Is the Nikon Coolscan 9000 worth all that $$$$?

[andylynn]

<p>Les is correct - I also have an RZ67 and it's easy to make images that beat a DSLR in quality and resolution, even with a flatbed. With a 4000 DPI Nikon scanner and fine grain film we're talking about 97 megapixels here. You want to shoot landscapes, or portraits to make large prints of, anything where you can take your time and hopefully use a tripod (I actually hand hold mine) you're not going to go wrong with an RZ67 and a Nikon 9000.</p>

<p>OTOH, you want to shoot action, indoors without a tripod, etc., use the DSLR.</p>

[j_marrs]

<p>I have owned a Coolscan 9000 with glass carriers and the Scanscience fluid mounting kit. I've compared it to a Tango drumscan, and can't tell the difference. So, yes, it's worth the money. The file from the Tango presents a slightly larger image, but no real improvement. I've compared it against the Noritsu - drugstore type scans, and the Noritsu scans are crap... It beats the Minolta 5400 in resolving detail too. The Minolta has higher res. I guess the Nikon glass is better. I'll have to post some examples of a fluid mount vs a Tango drum of the same 645 velvia 50 shot. It's amazing. The Nikon more than pays for itself over time.</p>

[j_marrs]

<p>Off topic, but discussed earlier in this forum: I always like to see the Digital vs film comparisons. Could someone who owns one of the newest DSLR breeds with HDR and high ISO capabilities, please do a side by side comparison with MF slow speed film on a tripod? I know that takes some time and work, but it makes for an interesting discussion. I'm talking brand new, not last years model,as the technology is constantly getting better. This is evident with the new Pentax K-X beating the older Nikon d90 at high ISO according to side by sides comparisons at the following site:<br>

http://www.imaging-resource.com/<br>

The heated debate between the film enthusiast vs. the digital advocates makes for a lively read.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Could someone who owns one of the newest DSLR breeds with HDR and high ISO capabilities, please do a side by side comparison with MF slow speed film on a tripod?</em></p>

<p>Here is the Canon 7D against Les Sarile's sample of RVP on a Howtek. It's not surprising that MF film shows more sharpness and fine detail given the dramatic difference in "sensor" size, but that's closer than I bet many people would have expected.</p><div></div>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Here is the same 7D against the best 35mm film scans in Les Sarile's collection. It's pretty clear that modern DSLRs can match or exceed 35mm resolution. Nothing against 35mm film, which is still quite usable.</p><div></div>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Here is the 7D against the same Howtek RVP scan. But this time the 7D was shot vertically for a 3 frame stitch. Not all shots can be made this way. But for landscape photographers shooting from a tripod, especially those who have to hike equipment to/from remote locations, this is a very useful comparison. I find that a simple, 3 frame stitch using the 7D gives me detail and sharpness equal to or better than scanned 6x7 film. It's an easy, low cost, effective way for one to obtain landscape images for printing well past 30".</p><div></div>

[andylynn]

<p>If I do an 80 frame stitch with my SD500 it's got more detail in it than some film I got scanned at CVS.</p>

[swilson]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=4802905">Andrew Lynn</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub9.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 14, 2010; 10:33 a.m.<br>

If I do an 80 frame stitch with my SD500 it's got more detail in it than some film I got scanned at CVS.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you stitched 80 frames from your SD500 you would get more detail then most drum scans of 4x5 film.</p>

[greg_peterson3]

<blockquote>

<p>If I do an 80 frame stitch with my SD500 it's got more detail in it than some film I got scanned at CVS.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I too like to stitch images to get ultra high resolution. It's great on architectural jobs. But it's no help on aerial work!</p>

<p> </p>

[j_marrs]

<p>Wow! The 7d does hold up well to 35mm. But what speed film did Les Sarile use on his map comparison? The slower the speed of the film, the better the resolution. I ran into a problem with film, trying to do long lens shots at European beaches last summer with a polarizer. The 400 speed Fuji worked great, but grainy as hell. Had to use Neat Image which did a good job, but what I would have given to have had a high iso DSLR with HDR. So I bought one earlier this year. Trying not to spend a load on DSLR as they become obsolete in a few years. Not a problem with film.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Don't read that as a scientific test, it isn't.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>J Marrs - <em>Wow! The 7d does hold up well to 35mm. But what speed film did Les Sarile use on his map comparison? The slower the speed of the film, the better the resolution.</em></p>

<p>Tech Pan was an ISO 25 film. I think the 7D pretty much matches it for resolution. I just recently purchased some Efke 25 in 35mm, I'll shoot the map and see what it can do. I'm pretty sure the RVP (Velvia) was the ISO 50 version, and it was on a 5400 ppi scanner. The 7D clearly out resolves it.</p>

