Which scanner should I get?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by jake_carlsen, Dec 26, 2010.

  1. I have been looking around at getting a used scanner. I have always wanted to get my hands on either a Nikon Coolscan 8000 or 9000,
    but am depressed that the used prices just simply are not dropping, in fact they seem to be climbing.

    I was wondering if the fine people of this forum will be able to help me by making a recommendation towards getting a new scanner that
    will perform well.

    I have been starting to shoot more and more film as of late with my Nikon FM2n and would love to be able to import the images I am
    making in the best quality way available that will not break the bank.

    I hope that you all had a great Holiday and I look forward to your responses.

  2. Why not just have your photofinisher supply you with high quality CD's of your negatives?...Doesn't cost that much more & I'm sure there would be less post processing than if you scanned in prints or negatives yourself...
  3. They're climbing even because there is still more demand than there are ones for sale. Dagnabit!
    If your scanning needs do not need a fast input, then you might try looking for the much slower, but otherwise high-quality, Canoscan FS4000US. If you can find a way to get SCSI-2 into your computer, it speeds it up considerably over the normal USB-1 connection.
    By the way, the Canoscan works very well (better actually than the OM software) in VueScan (works on almost all machines with almost all scanners ever made).
  4. Well that is an idea, but I have had a hard time finding a finisher that will provide the quality of scans that I would like to
    get. Asking for files that are anything more than 8 bit jpegs is generally out of the question. There used to be shops that
    would do more, but they have either stopped the services or have gone under in the last few years. At this point, it just
    seems like it would be much better to have a good scanner of my own and do my own digitizing.
  5. Oh:
    photofinisher supply you with high quality CD's of your negatives​
    In my personal experience, there is a huge contradiction between photofinisher and high-quality CDs.
  6. To JDM:
    Thank you. I can probably work out getting a SCSI controller card into my PC box. That is a good suggestion. I have used
    Nikon and Epson scanners up to this point, and actually used to sell Canon scanners, but never used one. I will take this
    suggestion seriously. Do you have a suggestion on a good vendor to get one from?
  7. I also agree that there is usually lot to be desired when you get a CD made by the photo finisher. This is why I am looking
    at getting a scanner for my own use. One more question. Are there any flatbed style scanners that you would recommend?
  8. Jack, how about a USB2 to SCSI dongel. Small, cheap, and just a lightweight, flexible USB cable goes to the scanner, instead of a stiff, archaic SCSI cable. I thing they're supported now by both VueScan and SilverFist.
  9. As a person who loves to shoot film and has had really bad experiences with others scanning and putting my pictures on a CD, I started to do my own scanning. Even the pro shops who I must admit do a good job but at the cost of an arm and a leg, do not do a good a job as I do. I have two film scanners. Both are HP and both work very well for me. I believe the biggest difference is the software. I use both Vue Scan and Silverfast. I believe it is mostly about the software. Having said that, I really love my G4050 Scanner. It is slow which is fine with me. I can batch scan an entire roll and ultra high res, go work and by the time I am home it is all done.
    P.nets, Justin Serpico, uses one and his results are what convinced me to do the same. He is a pro that puts out some amazing work.
  10. The biggest advantage of the 8000/9000 series is their ability to scan medium format. If this is not important to you other USB scanners would be the Coolscan IV/4000 and Coolscan V/5000. Since Nikon has discontinued their scanners the used prices will not come down for a few years yet until those of us who only shoot digital have scanned all our old film.
  11. To John Crowe:
    So there is no other real advantage? The bit depth that the scanners scan at and output are no better? Their speed or
    other capabilities are no better? I'm just curious as I thought that there was more to these scanners than just their ability to
    scan larger formats than 35mm. If I can get the same image quality out of a lower end scanner for 35mm then I would
    love to get my hands on it. What models do you recommend? I would prefer that it isn't too horribly slow...so I guess I am
    looking for something that works with USB 2 if at all possible.
  12. Years ago,I bought a Epson very expensive scanner,the Expression 1600 pro,having in mind to scan my films,because I did not know other machines.
    Unfortunately,when I tried to ,I realised,that I gad a terrible enemy,dust,which I could not eliminate.
    How do you scan those films,without seeing big dust spots,in the scanned pictures?
  13. I use an anti static brush just like I did when I worked in a 1 hour lab. It gets most if not all dust off of the negatives for
    me when I have used my old Epson flat bed scanner. After that, if I catch a little dust in the image after I have scanned it,
    you can usually deal with it in a blink in Photoshop.

