Nikon 9000 or new Epson V750-M Pro for Xpan?

[barry_passaris]

I just bought an Xpan kit and need a quality scanner for negs/trannies.

 

I have a Nikon Coolscan 4000 but stitching negs together is a hassle.

 

So, can I assume the Nikon 9000 is my best option for a reasonable price range?

 

Are there any other options for a similar price which will scan Xpan negs (6x7

format)?

 

Has anyone tried the new flatbed Epson Perfection V750-M Pro? Would this

scanner perform as well as a dedicated film scanner such as the Nikon 9000?

 

Thanks in advance for any advice.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Every year Epson releases a flatbed scanner that Internet pundits proclam is as good as a dedicated film scanner. Last year it was the Epson 4990, which I own. It's great for the money, but I would prefer the Nikon 9000 if it fit my budget as it is higher resolution (ignore the bogus marketing claims - I mean real resolution) and can dig more detail from shadows.

 

See the following link for many scanners other than the ones you are interested in:

 

http://shutterflower.com/scanner%20comparison.htm

 

I did the Epson 4990 scans in the link and I would expect the newer Epsons would be similar.

[michaelkh]

I'm with robert on this one. I bought into the epson scanner procession earlier, with a

3200. It's fine for medium format but disappointing for 35mm, so I have an additional

35mm scanner. Every scanner I have seen from Epson since is slightly better than mine,

but none of them equal a dedicated film scanner. The V700 and V750 are clearly good

value for money, though.

 

If I was shooting Xpan or a swing-lens 35mm panoramic I'd need to use my flatbed, and

I'm not sure I'd be happy about that at all. If the 9000 can do what you want, you can

afford it and justify the difference in price, get it. If not, get the V750 (or the cheaper and

to my eyes not substantially less performant V700), and learn how to squeeze out the

available detail with USM and the film height adjusters.

[custom film holders for fl]

If the Nikon 9000 is within your budget (along with Nikon's optional glass holder), go for it. If you decide to go for the Epson, the 700 is looking like the better value considering how close the performance is between it and the 750 (see the examples at www.photo-i).

<p> Doug<p>

<a href="http://www.betterscanning.com">New film holder designs for Epson, Agfa and Microtek</a>

[Ed_Ingold]

The Epson 4990, predecessor to the V700/750, has a practical resolution of about 1500 ppi, despite the marketing claims. The Nikon LS-9000 achieves about 3700 ppi, compared to the advertised 4000 ppi, and is essentially grain-sharp. Besides resolution, flatbed scanners suffer form blooming and lack of contrast. It takes a generous dose of Photoshop to obtain even modestly satisfactory results. Flatbed scanners are completely inadequate for 35mm, and marginal for medium format, even 4x5, unless you are satisfied with prints no larger than 11x14. At that size, a Nikon scan of 35mm will look better than an Epson scan of medium format. I would not expect the V700 be be a revolutionary improvement over previous models.

[david_simonds]

Barry, I have owned (and actually used) the Epson 4870(?) and then the 4990 for medium format and 35mm. I have also used extensively a Canon fs4000 for 35mm. For the last year or so I have been scanning with a Nikon 9000 and printing to an Epson 2400. I can say that the Nikon with the glass holder is a vastly superior beast in every respect. If you have easy negs/chromes to scan, you may be perfectly satisfied with the flatbeds. I have made some nice images from brightly lit chromes with little contrast. But when you get into shots with deep shadows, the flatbeds I used, and even the fs4000 could not compare to the Nikon. It just pulls extraordinary detail out. For example, I have this chrome of a farmhouse window. The bottom glass panel shows a brightly lit distorted reflection of a shed behind me. The top panel is virtually black because it is transparent and shows no reflection. But on closed inspection there was some faint detail in the panel. In PS I brightened the panel. To my amazement, the entire interior of the barn was revealed. The image is one of my favorites and I think one of the best examples of he Nikon's ability to retain shadow detail that you can not even see unless you pull it out. I also have had a couple of my favorite chromes drum scanned by A&I. I am no photo tech, but I have a decent eye. And to my eye, the Nikon and the drum look a bit different but not one clearly superior to the other. Maybe the drum could be pushed a bit more - say to 40-50" or more. But how many of those are you going to do? In short, the Nikon is a great tool. I could not be more impressed or satisfied. It does cost more than the flatbeds but is far superior for those images that are challenging. And those are always the best ones. Hope this helps.

