Nikon 9000ED vs Imacon X5

[tony_black1]

Is there a big difference btw these scanners in terms of lens

sharpness,resolution, dmax etc?

[Steve Beyer]

I really don't have the info to respond but I believe the answer is yes. Now whether its

enough to justify the extra price... I do not know

[leicaglow]

There is quite a difference, but for most use, the 9000 is sufficient. You'd want the Imacon if you were scanning for print usage and that sort of thing.

[bobmichaels]

The closest comparison I have seen is of the Minolta MultiPro (Nikon 9000 discontinued market competitor)and a Imacon 848. See http://www.scanhancer.com/index.php?art=35&men=10 Conclusion: the MultiPro was considered as good.

 

I don't have a 9000 but do have the MultiPro. Never have felt the need for a Imacon scan to do exhibition prints.

 

I'm still convinced it's the user skill in capture, scanning and printing rather than the hardware that makes the difference.

[ellis_vener_photography]

The X5 is built for speed in high volume labs and archives.

[jagtar_semplay]

I tend to agree with Bob Michaels in that skill in scanning or digital capture is an important

factor often overlooked. I have used many scanners for scanning film of different formats

from 35mm to 8"x10" and often found that a bit of research and practice pay dividends to

the final result.

 

I bought an ex demo Imacaon Flextight 848 a couple of years ago and having learned to

use it properly with a calibrated profile for transparency film I achieve probably the best

results I have of any scanner I have now or owned previously.

 

I also have a Heidelberg Linoscan 1400 A4, Creo Scitex Eversmart Jazz+ A3 scanner which

are both excellent for large to medium format but ultimately overshadowed considerably

by the Imacon 848's performance.

 

Previously I thought that the Polaroid 45 Ultra scanner with DMax of 3.9/4.0 was the bees

knees particularly when calibrated/profiled and scanning in 16 bit with Silverfast Ai6 (HDR)

software but when I compared it to the Imacon I was able achieve much finer tonal

gradation, better highlight, midtone and shadow detail with a 3 dimensional feel rather

than a flat result in comparison. I have experimented with different software and they all

tend to charge for upgrades etc except for the Imacon software which is free to registered

users and is excellent.

 

If one does not want to pay top prices for an Imacon Flextight or really needs the best

results then there are other choices like the Nikon, Minolta scanners etc and flatbeds etc. I

found the Imacon is designed to be user friendly, user maintenence built in, industrial

build and the most logical design in that film is actually scanned while being curved in an

arc without glass therefore sharpness is 100% even and very little dust spots.

 

The speed of scan is also very high with the imacon and I do not feel that I will ever really

need to sell it to upgrade because there is not any significant improvement by curerent

models. I have never regretted buying the Imacon 848 even if it cost me as much as ?7500

GBP as an ex demo unit and I could have bought my wife a brand new small car for that

amount!

 

Hardware requires good understanding of the software too and there is no substitute for

practice and research on an excellent list like this one. One thing to mention is that the

Imacon requires a -120 setting in the sharpness setting because by default at 0

sharpening it actually sharpens the scan by +120.

 

Jagtar UK

[patricia_mata]

there is a huge difference in quality. the x5 scanners can scan in either tiff or 3f format. the 3f format is the closest you will

get to a drum scan. They call it their virtual drum scan. it gives you the full tonal range of the original negative. the 3f file

can be processed many times in different sizes and resolutions to tiff without ever having to rescan the negative. I've

used these scanners at my college and the nikon scanner at my work...the x5 is superior to the nikon but way more

expensive. as for me I have to access my college's digital photo lab all that I can until I can afford an x5 of my own.

[david_henderson]

<p>I have experience with both and think the Imacon scans are better, albeit that for my Medium format transparencies, the Imacons resolution of 3200ppi is lower than the Coolscan's 4000ppi. IMO there's a bit more shadow detail from the Imacon too. Commercially Imacon scans of my trannies are accepted by the bigger libraries, whereas the Coolscan tends not to be on their approved lists. In general I wouldn't expect to see a huge difference in prints from 6x6 originals until the size gets over about 16" sq. </p>

<p>Another difference is that assuming my scan volumes these days justified it, I'd be comfortable owning and using a Coolscan myself and indeed I've done so. I think I'd want to leave the Imacons to a lab or specialist scan bureau.</p>