleries, I need to be ABLE to output at large sizes if needed. The actual NEED is few and far between, but having the Nikon scanner is like safe haven. I may not use it all that much, but if I did not have it, I would then be left having to use something of far less quality and would have to dump at least $50 anytime I needed / wanted a truly good scan.</p>

<p>I also have the Nikon glass holder so the quality is the best it can be. If you are not using the glass holder, you are missing out on the best the scanner can do.</p>

<p>One last point. I have had other scanners, Epson and Canon both. To me, the quality difference in the scans between the flatbeds and the Nikon is not just for huge print sizes. It can be seen even on the web. The clean, sharp resolution, the color, shadow detail, ... all that makes itself shown even in small prints or on the web. </p>

<p>So my personal opinion is you would soon really regret selling the Nikon. I know I would. I suggest you hang on to it unless it is almost a matter of not being able to eat unless you sell it.</p>

<p>Having a Nikon 9000 and a Hasselblad is a great combo.<br>

If one then goes to a flatbed, one truncates the higher end details. A consumer Epson flatbed picks up less details than a Nikon 9000 film scanner.<br>

If you are just shooting for the web or doing simple 4X enlargements then *most* folks will not see any benefit of a Nikon 9000.<br>

If you do larger prints greater than 4x then the flatbed is often the limit. ie you might as well sell that Hasselblad and use a 3 element Yashica TLR and your flatbed.</p>

<p>Some of us use both Epson flatbeds and our Nikon 9000 too. The flatbed often is faster and "good enough" for many applications. For critical stuff here I use the Nikon 9000 and it clearly pulls out way more details.<br>

Like any tool you should do experimenting and see what YOU need and not another.</p>

 

<p>Steve,<br>

Were any of the Epsons or Canons you owned a V700 or canoscan 9000F? I'm very concerned about color fidelity compared to the Nikon 9000. I don't think I need the resolution of the Nikon.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> --at least $50 anytime I needed / wanted a truly good scan</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This is where myth takes over. I pay , nowadays, £7.50 for 8 bit or 16 bit high-res scans from medium format, hand cleaned in Photoshop. Thats about $12 not $50. And they're made on an Imacon, which despite using fewer pixels, makes IMO better scans. </p>

<p>There's no way you will be happy scanning with any flatbed when you could have done it with a real film scanner. I've done both, and I use a flatbed now only because I have to. Even if the"image quality" were to be the same (yeah right), it's much less convenient to scan on a flatbed, dust settles on the glass, it can be more troublesome to properly align the negative in the holder, etc. It's a royal pain in the derrière.</p>

<ol>

<li>You'll deal with more dust. There's a glass that the adapter lays on, that collects dust. There's also glass between the light source and the film, that can and will collect dust as well. On either if the dust is on the inside you'll have to disassemble the scanner to clean it. Not sure about your Nikon scanner, but most film scanners eliminate as many dust collection areas as possible.</li>

<li>The D-max may not be as good as you're used too. That translates into shadow and highlight detail. The resolution won't be nearly as good as the specs make them out to be.</li>

<li>The DPI rating, while technically correct, usually doesn't resolve nearly as much as the specs say they will. Yes, there's still 4800 dots/pixels/lines per inch, but effective resolution is different from actual resolution. Basically you'd need to scan at much higher (native, not interpolated) resolutions than what you're used too to get the same quality. </li>

</ol>

<p>Here's a write up on your Nikon scanner http://www.filmscanner.info/en/NikonSuperCoolscan9000ED.html It states that the effective DPI for your Nikon is 3900 DPI. The actual specs on your scanner are 4000 DPI, so you're getting a lot of resolution from your scanner. Now the specs on an Epson v600 http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV600Photo.html with an effective resolution of 1560 even though you scan at 3200 or 6400 dpi. Now, even if you dispute the actual numbers, it shows the scale of what you're going to get. Half the resolution that you currently get, which is perfectly fine for web use and smaller prints. But you'll also get less density resolution (D-max, shadow detail, whatever you want to call it), the website I linked too unfortunately doesn't actually put a number on that, but they do state that it's "not comparable to a good film scanner" much like your Nikon scanner. At any rate, if you're seriously considering this you should take a negative or slide that you've previously scanned with your Nikon and try it out on a scanner that you're thinking of. Epsons and Canon scanners are the two I suggest to consider. I don't own either but the comparative reviews and the following for the Epsons tell me that they are no slouch.</p>

<p>I own an HP scanner (capable of scanning up to 8x10) and it's not fit for serious scanning use. I do use it simply because I don't have another scanner, but I'd tell anyone looking at buying a scanner to look at an Epson or Canon for the same amount of money. My HP's dust removal is useless and the much hyped "6 color scan" is total BS and a huge time waster.</p>

<p>I "make do" with the V750 for everything larger than 35mm. The 35mm is done on an Coolscan V. I've even done some 35mm scanning on the V750 when I was looking for "proof" scans. Also, the V750 is color profiled with Ektachrome and Kodachrome (via SilverFast Ai), so I'll sometimes scan a Kodachrome on it to get the color straight with less fuss.<br>

