Imacon 343 versus Nikon 9000

[charlesp]

I'm trying to decide between selling one of my children and

getting a Nikon 9000 scanner, or selling both and getting the

Imacon 343. Does anyone have any first hand experiences with

both scanners.. My prime concern is extracting shadow detail

and ability to crop and enlarge. I'm not obsessive about edge to

edge sharpness or speed. I'm shooting 6x4.5 and 6x7 film.

Thanks all.

[squareframe]

trust me Charles, you will get much less for them if they are teen-agers.

[charlesp]

Daniel,

 

I know what you mean. One's a girl 14 years old and rapidly

depreciating. I better get a move on.

[ken_hughes4]

I have worked with several imacon scanners, get the imacon without question.

[Ed_Ingold]

The Imacon seems to be the Holy Grail among scanners. Read a little more at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/scanners/imacon_comparison.shtml

 

The Nikon scanners are also reviewed by an Imacon owner, and compare favorably.

[hatte_stiwenius]

There are some crucial differences between the basic operations of the two scanners.

 

Imacon is easier to handle if you want the scans focused edge-to-edge. When you think this is

of less importance the Nikon will do. On the other hand, if you want the Nikon to be sharp all

over the image you'll have to use their glass film holders with their high potential to Newton rings

in the scan as well as dust problems when scanning B/W films.

 

The Imacon has no ICE dust removal as the Nikon has. ICE works only on colour film, but can

also affect very fine details in the image. But if your films are clean and you can find some dust

removal in PS relaxing Imacon will do.

 

Nikon will scan a little quicker when most functions like ICE, grain reduction and multi sampling are

off. But many times the multi sampling has to be on to reach the tonal qualities of Imacon.

 

Regarding sharpness both scanners basically rely on optics. The internal lenses differ. The

Nikon ED lens is a little shaper, BUT on disregard of contrast capabilities wich are of greatest

importance in scanning. The Rodenstock lens of Imacon are better in that matter and by no

means unsharp. One should know that Rodenstock manufacture some of the absolutely best

lenses for enlargers and scanners.

If you turn the "sharpness" off on both scanners the Nikon seems sharper at first. But by

studying the originals with a magnifier Nikon seems to produce sharper reproductions than the

original is itself! And that's not a primary intent with a scanner, if you see what I mean. I guess

sharpness in the Nikon is acquired by a certain amount of digital sharpening that unfortunately

can't be turned off. The same goes for Imacon when you set sharpness to 0, but you can still

turn the digital sharpness completely off by setting it to -120 in the Imacon software.

(All this with sharpness is something the manufacturers play around with to "impress" in amateur

press comparisons. Now, in all optical reproductions you'll after all loose a certain amount of

sharpness and contrast. It's impossible to avoid due to physical laws. Finally you'll have to

compensate for these losses with the gamma control upon scanning and final adequate

sharpening in the image editor).

 

With the Imacon software you'll have better control over the gamma. To change gamma value in

the Nikon you'll have to leave their auto setting wich means you're into really tricky handling of the

software. (I think the Nikon people have been too ambitious in creating a simple scanning tool. It

can work fine as long as you're dealing with the "ideal" of originals but can cause great problems

with the rest. One should remember that gamma control is of extreme importance in scanning. I

would say that every original need its specific gamma curve).

 

Regarding negative scanning Imacon is the better one due it's better control in the software.

 

My advice is that if you're just an amateur without other purposes than getting your images

digitalized buy a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi PRO or Nikon 9000 ED. But if you want to go on

with your images and create HQ prints get the Imacon.

[chiswick_john]

I have never observed any digital sharpening with Nikon scanners - I'm pretty confident of being able to spot what it looks like and I find your statement at odds with my experience.

[mattb1]

I could never get my 6x9's to mount in the standard film holder with the 9000. I just got the glass holder, it's a little finicky as well but still much easier to work with. So, you'll have to figure that cost into the cost of the 9000 for 6x6 and 6x7.

[kevin_palmer1]

The Imacon will be much less work in post processing. Here is a French comparison. You will have to translate the page.

<a href="http://www.galerie-photo.com/scanner-epson-4870.html">Link</a>

[hatte_stiwenius]

John Chiswick,

 

I'm very grateful for your comment above. Of course I should have been clearer. A "wild

guess" would have been more appropriate. I can neither spot any obvious fragments of digital

sharpening in the Nikon. Meanwhile it can be hard to tell when there is a just a very small amount

of sharpening. Maybe it's all up to the ED-lenses. They are in all cases are well known to be

very sharp.

 

To all in the forum: the Nikon 9000 ED is very sharp. Using the glass holder also guarantee

edge-to-edge sharpness!

 

With remorse & regards / H

[chiswick_john]

"The Imacon will be much less work in post processing" - Not my experience. The ICE and auto exposure controls on the Nikon will get a very good looking scan that can be used without any further work most of the time. A scan from an Imacon always requires painstaking dust and scratch removal as well as tonal adjustments (esp neg). The nikon is best at volume work - the Imacon is best for high quality individual scans. Incidentaly although the glass carrier ensures flatness and better corner sharpness it does knock some of the overall sharpness out of the scan - the extra glass does degrade the image slightly when you scan at 4000dpi. The bottom line is neither is perfect but both are very good and you are unlikely to be dissapointed.

[charlesp]

Thanks everyone for the helpful answers. Kevin, the French

comparison was pretty decisive. What it comes down to for me is

this. If I were to think of moth-balling/selling my MF cameras in

favour of a 35mm DSLR, or adding a digital back in a few years, I

would opt for the Nikon 9000. If I crystal ball gaze and assume

that MF back $'s will stay in the range of $12000. + for the next 5

years or so, I would opt for the Imacon 343. I'll bet many others

are also trying to figure out where the price of MF backs will go.

[kevin_palmer1]

Yeah if you can afford it I would go for the Nikon. As someone stated above, the digital ICE is very helpful. However it can remove some fine detail in the process. Plus it's VERY slow. But with straight scans it is sharper than the Epson. But not near as sharp as the Imacon. And the color almost always needs a slight adjustment. When scanning at 4000dpi you better go get some coffee. I don't think you will see a whole lot of difference between the Epson and Nikon with MF. You will see it more with 35mm. Check out this extensive review...

<a href="http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204870/page_1.htm">Link</a>

[feli]

The Nikon images may appear sharper because they use LED's as their light source.

I believe the IMACON uses a fluorescent tube.

 

Perhaps you are seeing something similar to the difference between a condenser and

diffusion enlarger.

 

I noticed the same thing when I switched from Minolta, which also uses a fluorescent

source, to Nikon.