<p>These are two exceptional 35mm films. Most films have less resolution. If you compare the above 35mm crop panel to the many crops at Les Sarile's archive of map tests, you'll find the 7D out performs the other 35mm films by a comfortable margin. I believe the last/best DSLRs he tested were the D2x and 40D. There has been quite a bit of improvement since then, though both of those hold up well against most of the film samples as well.</p>

<p>It will probably be 2-3 weeks before I can get an Efke 25 sample up.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Andrew Lynn - if the test is good enough for a test engineer with two decades of experience, then it's good enough for me. Les Sarile devised the test to be easily replicated by anyone who wanted to contribute or compare. It's not as precise as a test chart, but it's a good, practical, rough measure of relative performance.</p>

<p>FYI, my 7D shots were made with a Canon 50 f/1.8 at f/5.6, at ISO 100 using manual focusing with LiveView. They were developed using ACR 5.6 Beta. Interesting note: I found that ACR was able to extract noticeably more fine detail than DPP. I used the Clarity slider in ACR, and applied Smart Sharpen in PS after scaling to the appropriate size in each case using bicubic smoother. NR in ACR was standard (Luminance 0; Color 25).</p>

[j_marrs]

<p>I have the Minolta 5400 & the Nikon 9000. Even though the Minolta scanner is rated at 5400ppi, the Nikon 9000 at 4000 ppi has sharper, clearer images with better color rendition for 35mm.</p>

<p>On this website: http://www.digmypics.com/GetTheRealTruth.aspx?g=scancafe&gclid=CJHj96bruaACFQMNswodxT39Sw<br>

Makes a claim that the Nikon 9000 out resolves the Nikon 5000? Just scroll down to see the side by side comparisons.<br>

Westcoastimaging, has a digital camera vs film camera print resolution chart that they use. Clearly, film is better for large prints according to this pro lab.<br>

To see their chart go to http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/FAQ/faqprintlab.html and click the Megapixel to print size chart.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Daniel Lee Taylor and Les Sarile, it's great to see real data here in comparable images. Thanks!</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>I have the Minolta 5400 & the Nikon 9000. Even though the Minolta scanner is rated at 5400ppi, the Nikon 9000 at 4000 ppi has sharper, clearer images with better color rendition for 35mm.</em></p>

<p>Les Sarile ranks his KM5400 scan of 35mm Velvia higher than his CoolScan sample of the same film. He has a panel comparing both of them, along with Tech Pan and the Nikon D2x. I would say he's right that the KM5400 scan is a bit better.</p>

<p>Of course variations in manufacturing of the scanners, or the scanning process itself, could easily account for your experience.</p>

<p><em>Westcoastimaging, has a digital camera vs film camera print resolution chart that they use. Clearly, film is better for large prints according to this pro lab.</em></p>

<p>I'll take a 7D RAW file for enlargement over 35mm film. MF is a different story, which is why I stitch 3 frames when I think I will want to print beyond 30" and still have excellent resolution and fine detail.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>"... The 9000 will scan medium format film, which is still on a par with a 12+ MP DSLR. Sadly, 35mm film loses this race, and the only reasons to use it are resistance to change and short-term economics."<br>

MF on a par with 12MP DSLR? Hahahahahahahahah....can you send me some of what your smoking? Also 35mm transparency properly scanned is a good match for a 12MP DSLR. I use both.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>I'd have posted something to show film scans being better than DSLR shots but I've had flooded basements to deal with. Will get to it eventually.</p>

[thomas_janik]

<p>Daniel:</p>

<p>Do you have a link to Les Sarile's comparison? If so, I would appreciate it. I have a DSE 5400 and a 9000 and have kept the 5400 since it generally does a better job with Kodachrome (most of my 35mm). The extra resolution is worthwhile with sharp photos and the Nikon yields some strange worm tracks with Kodachrome not present with the DSE. In the attached photo the 9000 scan is on top, the 5400 below. Look at the clear skies in the Nikon scan and you will see patterns absent in the DSE (looking closely, patterns may appear in th DSE scan, but they must be jpeg artifacts since they are not in the original scan). ICE used for both.</p>

<p>J Marrs: try manual focus with the DSE, it can make a big difference, the auto focus is not reliable.</p><div></div>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>His Fototime gallery with test samples is at: http://www.fototime.com/inv/E0D372FC8001820</p>

[eric_luden]

<p>We use both the Epson v750 and the Nikon 9000. We use the SilverFast software on both scanners. We use the 9000 on all 35mm and 120 along with the glass carrier. If necessary, we also use the Aztek glass carrier and the wet scanning solution they offer with the 9000. It adds another $600 to the total package price, but we have had some excellent results at our lab, Digital Silver Imaging. We are printing up to 20x30 on silver papers from both 35 and 120 and getting excellent results.</p><div></div>

[j_marrs]

<p>The top image from the 9000 looks as if it was run through an older version of Neat Image which gives that cross hatching pattern. There's something wrong with the grain pattern. The grain in the top image should look like the grain pattern in the bottom.</p>