Nikon 8000 vs. Epson v700

Discussion in 'Digital Darkroom' started by danny_liao, Nov 17, 2007.

  1. My 8000 is in need of service...bad scanner head. To replace it, it would cost 450 from Nikon. Well,
    I'm debating if I should fix and replace the head on my 8000 or get the Epson V700. Is there anyone
    out there with experience using both the Nikon 8000 and Epson V700 that could help me decide? I will
    be scanning mostly medium format. Thanks in advance.
  2. The V700 is still a flatbed. It will not be an improvement in sharpness. $450 is still a very nice price to pay to get a working medium-format film scanner, even if it's one you already own.
  3. stb


    I used to have a Microtek Artixscan 120tf, the same scanner as the late Polaroid SprintScan 120. It was a very sharp scanner, in the league of the Nion 800. I sold it and now use an Epson V750.

    The Epson is not as sharp as the Microtek. However, it is plenty sharp enough for 10 times enlargements. Especially if you get a film holder from, you will get very good scans from the V700.

    In terms of useful resolution, I'd say the Epson gives about 2400 real ppi whereas the Nikon would give about 3200.
  4. "However, it is plenty sharp enough for 10 times enlargements"

    It is well known the Epson is good for 3x enlargement at very good quality, and the V750 offered only a slight improvement. I seriously doubt you will get a 10x enlargement. If that was the case I would be getting 50inch prints from 4x5, and yet most of us agree stretching it is 16x20, while 11x4 is just right. It depends on your standards. Get it fixed, that is a small price to pay. The best you will get is 3-4x, and anything after that tells me your quality standards are low.
  5. Buy the Epson and give the Nikon to me - I'll even pay shipping. I'd love to have a Nikon Coolscan 8000 for only $450.
  6. Dan,

    I have the V750 pro. I agree with Stephane's evaluation. If your technique is correct and you make use of Doug's superior holders and wet scan, the scanner is capable of up to 10x high quality scans.

    If someone is only getting 3x enlargements then I think they have a bad machine. That is not typical, from what I have seen with mine and read of others' experiences.

    If 10x meets your enlargement requirement and you also may want to get into larger formats the Nikon can't handle, then the Epson may be a better deal. In any event, though, an operating Nikon 8000 is probably worth more than $450 so if you got it fixed you would certainly get your money back on a sale.
  7. My Epson V700 is comparable to my 2820 ppi Minolta Dual III film scanner in final image detail after sharpening. 'Comparable' means I cannot decide for sure what gives higher detail (however insane/reasonable sharpening I may apply to both).

    Also, if I downsample original V700 image to 2400ppi and upsample it to 6400ppi, it has less detail than the original 6400ppi image. Image downsampled to 3200 and back to 6400 seems to be the same as 6400 original. Image downsampled to 2800 and back to 6400 has more detail than that one from 2400 and back to 6400, but similar to that one from downsampled to 3200.

    So my estimate for my Epson V700 is 2800ppi.

Share This Page