Nikon Coolscan 9000

Discussion in 'Medium Format' started by steve_parrott, Jul 13, 2008.

  1. I realize this is not specificly related to medium format cameras, but I know many people here use this scanner, so I just wanted to pose a

    WHY are these things so difficult to buy? They are nearly impossible to find. Has It always been this way? There is a factory demo on Ebay
    now that is already over $2100, and that is the ONLY one even on Ebay. I have NEVER seen one in stock at B-H, and you can forget finding
    one anywhere else.

    How do you get one of these things? Put in an order and wait your turn until it ships? Has anyone ordered the Nikon 9000 lately? Where did
    you purchase it from, and how long did it take you to get it?

    It would be great to be able to make really great scans of my MF film, but I run into a brick wall every place I try to find this scanner. I
    suppose that is a good sign. If it was a piece of junk it would not be so popular and hard to get.

    Thanks for any info / suggestions.

  2. Hi Steve - what about the Epson Perfection v700? I know it is not strictly a film scanner, but with the 2 lenses I've scanned MF 645 and 35 (and some large format negs!) with excellent results - plus they are a LOT easier to find!
  3. Hmmm. There was one here in a store in Ottawa ...

    They claim "in stock" at $2579

  4. Thanks for the link Vick... at least there is *someplace" showinig one in stock. However, the price is almost $600 higher than
    B-H, plus I don't know now much extra the shipping would be from Canada to here as opposed to shipping within the US. I
    will just keep biding my time, ... I'm sure I will get hold of one someday that is not priced like a limited edition Ferrari or

  5. Try here:

    C$2299 seems to be the going price at several Canadian photo retailers. Ask Vistek to price match. They'd probably not mind moving a little stock. Do some more research--this took about 3 minutes. Just be aware of warranty issues re: Nikon Canada/Nikon USA coverage policies, OK?
  6. Thanks Gary. Believe it or not, I actually did do a search, but somehow missed these sellers. I'm bookmarking each site. I
    may try calling B-H on Monday and see if they can give me an estimated time line as to when they receive these. I still hate
    to spend lots more money than is necessary, plus as you said, there might be warranty issues with a Canadian "import". But
    if it comes down to it, I may very well have to go the "Canadian route".

  7. It's possible that the company doesn't stock the unit but will order one for you. For example, Adorama says they don't have anything in stock, but you can still order one.
  8. I got mine from As someone suggested, place an order with Adorama, ro B&H, etc., and wait. One will eventually show up. By the way...mine has been in Nikon Repair for a couple of weeks now. My concern is that it may be there a long time because there may be a parts shortage. I'm not sure I would have gone with the Nikon 9000 if I were buying one today. Check out Microtek M1 Pro. It comes bundled with SilverFast Ai. Or look at the Epson V750 Pro. Those are good deals when one considers that they are bundled with SilverFast. The Nikon 9000 isn't bundled with SilverFast. And their glass carrier costs too much.
  9. The problem with the flatbeds, though, is that every serious test I've read states that the resolution isn't nearly up to what they specify. The dedicated film scanners come closest to their stated resolution.

    It's too bad, but it seems really to be true. And I know that the scans I'm getting from my Nikon LS4000 are superior to the ones I've gotten from the Epson 4870 flatbed. Yeah, I can work with the Epson scans, but the 4000 is just much sweeter at that size.
  10. I bought a 9000 new last year. It had to be ordered with Nikon Europe but it came in 5 days. It is likely Nikon only makes small
    batches. It may be wise to let the shop call Nikon before you order. Sometimes the glass negative holder is hard to get. The
    glass holder is expensive but worth the money.
  11. david_henderson


    I bought a new one early last year. It didn't take me too long to track down a helpful retailer with one in stock here in London. He got me a glass holder in about 4 days, so it was there when I collected. The downside is that the price is much higher than in the USA- all told with the glass holder and subtracting the sales tax I still paid over $3500 . Maybe there's a message here- the higher the price the more likely you are to find stock. Funny that.

