Imacon or Nikon 9000???

[papo]

<p>Hi everyone<br>

I am a serious amateur and shoot mostly BW. I have owned two Nikon Coolscan 4000ED for 6 years and they both recently went bust at the same time: something burnt inside (I believe as a result of problems in my Mac G4 which also had a number of ports gone bust). To repair both of them will cost me around US$ 1000 (in Italy).<br>

I now also shoot medium format and think that the best way to go is not to repair the 4000EDs but go for a much better scanner. I often need to print 40*60 cm for exhibitions, so I am hesitating between a Nikon 9000 or an Imacon (or alternatives). Operating a real drum scunner scares me.<br>

My available budget could be in the order of around US$ 10.000.<br>

Any views/recommendations?<br>

Thanks and regards</p>

<p>Olivio Argenti (ARPS)<br>

<a href="http://www.olivioargenti.it">www.olivioargenti.it</a></p>

[wolf_weber]

<p>With Ur budget, Olivio, U will most likely not be able to get a <em>top of line</em> Imacon with an integrated <strong>diffuse</strong>r. Therefore U might as well go for the 9000. With ICE + all the other trimmings. If U could manage to squeeze more out of Ur budget; Imacon. No contest.</p>

[troyammons]

<p>I have a drum scanner, and although excellent results they are slow, tedoius and parts and consumables and drums are high.<br>

Only reason I would get a drum scanenr is if you need to scan large format or over 4000 dpi<br>

I would get a 9000 and the glass carrier.</p>

 

[david_henderson]

<p>How many MF originals do you expect to scan? It might be more cost effective to repair the 4000ED for 35mm work, and get Imacon scans made for you from MF. I spend about £10 for max res Imacon scans in 16bit, hand cleaned in PS. You can get a lot of those done for $10000, or even for the lower price of the Nikon 9000. </p>

<p>I had a Nikon 9000 for two years and have had a few hundred Imacon scans. I prefer the latter, but the fact is that you can get good scans from either . I think that part of my prefernce for the Imacon is down to not having to make the scans myself. My question is whether you need to own either one?</p>

[andylynn]

<p>40x60cm? That's not very large at all. Get the Nikon, save your money.</p>

[papo]

<p>Many thanks to all those who contributed with a recommendations, which I got by email Not sure what I did wrong not to have them posted in the forum.<br>

Most people recommended a Nikon 9000 although its numerous problems that I have read in various fora are not encouraging me. I certainly can not afford a new Hasselbald Flextight (I understand that old Imacon and new Flextight scanners are NOT drum scanners, but rather VIRTUAL drum scanners) but possibly a second hand Imacon: Flextight Precision II or other models. Any suggestions?<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>Olivio Argenti (ARPS)<br>

<a href="http://www.olivioargenti.it">www.olivioargenti.it</a></p>

[papo]

<p>Many thanks to all those who contributed with a recommendations, which I got by email Not sure what I did wrong not to have them posted in the forum.<br>

Most people recommended a Nikon 9000 although its numerous problems that I have read in various fora are not encouraging me. I certainly can not afford a new Hasselbald Flextight (I understand that old Imacon and new Flextight scanners are NOT drum scanners, but rather VIRTUAL drum scanners) but possibly a second hand Imacon: Flextight Precision II or other models. Any suggestions?<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>Olivio Argenti (ARPS)<br>

<a href="http://www.olivioargenti.it">www.olivioargenti.it</a></p>

[papo]

<p>Many thanks to all those who contributed with recommendations, which I got by email Not sure what I did wrong not to have them posted in the forum.<br>

Most people recommended a Nikon 9000 although its numerous problems that I have read in various fora are not encouraging me. I certainly can not afford a new Hasselbald Flextight (I understand that old Imacon and new Flextight scanners are NOT drum scanners, but rather VIRTUAL drum scanners) but possibly a second hand Imacon: Flextight Precision II or other models. Any suggestions?<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>Olivio Argenti (ARPS)<br>

<a href="http://www.olivioargenti.it">www.olivioargenti.it</a></p>

[hjoseph7]

Why scan, get yourself an enlarger and print from the first generation.

[digitaldog]

<p>As an old time drum scan user (and Leaf, Imacon and many desktop units), I’d say the Imacon should produce far better results than the Nikon. The lens alone in the Imacon probably cost more than the entire Nikon unit! Then there’s software which is important to examine. The drag about the Imacon is removing 35mm from the mount but then that’s why its going to be so darn sharp, using the flex “drum” system that produces a very, very sharp point of focus. Glass mount? Helps, but more stuff to get in the way in terms of optical quality and dust (and maybe newton rings which are a bitch to deal with). </p>

[stp]

<p>From my point of view, the primary difference between a Nikon 9000/8000 and an Imacon, for the size you want to print and the film that you're using, is cost. I'd be inclined to get an Imacon only if I were shooting large format. On the other hand, sending out a particular piece of film for scanning by a lab is also a good idea. Depends on how many scans you do, the degree of your desire to do as much as you can yourself, and the depth of your pockets.</p>