Nikon Coolscan 5000 price

Discussion in 'Digital Darkroom' started by victor_ho|2, Feb 2, 2014.

  1. Has anyone noticed? I got the Nikon Coolscan 5000 just as Nikon stopped marketing the device. At that time the slide feeder was about double in price on Amazon. I waited a year and the price finally dropped again to the original retail price.
    http://www.ebay.com/bhp/nikon-coolscan-5000
    http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-9238-Nikon-Super-CoolScan-5000-ED-Film-Scanner/dp/B0001DYTOY
    I just happened to check prices on Ebay and Amazon yesterday. Used, the asking price is more than $2000, which would be about double the original retail price. For a "new" scanner on Amazon the prices are above $4000. This is pretty breathtaking. I would have thought that anyone with a batch of negatives or slides to digitize would have already obtained a scanner. Someone out there has to be pretty desperate at this point to drive the price so high.
    I also had a Bessler enlarger with the computerized colorhead. Last I looked that is pretty much worthless. And I have a first generation Nikon scanner with a SCSI port (remember those?), which i last looked and had no market value to speak of.
    I'd sell off my Coolscan 5000, but my digital conversion of my slide collection is still ongoing... as in it will probably take forever. The price for commercial scanning is not too bad for a few slides. But if you have thousands, it could rapidly add up to a very large chunk of change. And to think I upgraded and bought the scanner right after they stopped marketing it? Parenthetically, I will add that when I got my Nikon D200, it was only a few months later that the D300 came out. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose...
     
  2. And so it goes, and so it goes. I think I heard that in a song.
    I sold a few medium format Fuji cameras to KEH and was surprised at how much I received for them. Other items, though, aren't worth the effort to package and ship.
    I'll sit on those things and not get anything rather than give them away for nothing. Silly? I suppose. I may change my mind at some point.
     
  3. david_henderson

    david_henderson www.photography001.com

    If you have an attitude that says that every one of my slides has to be scanned at a resolution to enable me to make a medium-sized print or better, then you're right. Then the opportunity cost of the hundreds of hours of work it might cost to prepare the slides for scanning, to make those scans, and to correct colours and sharpness of the scan can be vast too- maybe more than the cost of scanning itself. But there are alternatives if you approach the issue from different standpoints.
    • If you could decide that you're happy to scan only to support proof sized prints and web applications, you could do that with a fundamentally cheaper flatbed scanner such as Epson's V600/700.
    • You might decide as above but not colour-correct, clean or sharpen those scans until you know you actually need to use it. Doesn't save any more money, but does save a huge amount of time.
    • If you're prepared to edit the slides into categories and apply a different strategy for each category, you could save a lot of time and money. Example- this 20% I can't see me wanting to do anything with, don't scan. These 70% I might want to put up on the web or make small prints - do these on a flatbed. This 10% I might want to print at a decent size and I want a fully capable archive for each one- pay to get these scanned on a film scanner , or better yet on an Imacon.
    • You might adopt a plan where you don't scan anything till you have a use for the scan, and as above own a flatbed for relatively low-res scans and put what would likely be a trickle needing a high res scan out to a lab. That's what I do. I don't scan anything till I know why I'm doing it and so know what sort of scan I need to make/have made.
    There are all sorts of other options and hybrids, but the point here is that with the use of a bit of imagination most of us don't actually need to have a scan capable of supporting a medium-sized print from every slide you ever kept, or every print in your family's archive. A bit of thought can save a lot of time and money.
     
  4. I made a calculation that for every roll of film I shot, there were maybe one or two keepers. Some people ruthlessly cull their slides and throw out all the duds. I keep thinking that it's not necessarily a good thing to throw them away. I have systematically stored my slides in custom built drawers and it numbers more than 100K. That, my friends is a lot of drawers and it takes up the better part of room. I actually hand built the last half of my storage cabinet including the drawers with the help of my two young kids. We had a neat little furniture production line going.
    When I was less skilled I scanned many of my favorite slides. Later I realized I could have done a better job. Fortunately I could scan my slides again. But there is the matter of storage space. My wife has said once the slides are scanned, go ahead and throw out the originals. I'd like to point out that as long as you have a print, why not discard the negative. How many times do you actually enlarge one of your pictures? When you get down to it, I can scan slides with the feeder and not have to do too much hoovering. But in large numbers the time adds up. Fortunately I was pretty organized on the front end in terms of storage and organizing the slide collection. I'm about 2/3 way through (stopped) the collected slides. Digital stopped film accumulation, so the numbers (of slides) are not expanding.
    I can't say enough about how Vuescan saved me when Nikon stopped supporting their own scan software. It's even faster, and the ICE equivalent is just as good. I don't even blow the dust off the slides before scans, the software has taken care of it for me.
    And by the way, the entire collection of digital and scanned images is sitting within a rather compact 2TB hard drive on my desk. This includes about 220k digital images and scanned slides (redundant) 90k. Now to back up that 2TB drive...
     
