Nikon 5000 vs Nikon 9000 35mm corner/edge sharpness?

[jay_bees]

<p>I have a Nikon 5000 that produces OK scans. One of my complaints is poor sharpness at the corners/edges. Would a Nikon 9000 have the same issue <strong>for 35mm slides</strong> , or would it be better in this respect?<br>

Thanks.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Can't help with the 5000vs9000, but I do know the 5000's depth of focus is better than my Minolta Scan Elite 5400, by maybe a factor of 50%.</p>

<p>Also a suggestion if you're not already: focus off-center a bit, if you're dealing with slides that are curved a bit, typically a dome shape, with a crest (or valley) at center. So that the optimum focus is somewhere in-between the two extremes.</p>

[danny_wong2]

<p>I don't have any issue with any format on the 9000. But I use the AN glass carrier or wetmount so I know that my film is perfectly flat in the scanner.<br>

35mm slides are not flat even mounted, especially the cardboard or plastice mounts. All my good slides are in Gepe or Weiss AN glass mounts.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<blockquote>

<p>Were you comparing scans vs microscope - better then 40X magnification?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That just <em>might</em> be overkill. If you've got clearly resolved grain in parts of your scans, and not in others, I think that would resolve whether or not you had decent focus.</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>I agree, focus about 1/3 of the way out from center, not dead center to account for film curve average.</p>

<p>BTW, What makes you think the edge sharpness issue is the scanner and not the original?</p>

[wolf_weber]

<p>J.B., resolution (sharpness) are identical for both scanners, true 3900 dpi acording to qualified tests. Above feedbacks may be of help. In the extreme U might wanna have Ur scanner checked for its performance. "ok scans" doesn't sound very reassuring.</p>