    The other thing is that I've decided that I really dislike the process of scanning. Frankly I spend more than enough time in front of a computer without all this - all told I reckon you'd do well to average more than 4 scans an hour. I can get decent Imacon scans for about $10 after tax and its only a small proportion of my work that needs to be scanned at this quality. I shall soon sell the 9000 , buy a decent flatbed for the web and submissions etc and buy in film scans as I need them from the residue of what I make on the sale of the 9000- which I suspect will last me a while.

    If you wanted, you can get Nikon 9000 scans very cheaply from Scancafe, based in USA but scanning in India. Unless for some reason I can't see you need a film scan from everything you shoot, the economics of buy-in vs DIY are worth a close look.
  12. The 9000 is an excellent scanner - I'm just getting started with mine. I skipped the glass carrier, though, and plan to scan wet (still experimenting):
  13. Thanks all for the info guys. I have considered the Microtek, but all the reviews and tests of it always show it just not quite
    the quality of the Nikon, though yes, the Silverfast software is a real bonus. However, if I am going to take the time to scan,
    I want the best quality I can get aside from a multi thousand dollar drum scanner.

    I struggle over and over with the scan at home thing, or to just keep sending them out. I actually do not do THAT much
    scanning, so it would take a long time for me to recoup the money I would have invested in the Nikon scanner, but there is
    just that ability to do it NOW without having to pack up a negative and wait several days and have yet another charge on my
    credit card that makes me wish I could do it at home.

    David... I actually have used Scan Cafe. They do a very nice job, BUT, it takes from 2 to 3 MONTHS to get the scans back.
    Now, I don't have to have instant gratification or I would be shooting digital, but no way can I deal with that kind of time lag.
    Scan Cafe is geared to scanning large collectioins of negatives or slides that people have accumulated over the years. They
    are just not a viable alternative to use for an ongoing scan service for newly shot film. I am tempted to ask how much you
    want to sell your scanner for, but seeing how much you had to pay for it, I'm sure you will need considerably more than what
    I can purchase a new one for here in the US.

    I contacted B-H today, and they basically said all they can do is send them out as soon as they get them, and all I can do is
    order and it will be sent to me when they get it... no estimate though when that might be... plus the credit card is charged
    when the order is placed.... not when it is shipped. Hate paying for something I don't have.

    Robert... I have also investigated the the Scan Science wet mount kit. It looks very effective, and not excessively priced,
    actually much cheaper than the Nikon glass holder. Plus, if I was going to scan through glass, I might as well use a flatbed.
    So I fully intend to use their kit for the Nikon 9000. I would love to hear how this works for you after you have done a few
    scans and become skilled with the Scan Science kit. Feel free to email me anytime. luxvivens - at -

    Currently Chromatics in Nashville, Tennessee is doing my film processing and scanning. They are the greatest, so perhaps I
    should just stay with my current procedures.

    ... or maybe the scanner would be better... ???

    ... as the late Kurt Kobain said, "oh well whatever, nevermind" ;-0

  14. Steve,

    "I have also investigated the the Scan Science wet mount kit. It looks very effective, and not excessively priced, actually much cheaper than the Nikon glass holder. Plus, if I was going to scan through glass, I might as well use a flatbed. So I fully intend to use their kit for the Nikon 9000."

    You don't think that the only difference between a flatbed and a Nikon is that the Nikon comes with a glassless holder? If so, think again! ;-)
    Besides, wet mounting involves glass too.

    The Nikon glass holder, despite adding more surfaces for dust to stick to, is an improvement over the glassless carrier.
    Not that the thing without glass is no good at all, but it can be impossible to hold a strip of film flat (and thus get it evenly sharp) using the standard holder. And after having tried, tried and tried again to get a strip flat, you would indeed gladly pay the extra for the glass holder.