[stb]

Not so sure the V700 is better value than the V750. With the more expensive model, you get

the full Silverfast Ai instead of the crippled SE and the SE -> Ai update alone costs the price

difference. Moreover, with the V750 you get IT8 calibration tarrget, one 4x5" Ekta and one

5x7" opaque and the Monaco calibraton software. Those IT8 targets are not cheap and all in

all, I think the V750 is a better value than the V700.

[barry_passaris]

Having done some additional research since my posting, as well as your comments, perhaps I should be asking 'Which is better: the Nikon 9000 or the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro?'

 

I believe the Dimage can still be found on the used market and performs better than the Nikon???

 

Anyone with experiences using both these beasts?

[pauljm]

I have owned and used both the Nikon 9000 and the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro (earlier

model) and without doubt prefer the results from the Nikon scanner. I bought 9000 with the

FH-869GR glass holder specifically for my XPan chromes. I've even had the same chromes

scanned with an Imacon for comparison and there's very little diference IMHO.

 

Paul

[b_hall1]

Also the MicroTek scanners appear to be well developed...but the low-end Imacon would be the high-end for a home lab.

 

The Epson v750 scanner is interesting. Someone might take a view that ICE and GEM are crude and want wet scanning. And both the 700 and the 750 match lens to scan resolution. Is that significant ? In other words rather than say that flatbed scanners are not very good identify what is wrong with them...

[erik scanhancer]

I doubt Paul Mitchell used a Scanhancer with his Multi Pro, because especially with Xpan (and

a Scanhancer) the Multi Pro is the better of the two, with its true optical resolution of 4800dpi

for panoramic 35mm scanning.

[berg_na]

I would agree with most of the comments here, but the latest Epson flatbed scanners are very competent performers, and according to someone who actually owns a 4990 and compared it against the Nikon 9000, there is a difference, but it isn't like night and day (<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GlOd&tag=" target=blank>link</a>). It really depends on how large of a print you intend to make from the scans.

[barry_passaris]

Erik and Paul,

This is exactly my dilemma. I have read very positive things about both the Dimage with Scanhancer and the Nikon 9000. Unfortunately, both scanners are relatively expensive so unfortunately nobody has undertaken direct comparisons between the two.

 

Just from user comments though, I think I'm safe to assume they are both in the same league, at a step above the Epson flatbeds.

[erik scanhancer]

Barry,

 

Send me an Xpan slide and I will scan it for you so that you can make comparisons with any

other scanner of your choice.

[brettjohnson]

I would have a look at the review of the V750 Epson at http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V750/page_5.htm

 

The Nikon is able to pull more detail out of the shadows than the Epson but you need to determine whether the added quality is really worth the significant difference in cost for you. I personally could not justify the extra cost for the Nikon, but my demands are purely personal not commercial.

 

Good luck.

[barry_passaris]

Erik,

Thanks for the offer of scanning for me, though I am in Australia. I don't even have any Xpan negs as yet as the camera is completely new. Hopefully this week I'll begin shooting with it.

 

I was leaning towards the Nikon 9000 as I can purchase it new. The scanner is such a fundamental part of the workflow, I don't want to buy a dud. However, the info. on the Scanhancer website is convincing and so has me undecided.

 

If anyone had side by side comparisons of the same subject, it would be helpful. But I don't think I will find anyone who owns both scanners.

 

Thanks to everybody though for your all comments. Very helpful indeed!

[erik scanhancer]

Barry, do some slide shooting with that Xpan. (Only a slide scan will give you a good

reference because negs leave too much room for operator interpretation, thus confusing

the results.) Make sure you make several of the exact same shots that you can send over

the world to have them scanned for you. I'm sure there will be someone in the Nikon 9000

Yahoo forum who is willing to make a scan for you as well:

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coolscan8000-9000/

 

It is easy and inexpensive to send a slide and an empty CD from Australia to anywhere on

the globe.

