Nikon 9000/5000 or Epson v750m

Discussion in 'Digital Darkroom' started by paul_sharratt, Aug 23, 2007.

  1. Ok, say I have moving boxes of 35mm and notebooks of 2 1/4 and 6x9 film to be
    archived (including m-in-law family/travel history). I prefer I res though
    not necessarily 4000 (mabe 3000 but not 2000)and will print 20x24
    occassionally and 13x19 and under for the most part. Now for speed, the 9000
    will do everything as will the 750 but the 5000 with the slide feeder will
    crank through the boxes. So shall I go for the 9000 or 750, or = [750 + 5000
    and slide feeder = $300 to 400 more than the 9000]?

    Has anyone been pleased with the 750's 35mm scanning abilities?

    Thanks.
     
  2. If you are going to be printing at 20x24 and have the funds, I think you would appreciate the extra sharpness of the 9000. The 9000 does have an edge in terms of sharpness, but it should have an edge considering it will cost you about 3x as much when you add in the cost of the Nikon glass holder which many people feel is a must-have for the 9000.

    In another forum, Marek Fogiel just posted these comparison pictures using a 750 with one of my calibrated holders (dry, not fluid mounted) and a Nikon 9000. As expected, the Nikon has an edge but the difference isn't as much as some people would claim. These are not post processed at all, so with good post processing skills the gap will be narrowed even more.

    http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=389d379a19895959fdb68f01b97899d2&t=45878
     
  3. Sorry that the link didn't display. I will try again: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=389d379a19895959fdb68f01b97899d2&t=45878
     
  4. Doug: thanks, that's an excellent link. I have to say from those results that I actually prefer the V750 for B&W, although the Nikon wins for color.

    Paul: I guess that could play a factor in whichever scanner you decide - are you scanning more color, or black and white?

    Whatever you choose, you will want to consider upgrading the carrier, so be sure to include that in you price estimates. For the Epson, you can take a look at Doug's fine wares, for the Nikon, you will probably want to look into the glass carrier.
     
  5. Is it possible to difuse the light on the 9000 to improve B&W scans?
     
  6. Scanhancer?
     
  7. For me there is the difference not only in sharpness but much more in detail, in the Nikon scan I see colors I dont see in the Epson scan, but alltogether this Epson stuff isnt that bad. Regards Martin
     
  8. The 9000 is absolutely fine as it is for B&W; it doesnt need its light source diffused at all.

    The glass carrier issue is certainly important but you can purchase a single sheet of pre cut anti-newton glass from Focal Point (http://www.fpointinc.com/) for $38 that you can place on top of the film and clamp it in the original holder that will keep the film remarkably flat.
     
  9. I think there's something wrong with the B&W Nikon scan. I don't get artifacts like these when scanning with a CS5000 (traditional emulsion, not chromogenic.)

    Looking at the crop of the cat's face, I thought at first ICE was turned on, but the downsized full image looked okay. SO, it's probably a good idea to look for additional CS9000 samples before making a decision.
     
  10. I have both the 5000 and the 750 and I think the combination works fine. The 750 is darn
    near good enough for even 35mm negs and it's terrific for anything larger and for prints, etc.
    I use the 5000 for my 35mm material and am very happy with it.
     
  11. I agree with all that was said about the two scanners above. I work with both of them depending on the film or look that needs to achieved. I have found the wet plate with the Nikon is the bet quality you can get in this price range. For what you are doing you might want to choose fast over quality being that the quality b/t the two is not that far off. Also, do you want 300mb plus files of each image? Depending on the amount you have to scan, large files could take up a huge amount of storage space. Maybe scan everything as 25mb (9x12 at 300 DPI 8 bit RGB) files and go back a do higher res scans for the select few that you want. You can upsize the 9x12 to a 16x20 without too much of quality loss. I have done this for my family before and even with the auto scanning, I got sick of doing it 100 images into the project. You are going to want something you can walk away from while it is working just for your own sanity.
    R~
     
  12. pje

    pje

    I've been reading the responses and didn't see any responses concerning the 5000 and
    slide feeder. First I have to say that I currently have a 9000 and have not problem with it.
    For 35mm I use the standard holder, however for MF I use a fulid mount tray. I've never
    used the v750 but am interested to start scanning 4x5 with it.

    Now on to the 5000 and the slide feeder. I used to own the 4000 and a slide feeder. It is
    very similar to the 5000 but 14bit vs 16 on the 5000 and probably some other features. I
    believe the slide feeder attachment is the same. I purchased the slide feeder thinking I
    would load a batch of slides set it up and let it rip. Well this was never my experience.
    First many of the slides I wanted to scan were old paper/cardboard mounted Kodachrome
    slides. These slides have problems feeding, as noted in the Nikon docs (from what I
    recall), so you really can use them in the feeder. Even with plastic mounts I wasn't happy
    with the results. When I scan using Nikon Scan, I make minimal adjustsments, normally
    just the curves to get the best dynamic range.

    So you can probably use the 5000 with a feeder but I think the results will be OK but not
    optimal. Just my observation.
     
  13. pje

    pje

    I really need to cut down on my coffee intake.

    I meant to write "you can't use them" with the feeder when referring to the cardboard slide
    mounts. Well you can use them but you may get jams.
     
  14. The crops of the TMax show a massive difference in the darker areas, comparing to the Epson: the Nikon shadows seem really blocked up. Since this is the thinnest area of the negative I would think it's not hardware limitation, just some exposure setting.
     

Share This Page

1111