    I too would very much like to hear to how the wet mount thingy works out.
  15. david_henderson


    "I too would very much like to hear to how the wet mount thingy works out"

    Me too. Particularly in the context that the thing I like least about the Nikon is the loading of the transparency into the holder with those silly little plastic shims that I guess are there to keep the glass from the film surface but won't keep still. If there's anything that can compare with just slapping the slide down on a flatbed (without removing the mount in the case of my Epson 3200) and not having to measure focus to make sure the film is close to flat, I could possibly regain my enthusiasm for the Nikon 9000.
  16. Particularly in the context that the thing I like least about the Nikon is the loading of the transparency into the holder with those silly little plastic shims that I guess are there to keep the glass from the film surface but won't keep still. If there's anything that can compare with just slapping the slide down on a flatbed
    I do not use the black frames at all. I just slap the strip of slides onto the glass of the carrier, close it and into the scanner it goes. No problems. The scans are fine.
  17. Wet scan results are here (not my work):
  18. Looks rather convincing.<br>I wonder whether we need anything else but the fluid. Just put that on the glas carrier, use the lid of the carrier instead of the mylar mentioned on the linked page.<br>Will give it a try! Where do we get scanning fluid?
  19. I got everything that I need (except time) from Scan Science. Julio is very helpful.
  20. The cost of this scanner is crazy. I just proof on a cheapo flatbed then send the scans I want out to be done on an
    imacon, better quality results than the 9000 too. If you are shooting high volume buying might still make sense or if
    you plan on sticking with film for many years. This is the best solution for me.
  21. The price of the Nikon CS 9000 seems reasonable to me. It's amazingly well built and the optics are excellent. Yes, a flat bed is fine for proofing and maybe a 4x enlargement. The Nikon can do much better than that.
  22. david_henderson


    "The cost of this scanner is crazy" Try buying in the UK. Here you'll be lucky to get the scanner and a glass carrier
    for much less than $4500 equivalent .

    And whilst I have no real issues with the output of the Nikon, I have to say that the quality of the Imacon scans I buy
    in for use in my stock agency- who accept Imacon or drum scans only- is visibily better than anything I have so far
    pulled out of the Nikon, certainly as far as smoothness and sharpness is concerned. Certainly at UK prices I can't
    see many amateur photographers doing the volume of big scans to justify the purchase of a 900o at UK prices.
  23. I bought one from B&H about a month ago. I checked in the afternoon and they had none. I checked at midnight and they had it in stock and I ordered it. I checked in the morning and they were gone. Looking at the shipping label, they may have only gotten four? I ended up buying a Mamiya 7 and am waiting for film to arrive just so that I could scan some 6x7 negs.
  24. ...oh yeah. I had ordered from Vistek. The web site kept saying 2 to three days until availability. 10 days later, i called and checked and they said they were expecting stock in a month. I didn't find that to be very reliable and cancelled the order. I've ordered a D200 and D300 from them and have been very happy, so this was probably just an honest mistake.
  25. The Coolscan 9000 are hard to get because they are extremely good. Someone mentioned that an Imacon produces better results - which I can't confirm after several tests. I'm using my Coolscan 9000 as well as my 5000 with VueScan ( and get first class results.

    I've purchased mine in Europe second hand but in perfect condition and added a glass holder just after a couple of days.
  26. I believe that the camera companies left the technology of desktop scanners half-baked in the rush to digital, or rush away from film, or rush into insolvency depending on your take on what happened. I base this conclusion on the many improvements working pros have made to their scanner hardware and the fact that the process was and remains a bit of a black art - definitely not for those who need fast results from their startup.

    Having said that, I see little difference between the output of my Multi Pro Minolta scanner and quite a few drum scans I have bought in. And I am in total control with my process. I was lucky, got mine for $A1300 on, you guessed it, a runout sale several years ago. Maybe 500 scans later, I am so far in front it is not worth considering. Not impressed with the Imacon's (bad) habit of auto sharpening; from what I have read and seen firsthand, it is no better than my own output, older model though.

    15-25 minutes per scan is about average for a 4x-8x multi-sample scan of a 6x7; I just accept this as part of the deal, and the quality is well worthwhile. Never had a problem with flatness issues, the Minolta glass holder just works, as does the Scanhancer I use. One can adjust focus manually on smooth grain areas for a focus averaged over the frame - which works fine. You might be able to pick one of these up, a lot smaller and perhaps more usable that the Nikons. Ken Rockwell has a useful review of these. I really dislike posting original images around the place, another factor to consider. best regards.

Share This Page