  5. So it becomes less expensive to shoot the slide with a $4000 DSLR.
     
  6. david_henderson

    david_henderson www.photography001.com

    Mr Lamar. The point you make is mathematically correct, but possibly not relevant to those people who shot thousands of slides years ago before digital was readily available at high MP levels. Many people including me have thousands of transparencies ( in my case MF) shot in those days, and we've had to think, not so much about what to do now, but what to do with a substantial photographic legacy that is hopefully good enough not to want to throw away. I saved maybe $8 000 a year changing to digital and paid for all my digital equipment through the sale of my film cameras. But that still doesn't resolve what to do with the slides I had already.
     
  7. " And by the way, the entire collection of digital and scanned images is sitting within a rather compact 2TB hard drive on my desk. This includes about 220k digital images and scanned slides (redundant) 90k. Now to back up that 2TB drive.."

    If I were you, I would not throw away any of my negatives (and I don't).
    Those are your ORIGINALS.
    Everything else you did are COPIES.
    Technology is changing fast. First there was a 5.25" floppy. Then there was a 3.5" disc. Then there was a zip disk...and CD's, and DVD's...and finally portable 2TB hard drive.
    Oh, and last but not least we also now have the CLOUD.
    But none of these storage devices are going to always be accessible, as is clearly proven by the various storage media "containers" that went bye bye... vanished, disappeared and are pretty much useless.
    Keep your ORIGINALS, you invested in the film, developing, building storage, it showed your kids that it is something of value. Maybe they will keep it for sentimental value or maybe everything gets thrown out.
    Who knows?
     
  8. No film since I went digital with the first Nikon D70 in 2004. Before that, I would buy bricks of twenty rolls (same lot and exp date) and spend $500 at a pop. That was a lot for a hobby that started on a very slim budget. I even developed my own slides to ultimately save money. It was a matter of keeping to budget. I shot about 100 rolls a year. That would be 3600 slides. When the kids were visiting me this December 2013, we shot 6000 images on 5 cameras and two iPhones in about 10 days. I sometimes wonder why I am hesitating to get a Nikon D600. It's just that big charge to the credit card. But no film fees! Somehow spending in 10 and 20 dollar bills doesn't seem to hurt, but it all adds up.
    Yes, it's legacy. My daughter has assumed responsibility for all those slide drawers. Maybe and maybe not? When my wife's father passed away, her mother cleaned out his room full of 'man' machines - lathes, drill press and you know the rest - in about a week, donating most of it to a local high school. So what happens to stuff has taken on a different meaning. What is it actually you want to leave behind. It's the images of family and friends. And then there are a few images which tell how my eye saw the world. Funny, but it's hard to identify people only a generation earlier.
    I believe legacy will survive on the hard drive and the internet. I can clone my drives and give/leave one each for my kids. And my blog will live on until the server kicks me off. Ahhh, it's about the endgame. Meanwhile, I have a rather nice collection of images/slides that I can never hope to display on the limited wall space available to me. And then there's the blog sharing and satisfaction somebody somewhere out there likes my stuff.
     
  9. I use one of the last Canoscan dedicated 35mm scanners. I would love to upgrade to
    a Nikon 5000, but now I wonder how long the scanner would serve me before
    needing repair and getting my moneys worth out of that kind of money.

    Because I shoot larger format films as well, those Kodak/Creo Jazz scanners are
    looking like a better deal.

    On the subject of equipment, pros need to manage values for cashflow purposes, but otherwise, I value equipment based on its usefulness, not its current market value.
     
