Is the Nikon Coolscan 9000 worth all that $$$$?

<p>The consensus of opinion is that the Nikon Coolscan scanners are one of the best, but they are selling at such a high premium -- almost $3000 (US). Albeit, anything "better" is even more expensive. So my question is whether a Nikon 9000 scanner is worth the extra $2000 over an Epson 750 flatbed for amateur use (e.g., web post; prints up to 8x12). </p>

<p>I'm happy that I bought the Nikon CS 9000. But I was lucky that they were only selling for $1,850 at the time.</p>

<p>You can find it for around 2200, so it is around 1500 or so over the Epson 750. Also, the Epson V750pro includes a full version of SilverFast Ai, which the Nikon doesn't. And the Epson 750 can scan large format. I guess whether it is worth it or not depends upon your "pain" factor. If $2200 causes too much pain, then go for the Epson.</p>

<p>It's better, everything is better about it and it will show in prints. But the question is of course do you want to spend that amount of money to get better quality.</p>

<p>Why does the 5000 sell for more then the 9000? </p>

<p>A dealer just advised me that, although hard to get, 9000s will come from Nikon (someday), and the best strategy is to place an order with a store and wait. That's not much help for someone who needs a scanner today or has very shallow delayed satisfaction.</p>

<p>Why does the 5000 sell for more then the 9000? </p>

<p>A dealer just advised me that, although hard to get, 9000s will come from Nikon (someday), and the best strategy is to place an order with a store and wait. That's not much help for someone who needs a scanner today or has very shallow delayed satisfaction.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... is whether a Nikon 9000 scanner is worth the extra $2000 over an Epson 750 flatbed for amateur use (e.g., web post; prints up to 8x12).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have an Epson V500, a Nikon 5000 and a Nikon 9000. The V500 is good for a 5X enlargement. The two Nikons are both good for 10X. From what I've seen of the V700/V750, a 6X enlargement is probably pretty close.</p>

<p>Practically, the flatbeds will give excellent prints from 135 film up to 4x6 prints or so, and excellent prints from 120 (6x7 format) up to an 8x10 print. With exception of really high resolution emulsions like Acros or 100 TMAX, usable print sizes from a Nikon digitization is limited by the film itself and not the scanner.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Why does the 5000 sell for more then the 9000?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because it's discontinued, but still overall the best digitization solution for newly shot (i.e. uncut) 135 format film. The 5000 can optionally digitize a 40 frame strip unattended, and in about an hour. If you've done any scanning at all, it should be clearly apparent why this is such an advantage.</p>

<p>I'd order an LS-9000 while you still can get one (however prolonged the wait). It does as good a job with 35mm as an LS-5000, and holds two strips of 6 (or four mounted slides). Unfortunately, it will not use a roll feeder like the 4000/5000 scanners.</p>

<p>While the roll feeder is a time-save, it is not the most important feature. The 9000 will scan medium format film, which is still on a par with a 12+ MP DSLR. Sadly, 35mm film loses this race, and the only reasons to use it are resistance to change and short-term economics.</p>

<p>"allow a 12MP digianything to be on PAR with it since it can't even match lossy desktop scanned 35mm film. "</p>

<p>Easy. Shoot ISO 400 or up film in real world conditions (leave your tripod at home). Presto- digital SLRs with anti-shake and clean high ISO output wins.</p>

<p>Search eBay for Nikon Coolscan 9000, just did half a dozen at about $2500 one in an auction, has a bid of only $255 which will probably go up, but you might get lucky. Put no bid in, use Snipe or Gixon.com program to bid your top price. It will enter it 5 min before close, just wait to see what the bids are, not many may bid. Even if you put in $2400, you could get it for less. One is listed at $2444 or best offer. Make an offer, you may get lucky.<br>

Bought my new D200 from Cametta Camera with a 5 yr warrentee and saved over $700, by just bidding on one. If it went higher than mine, let it go. Bid on another, did it several times until I sniped one at the price I was willing to pay.</p>

<p>I assume that you're printing from 35mm? How many prints of say 9" x 6" or above are you going to want to make? If it's a lot you will see a difference and the economics favour buying the Coolscan at whatever price it takes, within reason. If its just a few then question whether you'd be better off sourcing them externally, buying the V700 or whatever for the small/screen based stuff and saving a couple of thousand dollars. </p>

<p>If you need to scan 35mm and MF negative I think the answer is yes its worth it. I think the scan quality and the ease and speed of use makes it a winner. If you have 30 MF negs to scan you need the glass holder but ever one will be a winner I feel you can justify the extra cost for the speed of use and consistently very good results. If you paying for the same quality scans you will problably pay for the scanner by the time you have scanned 300 negatives. Saying that if you counting the costs long short term it would be cheaper to buy a 1Ds mk 111 or Nikon equivelent.</p>

<p>Here are a few scans I just did were 35mm dias down sized originals no ps just scanned with Digital ICE activated. <a href="http://www.pbase.com/cwakefield/steveambiel">http://www.pbase.com/cwakefield/steveambiel</a> I am happy with the results.</p>

<p>"Sadly, 35mm film loses this race, and the only reasons to use it are resistance to change and short-term economics."<br>

