Nikon Super Coolscan LS-8000 ED vs Epson V700

<p>I used to think my Epson V700 did a very nice job of scanning my 6 x 4.5 negatives. But I got rid of it and got a great deal on a Nikon Super Coolscan LS-8000 ED and I have to say, after re-scanning some of the negatives I did with the Epson, the Nikon makes the Epson's look like crap.</p>

<p>I know, I know, flatbed scanners are not reputed to be as good as dedicated scanners, but I didn't expect the <em>order of magnitude leap</em> in performance that I got with the Coolscan. The negatives with the Nikon at <em>2000 ppi</em> look better than the ones with the Epson at <em>4000 ppi</em>. Not to mention that the Nikon has Grain Management software that the Epson did not.</p>

<p>I have heard of flatness problems with the non-glass holders, however I did not see a problem with my eyes and at 100% scans, I do not see any difference I would not attribute to the natural falloff associated at the corners with any lens, even my CZ's.</p>

<p>Makes me wonder why I wasted so much time with the Epson!</p>

<p><em>I do not see any difference I would not attribute to the natural falloff associated at the corners with any lens, even my CZ's.</em></p>

<p>If you can stand another UREKA! moment, get a glass carrier, preferably the non-rotating one (it does more). Medium format lenses are a lot better than you can imagine. Wait until you see what "sharp" really means. The downside is that every lapse in your technique shows up big time.</p>

<p>Even a lowly Plustek 7500i 35mm scanner is light years beyond the flatbeds. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Makes me wonder why I wasted so much time with the Epson!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Were you using the BetterScanning film holder with the Epson? If not, you were wasting your time.</p>

 

<p>I have no doubt that there is a discernable difference, having owned a 9000ED and a V700 myself. The question I'd be asking is whether, given the applications you're scanning for, that difference is relevent? If you're trying to make medium sized or large prints , its very relevent. If you're scanning to view the photographs on screen then it isn't. Another example, I've recently had delivered a Blurb book which used a large quantity of MF slides scanned by a variety of methods from a Drum Scanner to the V700 with I suspect all the intermediate points. Most of the images appear 9" x 9" on a larger page. At that size I can't see a difference in the images, printed at 300dpi on a HP inkjet I believe. On the other hand I haven't been remotely tempted to make a larger print from anything I've scanned on the Epson V700, and I have done so successfully from the Coolscan. </p>

<p>Scott could you post some images scanned on both scanners so we could see the differences. I don't doubt the Nikon is much better but I am interested to see the differences and get a feel for what I am missing using a v500.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=17200">David Henderson</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Hero" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 30, 2010; 01:15 p.m.<br>

I have no doubt that there is a discernable difference, having owned a 9000ED and a V700 myself. The question I'd be asking is whether, given the applications you're scanning for, that difference is relevent?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's very relevent David. I do good bit of portraiture and commercial work and still shoot film about 80% of the time and my Hasselblad is still my camera of choice. All of my bridal portraits, unless they specifically state otherwise, are all done with the Blad. Stuff for the web is pretty much for fun and for my website, where the difference is not really apparent or relevent.</p>

<h1>Super Coolscan LS-8000 ED, is this any better than the 9000 ED ?<br /></h1>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=168767">Stuart Moxham - Finland</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 30, 2010; 02:41 p.m.<br>

Scott could you post some images scanned on both scanners so we could see the differences. I don't doubt the Nikon is much better but I am interested to see the differences and get a feel for what I am missing using a v500.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry for the delay Stuart, here is a 100% scan comparing the same area from a 6x4.5 T-Max 100 negative. For me, the difference is marked.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=168767">Stuart Moxham - Finland</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 30, 2010; 02:41 p.m.<br />Scott could you post some images scanned on both scanners so we could see the differences. I don't doubt the Nikon is much better but I am interested to see the differences and get a feel for what I am missing using a v500.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry for the delay Stuart, here is a 100% scan comparing the same area from a 6x4.5 T-Max 100 negative. For me, the difference is marked.<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v138/stm58/?action=view&current=scannercomparison.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v138/stm58/scannercomparison.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /></a></p>

<p>Thanks Scott could you let me know what resolution were they scanned at.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=168767">Stuart Moxham - Finland</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 31, 2010; 01:57 p.m.<br>

Thanks Scott could you let me know what resolution were they scanned at.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Both were scanned at 4000 ppi. The difference is very noticeable on an 11 x 14 print</p>

<p>Thanks Scott for posting those. I would say the v700 appears to be a bit better than my v500 and the Nikon is even better again.</p>

<p>Yes, the difference is marked as one would expect of two completely different devices scanning a neg in different ways each using unique software. It's well known that Epson scans need more sharpening than a dedicated film scanner. When you do, you'll find the difference is not as marked. This is not to say the Nikon is scan isn't nice, just you have to treat the Epson file differently to extract the most from it. You didn't say if you are using the stock Epson film holder. If you are using the stock film holder you can be assured your film is <strong>not</strong> at the precise optimum focus point. Once there, the differences between these two scans would be small indeed.<br>

Here is your example with the epson scan simply sharpened a bit more.</p><div></div>

<p>Scott how do you get the scans to clean up so nicely. I have tried neat image on some of my scans to remove grain and sometimes it works quite well but it can be a bit hit and miss. This is what I get from a sharpened 3200 ppi scan from 645 using the v500 the film was agfa ultra 50. This has no noise reduction applied but the grain is quite visible. I don't beleive the my v500 gives 3200 ppi of resolution though. The neg is a bit soft too.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is one using neat image to remove some of the noise.</p><div></div>

<p>I have to add to this thread my little experinces with the V750 Pro. , when I was using the supplied frames or placing the film with the large area frame the focusing is not satisfactory, later I started placing the film in a glass mount and I did get much better result .</p>

<p>This is because with the glass mount the film set uniformally and not bouncing or bend.<br>

Again, I am interested to buy the Nikon 9000 ED and I hope I can get it with the nikon dealer in Dubai next Wend.<br>

The 6X6 and 6X7 film images I posted in my profiles are all scanned by the Epson V750 Pro., the films are too old and expired long time back but the details sounded ok unless some of the experts find them not sharp, I do not know .</p>

<p>Thank you</p>