It would be hard for me to justify a Nikon 9000, even at the original fair retail price, since I scan a lot of material (new and vintage) that's larger than 120.<br>

I bought the V750 instead of the V700 not for the multi-coated optics or wet mounting tray, but because I had come to like SilverFast on my prior Epson 2450, and the V750 comes with the full version of SilverFast.<br>

If you want to send me a negative, I'll be glad to scan it on my V750 on a Better Scanning variable height LF holder.</p>

<p>Here are a few samples from an Epson V500 hope it helps.</p>

<div></div>

<p>next.</p><div></div>

<p>another...</p><div></div>

<p>One from 35mm...</p>

<p>here it is</p><div></div>

<p>Benny's specs are a 8x10 " print maximum.</p>

<p>This firmly boxes in the enlargement to say 5X.</p>

<p>A modern flatbed reaches this goal and thus a Epson 9000 adds no extra details and thus is overkill, ie a waste of money. Since most here do not worry about the cost of tools this waste is acceptable.</p>

<p>If this was a commercial tool for a professional application, the extra cost of a Nikon 9000 would radically drop the return on investment and might get one terminated for cause.<br>

The practical thing is to just buy a used 200 buck scanner and see if it works good enough and decide for oneself.<br>

A 4X to 5X enlargement is in the range of ease for a modern consumer flatbed, thus a Nikon 9000 adds no extra details but just ties up a few extra grand.</p>

<p>A good used Nikon 9000 will fetch 2500 bucks</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have a Nikon Coolscan 9000ED scanner ..., and usually not larger than 8 by 8 or 8 by 10. So my thinking is to sell the scanner and buy an under $200 flatbed, like the Epson V600 or Canoscan 9000F</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You didn't say what film format you're using because it all depends on the amount of enlargement.</p>

<p>I have a Nikon 9000 as well. So, you know that it's good to around 10X - at which point the film, lens, and the particular circumstances of the shot become dominant in determining usability.</p>

<p>My experience with the 4490 and V500 is that it a 5X enlargement is reasonable. 8x10 prints from 6x7 film is quite good. The V600 is just a badge change from this lineage, so I wouldn't expect different outcomes. Fundamentally, it's the optics. It won't matter how you jiggle things or whose aftermarket film holder you use.</p>

 

<p>@ David... If you can show me where in the US I can get a 16 bit 4000 ppi TIFF scan from a frame of medium format film, at a price point you mention, then I would be eternally grateful and might would sell my Nikon. I have found NO lab, or even a free lance owner, that will do a drum scan at those specs for anything under $50.</p>

<p>@Benny .... the Epson I had was the V500. The Canon was an 8800. The newer models might be better, but the difference between what my Nikon does and what those flatbeds did is night and day. </p>

<p>You are getting all kinds of responses on both sides of the fence on this issue, and that is not surprising. Scanners and scanning "quality" is almost always as heated a discussion as the whole "digital vs. film" thing. </p>

<p>I would just hate for you to turn loose of such a fine piece of equipment as the Nikon, and then very possibly live to want to kick yourself over it later. I look at it this way. If you had NO scanner and were trying to decide to get one of the better flatbeds or spend $3000 for a used Nikon, then I would say, yeah, the price of the Nikon is probably not justified for you. But that is not the case. You already have the Nikon. I stand by my opinion in that, unless you REALLY DESPERATELY need the money, keep what you have and all is solved.</p>

<p>If this issue was about car A versus car B one would actually drive both and see if the lessor car does the required job.Maybe you are just driving to work on a bogged freeway and the max speed one can go is 30 MPH.<br>

If this question was about selling the Blad and buying a yashica 124 tlr one could shoot with both and still make fine 8x10's too.</p>

<p>Making a 8x10" print from MF is not such a massive requirement<br>

The Nikon 9000 allows a larger enlargement than a flatbed. The question mentions MF and the Blad and a 8x10 thus the enlargement is defined.<br>

A print only supports say 7 line pairs per mm maximum. Thus with a 4X enlargement one only needs 28 best case. Even a 10 year old Epson 2400 class flatbed reaches this.<br>

Thus the question is really do you sell the better tool, or use it if one needs enlargements beyond 4x, or do you farm out the few items that actually require a better scan?</p>

<p>Consumer flatbeds with time cane have a lessor contrast. The scan glass gets dirty and fogged on the inside surface and thus contrast drops. Cleaning the glass can radically boost contrast.</p>

<p>My V700 can make very nice 8x12's. No it can't dig in as deep as expensive scanners but it's better than a lot of folks will give it credit for. I also have a Plustek 7600i and this is a real sleeper for the money. If you are just scanning 35mm it's one of if not the best affordable option IMO.</p>

<p>Steve. You are not looking very hard. West Coast Imaging, a lab not as renowned for low prices as they are for quality, will sell you a 200MB 16 bit Tango drum scan from MF for $39.95. That took me two minutes. If I were seriously looking for a USA source for my own purposes I'm sure I could do better. It really isn't helpful to toss out these generalisations that may have been true ten years ago, but are easily disprovable now. </p>

<p>It might also make the task a little easier if you remembered that the price I quoted was for an Imacon scan, not a drum scan.</p>