  10. No, unfortunately I am a hoarder and have kept every slide I ever mounted. It's taking up a lot of drawer space. Yes they are the originals! And so I have to hope my daughter not my wife will take possession when that time comes.
    And I tried the DSLR slide copy idea. It was half-hearted. I wanted a fast way to get those slides digital. Nope if you're going to do it right, then you need that Nikon Coolscan. Otherwise there's not much point to getting poor scans in half the time. You shot the slides/negatives with the best camera and film you could muster at the time. It is comparable to printing your images on a low cost printer just to say you printed them. Quality does matter.. at least to me. Everyone has a price point and weighs the benefit of better or more expensive equipment.
    Everything is a compromise. Where I started this thread I was congratulating my timing for a change. I never thought that Nikon would stop making scanners. But as film has fallen from use, so too has the need for scanners to digitize the images. But they built those scanners to last. Thank the engineers, I haven't had any problems except that the slide feeder jams periodically, a known issue. And I got that scanner never knowing how much someone would pay for one a few years down the road.
     
  11. Must be a slow day waiting for the start of the Superbowl.
    Value? Yeah, I thought the Coolscan was expensive at $1000 and got Santa (wife) to ok the purchase. I had waited and waited not knowing that the scanner market for high end scanners was pretty much dead. Nikon discontinued the sales based on profit. There wasn't any. And if you are a photographer on a budget, then anything you can get for hundreds of dollars less must be attractive. But I also value quality. So for me the choice was to bite the bullet and ask Santa to deliver. Yes, I still believe in Santa. When you get around to saying that you don't, your dreams won't come true any more.
     
  12. Mr Lamar. The point you make is mathematically correct, but possibly not relevant to those people who shot thousands of slides years ago before digital was readily available at high MP levels. Many people including me have thousands of transparencies ( in my case MF) shot in those days, and we've had to think, not so much about what to do now, but what to do with a substantial photographic legacy that is hopefully good enough not to want to throw away. I saved maybe $8 000 a year changing to digital and paid for all my digital equipment through the sale of my film cameras. But that still doesn't resolve what to do with the slides I had already.​
    You misunderstood me! I meant instead of buying an expensive scanner shoot your collection of slides using a good DSLR in a slide copying setup. If you do it right, it should have same quality as scanning plus a lot faster. I don't mean shooting with a digital camer instead of slides.
     
  13. Victor, I think you pretty much know what's awaiting you. The 5000 is fine, but it can break down = repair either v. expensive or nearly nonexistent. Having to deal with Vuescan or other software....it adds more time into the project....as often the first set of slides/nega (X number) is just a learning process....what to do or what to avoid.
    I think copying the slides with a DSLR (fairly high resolution) will give you much faster results + Raw files, that you can tweak whenever you have time for them. Granted, you probably will be stuck with files that are capable of enlargements of 16x20 or below. However, the files that show promise (well exposed and high in value to you), you'll be able to have them done professionally....using a drum scanner....and you'll likely gain DR + some sharpness.
    I, too, have thousands of slides from previous life....and have no desire to scan them for many many years into the future. Frankly, I rather go out and enjoy taking images instead.
    Les
     
  14. Coolscans are the end for me unless I can find one locally for a v cheap price. My 2yr old bought used of a pro CS 4000 died. Nikon doesn't fix them ... tried calling Tokyo.
    Well in a way a CS still cannot totally replicate the original slide. But it might be one of the best methods. I am looking at going to 120 format, have some film already including the E100G when they got dropped. So that means the Plustek 120 scanner at $2,000US, I'll pass. From what I read it is slower but sorta slightly better in some ways and in other ways not as good as the CS 9000. But anyway for $2k, I rather scan them with a dSLR / macro lens and send the really nice ones to be drum scanned, maybe overseas to USA since they are way lesser. It cost us $0.80US or $0.40US per MB over here.
    For me. I got into photography late so it was digital for me then I got into film. And now the CS are gone. In 2006 my regret was I shouldn't have gotten the V700 but got the CS V. At the time I thought the V700 was more flexible with the diff format sizes. But again even if I got the CS V, it won't scan 120 format .... so kinda still stuck.
     
  15. david_henderson

    david_henderson www.photography001.com

    Mr Lamar. You're right- I did misunderstand you. Sorry
     

Share This Page