[paul_wilson2]

Paul, there is no earlier version of the Multi Pro. There is an old Minolta Scan Multi or whatever that does ~1200 dpi. Certainly it's nowhere near as good as the Nikon 9000. The Minolta Multi Pro does 3200 dpi for MF and 4800 for 35mm. It's a totally different scanner.

[erik scanhancer]

"The Minolta Multi Pro does 3200 dpi for MF and 4800 for 35mm."

 

Paul, the Multi Pro does 3200 dpi x 4800 dpi with MF. The 3200 direction is being

interpolated to 4800 too in order to avoid distortion. In reality this means almost the same

resolution as the Nikon 9000, although the files are bigger and can thus be printed larger

without upsampling in Photoshop. And for 35mm it is quite a bit higher with its 4800 dpi x

4800 dpi natively, which is an advantage for scanning Xpan especially.

[henrik_tived]

Hi Barry,

 

are you in WA?

 

consider an older Imacon! Photo or precision

 

regards,

 

Henrik

 

PS: using a Photo myself and it does a fine job on both xpan as well as 6x17 at 3200dpi

[DB_Gallery]

Thanks for posting this stuff guys, I am in exactly the same boat. I am wondering what would

be better with Kodachrome though.....

[barry_sanford]

I have just recently given my Epson 4990 to my wife and plan to replace it with the V750.

However, last month I did replace my Nikon LS8000 for the 9000. You can't go wrong with

the 9000. The big thing it has is a fixed, 3-color (+IR) LED light source as opposed to a

single white light source that varies in color over time and temperature. I had the 8000

for four years and its color profile never changed over that time. It's now possible to even

purchase wet scan kits for the 8000/9000 if you need scans that approach drum quality.

Btw, the 9000 and the 8000 use the same film holders. You will definitely need to get the

glass holder if you will be scanning MF film.

 

If your film is 35mm only, then I would also suggest the LS5000. It's a 35mm only version

of the 9000, and supports the auto-feed magazine that is NOT available on the 9000.

However, the 9000 will scan 5 35mm slides or 12 35mm frames in one load though.

 

The 4990 could do a 7+ job on MF slides and I expect the V750 to do incrementally

better, but the 9000 does a 9+ job every time. One just cannot expect a white-light

scanner with a filterd CCD to be as good as an LED scanner with a monochrome CCD

which captures an RGB value for each pixel without interpolation.

[stuart_sellers]

All of the previous converstion neglects the most important difference between the previous Epson models and the "V" series scanners. That is that the V series has dual lenses. . . one low magnification than covers the complete bed and a second higher magnification for film scanning. This could potentially be a major improvement as higher magnification is exactly what makes dedicated film scanners generally better than flatbeds. I currently am using an old Umax Powerlook 3000 which has dual lenses and can scan film up to 3.4" x 11.7" at 3048 ppi. This includes all medium format sizes including panoramic formats up to 6x17cm. Unfortunately 4x5 film is slightly wider than this and has to be scanned in 2 passes and stitched. . . though stitching from this scanner is a simple process. The overall bed size is big enough for 8x10 films using the low mag. lens at 1220 ppi.

 

My scanner needs to be replaced and I am considering the Epson V750-m as there is simply no other choice (short of a drum or Scitex flatbed) that will do my large films. By the way, in my opinion, 3000 ppi is plenty of resolution for most film scanning as anything higher just produces more grain and huge files. (4x5 yields about a 500 mbyte file)

[michael_burrows1]

<p>Does anyone have any experience scanning T-Max 100 in 4x5 and 617 format? My Microtek 2500 seems to get confused with it and i get linear banding. In color slide, all is fine though. I might need a new scanner soon as I have a huge amount of T-MAX to do. I agree, 2500 DPI is plenty, and going much deeper is beyond the film grain. Any newton ring problems with the Epsons? Thanks Michael</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>There's a scanner comparison on the large format web site:</p>

<p>http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/</p>