    Not sure that this is really on topic though.
  14. I get good results using the Epson V700 with the Epson or SilverFast software. The 8x10 scanning area of the 700 also lets me make contact sheets very easily. I'm also watching reviews of the Plustek Opticfilm 7600 AI film scanner and may consider getting that.
  15. No idea where to get one (Canoscan FS4000) except to stay alert on the auction sites. I think that anything that goes through the USB on the scanner first would be like molasses through a small pipe. If you could get fast SCSI to USB2 or something else fast, of course, all would do well.
    In fact, if you find anything of that sort, let us know. I still keep an old Mac alive for this and a few other purposes...
    Cleaning really carefully before scanning is far superior to the "automatic blur" and other artifacts of most 'cleanup software'.
  16. Well I would think that cleaning your negatives well would go without saying. I have never really been all that impressed
    with automatic solutions to dust on images, but we have all had a little bit of dust get past the best cleaning measures and
    then just a little spot healing or cloning in photoshop can do wonders. Actually, the new content aware healing tools in
    CS5 are pretty amazing in this regard. I have done testing with this on architectural images where the healing tool not only
    got rid of the blemish, but also managed to match the exact pattern of the wall it was on and creating the lines of the
    siding right where it should be and matching it in such a way that you would never be able to tell that there had been any
    manipulation done.
  17. I recently purchased a used Nikon LS-40 (aka Coolscan IV) from keh.com for $450 or so. I like it.
    From time to time I come across image on the Web that were scanned with the Epson V500 or V600 which seem to be quite good scans. The V500/V600 scanners are also not very expensive, under $200.
  18. No one has mentioned the Hidden Gem among dedicated 35mm scanners, and which is in fact the best 35mm scanner out there, and at a great price. The Minolta 5400 Scan Elite I. A $1000 scanner that goes for around $250-500 used. It was the highest resolving scanner ever tested by Pop Photo and Shutterbug, Coolscans included. Phenomenal image quality, ICE infrared dust removal, an automatic diffusion Plate for reducing grain (its an option you select before scanning), and very sharp scans (no need for heavy sharpening as with flatbed scans). In many ways (build quality/metal body and the hardware diffusion plate) it is superior to the 5400II, which goes for closer to $1000 USED (!) (that baby was only $550 new, back in the day). The difference is that the 5400II uses an LED light source instead of a fluorescent tube, which makes it faster to warm up (approx 1 minute vs 3 minutes) and faster to scan.
    I have both the 5400 I, II, and Coolscan 9000. The 5400 I is the best 35mm image quality scanner of the three, but also the slowest.
  19. http://ca.konicaminolta.com/products/consumer/digital_camera/dimage/dimagescan-elite5400/index.html
  20. While we're on scanners... do they suffer any alignment problems during shipping? I'm guessing that they don't but it's worth asking.
  21. I opted for a Canon 8800f for my medium format stuff, and I have a Coolscan 5000 for 135. I mainly use the medium format for wet prints, but I can still use the 8800f for proofs. If I have a shot that I really want a good scan on, then I can send it for a drum scan, or off to my local lab, who do a good job. Just find a good lab, and if you are in the US, then Richard's do a top job.
  22. i couldnt afford one of the 9000s so i went for a flatbed epsom v750 pro - does 35mm and medium. very happy with the results. i find it a little slow cos my PC is rubbish and i cant do the multi scan (same reason) but i've lugged it round to a mate's with a decent pc and it works fine. results on mine are nice, but you have to invest in a better holder than comes packaged - i haven't as yet, but will definately do.
  23. I received a Epson Perfection V500 scanner for Christmas and amazed how clear the scanned negatives turned out. I know it cost under $200 and well worth the money.

Share This Page