Actually, the reason to use 35mm is a look that can't be had with MF. While many people use software to emulate grain, I refuse to cross that line of fakery. I happen to like this photo because of the grain. Besides, digital photography seems to be mostly about short-term economics. </p><div></div>

<p><em>I am not sure how to contrive a test so imbalanced and corrupt my RZ67 Pro II setup so badly that would allow a 12MP digianything to be on PAR with it </em></p>

<p>By all means, the OP should buy an RZ67 along with an LS-9000. A used RZ goes for about half the price of the scanner. The combination would be a worthy acquisition.</p>

<p>How is the 8000 compared? If it goes well I may get one this year for medium format scanning. </p>

<p>Its worth the extra cost if you are really going to make use of it. Web and small prints is not really making the best use of it. At web size you would not know what scanner, film or lens was used.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Its worth the extra cost if you are really going to make use of it. Web and small prints is not really making the best use of it. At web size you would not know what scanner, film or lens was used.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I completely agree with the use of a scanner justifying the cost. It is not unusual for consumers to buy way more technology than they need. Though there's nothing wrong with having good tools. As for me, I have some Snap-On tools from when I worked as a mechanic. They're good tools, some of the best. But now I buy Craftsman since I don't have the need for tools that are comfortable to work with all day long. I always say match the tool for the need.</p>

<p>That said, here's some digital shots of slides using my crappy Nikon D100, with a crappy non-macro Nikkor consumer zoom lens, a crappy SB-50DX, a cheap PB-5 bellows, a PS-4 Slide attachment, and an SC-17 sync cord:</p>

<p><a href="http://s154.photobucket.com/albums/s246/zoidmagnite/photonet/?action=view&current=PhotonetimageNavyVesseltestingD100a.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s246/zoidmagnite/photonet/PhotonetimageNavyVesseltestingD100a.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /> </a></p>

<p><a href="http://s154.photobucket.com/albums/s246/zoidmagnite/photonet/?action=view&current=photonetslidecopytestUSSConstitutio.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s246/zoidmagnite/photonet/photonetslidecopytestUSSConstitutio.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /> </a></p>

<p>Crappy? Well, I don't think I have a need for a $2k Nikon Coolscan that's for sure.</p>

<p>As far as which scanner to get, I think it depends greatly on what you need the scanner for. As for me, I would probably buy a Plustek film scanner brand new for $350 and it would serve nearly all of my needs. On the rare occasion when I would need a 'good' scan, well, I can always drop $1 for a high res service. I'll put the other $1700 cost for a Nikon Coolscan in my pocket.</p>

<p>I might even buy a new lens.</p>

<p>As far as knowing whether a web photo originated as a film image, or a digital image, it is something I would like to know as a viewer. Not because I have a bias, but more so I can appreciate the tools the photographer used in making that image.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>any idea what this was made with</p>

</blockquote>

<p>HP-5 :-)</p>

<p>Steve if you plan to scan MF film then the 9000 is a better solution than the Epson. I have a Nikon 5000 and bought an Epson 700 for MF film. While it is possible to get good results from the Epson it is an incredibly time consuming process. I bought a Nikon 9000 (I now have a 9000 and a 5000) and once I added the glass film holder (you do need this for MF film scanning and it adds about $300 to the scanner price) the Nikon scans quickly and at very high quality. My opinion on image quality is that Velvia scanned on a 9000 in 645 format is about the same quality as a Raw 5DII file (i.e. 21MP) a big MF scan from my Fuji GX680 clearly shows higher quality than the 5DII RAW file.<br>

I do not want to start a film vs digital debate as I use and like them both. Clearly Digital has a high ISO capability that film lacks. Similarly digital has a low per image cost and the ability to do an instant review. I find that film makes you think and slow down more (leading to better shots), that it has better viewfinders (even the old Canon 1V or even the New F1 has a better viewfinder than the 5DII never mind a crop body like my 7D) and the smaller number of settings allows you to concentrate on the shot (not the white balance etc...).<br>

Back to scanners - if cost is an issue and you do a small number of scans, do not print really big and have plenty of time then the Epson is a good solution. If you do volume, are short of time / patience and will occasionally print big images then the Nikon 9000 is the way to go. You will need to add one of the glass film holders if you want to do MF.</p>

<p>If you're not a professional it's unlikely that the Nikon scanner will be worth the additional money vs. an Epson 750.</p>

<p>But if you ARE a pro, the Nikon would probably (depending on the type of work you do) be an excellent investment.</p>

<p>I do architectural and aerial work, most of it in medium format. I have an Epson 750 Pro, but I only use it on an occasional 4X5 and to make proof sheets. The Nikon CS9000 is central to my business, and if I had to buy it again I'd be happy to pay $3K. (But, as others have mentioned, they can be found now and again on eBay.)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've had my scanner for two years, and it's currently worth more than I paid for it. Pretty unusual for photo gear!</p>

<p>Robert Lee its not HP5. Think of a slower film that was quite grainy and a grainy developer begining with R.</p>

<p>Zoid,<br>

The scanning software plays an important role in the equation. I think it's important to get the color balance right.</p><div></div>

Buying a new Nikon scanner is like putting money in the bank. Plus, you can use it to scan.