Epson V750 VS Nikon Coolscan 8000

A short and non-conclusive comparison of the Epson V750 and the Nikon Coolscan 8000.

 

Coolscan 8000 scanned at 4000DPI and stored at 3000 DPI.

Epson V750 scanned at 3200 DPI and stored at 3200 DPI.

Nikon then enlarged to Epson scan in Paint.

 

Both without sharpening, something that doesn't matter much to my tests.

Scans with Vuescan.

Portra 400 & Mamiya 645

 

Screenshots of 2K monitor:

 

 

 

 

If I scan Ektar 100 at 4000 DPI with the Coolscan there is of course no comparison possible with the Epson.

First of all, can I assume that the Nikon is on the left and the Epson is on the right?

 

Second, just to play devil's advocate a bit-

 

The film holders, IMO, are a weakness of both scanners but the Nikons are probably slightly better. Are you using the stock Epson holder? Have you gone through the process of adjusting it for maximum sharpness?

What good is a comparison at postcard (or less, I allow 1800x1200 pixels for 6x4" prints) resolution? The colors look good. Other than that, the medium is the weakest link.

First of all, can I assume that the Nikon is on the left and the Epson is on the right?

 

Second, just to play devil's advocate a bit-

 

The film holders, IMO, are a weakness of both scanners but the Nikons are probably slightly better. Are you using the stock Epson holder? Have you gone through the process of adjusting it for maximum sharpness?

 

The Nikon is on the right, Epson on the left. The Nikon is labeled 'tJoppe-portra400'

 

The stock Epson holder is better than the stock Nikon holder. The Epson holder can take two strips and it's easier to adjust and to flatten the film in the Epson holder.

 

With the stock Nikon holder, getting the film flat is difficult because you have to clamp it down and then pull the two holders apart to try and straighten it. Too much pressure and the and the clamps break away from the film. When its flat you can no longer adjust it, unlike with the Epson. And even then, the DOF of the Nikon is so tiny (1mm ?) That some areas are likely to be out of focus.

 

I tried both heights of the Epson holder and it made no difference. The Epson has a much greater DOF of several mm so flatness is less of an issue.

 

Imo in order to get overall sharp scans of mf on the Nikon you need the glass holder which brings its own problems such as newton rings, anti-newton glass being visible in the scans and more layers with dust...

Edited October 21, 2019 by dutchsteammachine

What good is a comparison at postcard (or less, I allow 1800x1200 pixels for 6x4" prints) resolution? The colors look good. Other than that, the medium is the weakest link.

Because it's a 100% crop, so you are looking at the max resolution output of both scanners (4000 DPI is only useful with films at 100 iso or below imo.) And few lenses! Out of my Canon FD, nikon f, Mamiya 645 and Mamiya rb67 lenses few can resolve that much resolution!

In that case, the image on the right was scanned on the Nikon. Zooming in, the grain is more prominent on the right, and there is more detail in the hair. If the image quality is limited by your lenses and equipment, then perhaps the V850 is good enojugh. However the effective resolution is less than 2000 ppi.

 

I have never found grain to be an impediment to acuity. It tends to coalesce where there is fine detail. It takes good equipment and technique to get the best resolution from film or digital. Use of a glass carrier is essential for MF and a Nikon scanner, if you want grain-sharp results throughout. That's true on a flatbed too, but the difference is less obvious.

FWIW, I use the stock Nikon holder on my 8000, but lay a sheet of AN glass on top of the film rather than "clipping" it in. I do not see AN artifacts, and get edge-to-edge sharpness.