Is The Nikon 9000ED Far Superior To The Epson V800 For 120 & 35mm

[IanBarber]

I currently own an Epson V800 and the Better-Scanning 120 Holders. I have been offered a Nikon 900ED from another photographer but he is asking quite a lot for it.

Are they really that far superior to the Epson V Series

 

[John_M_King]

Judging by the performance of my Nikon Coolscan V compared to my Epson flatbed I would say you were in with a good chance of getting a winner! The Nikon 9000 was the Crown Prince of Scanners!

Even though the Nikon scanner is quite old by digital standards, it has superb internal workings that are 2nd to non. The Digital Ice software is far superia to that on a flatbed and will get rid of quite difficult marks without a great deal of fuss. The D max is if I remember 4.3, when flatbed scanners struggle to get to 4. There is no glass plate to atract dust and the film is held perfectly flat. Even so there is an auto focus feature that ensures this. Scans at high resolution are not exactly speedy, but who wants to hurry quality?

The main drawback is if you use the original Nikon software then it won't work with any later Windows than XP. You can get hold of Silverfast software which will get things moving again, but I am not so sure if you retain all the facilities if the scanner. I have also heard that sometimes it is awkward to get the Silverfast to work properly. I get around this by using an XP laptop with my scanner and saving the scans onto a memory stick. Then transfering the memory stick onto my PC and use Photoshop for any afterwork.

One advantage of the Nikon scanner is you can scan negatives or transparencies into RAW files. Ordinary Adobe RAW will take care of them. BIT depth is either 8 or 12 and with 35mm negatives in NEF (RAW) scanned at 4000DPI my files are well over 120MB each, so think of the available information that is recorded even off 35mm.

 

[andrewf]

Something to consider when trying to get around the Win XP situation is to use VMware Player to run up an XP virtual machine. You could probably do it with hyper V as well, in later versions of windows. Either way, that might get you up and running without having to find another whole physical machine.

 

[pschwart]

- You won't get scans that are perfectly sharp edge-to-edge unless you use a glass carrier in either the Epson or the Nikon
- The ability to focus the Nikon sets it way ahead of the Epson in terms of usability in my opinion.
- I have both an Epson V700 and a Nikon 9000. I can get reasonably good medium format scans on the Epson, but it's far easier on the Nikon.
- I use VueScan on Windows 7 to drive the Nikon and it works well.
- If you want to scan smaller formats, the Nikon is a better choice than the Epson
- I would be without the Epson -- I use if for making contact sheets, scanning prints, OCR, and other odd jobs that require a general purpose flatbed

Judging by the performance of my Nikon Coolscan V compared to my Epson flatbed I would say you were in with a good chance of getting a winner! The Nikon 9000 was the Crown Prince of Scanners!

Even though the Nikon scanner is quite old by digital standards, it has superb internal workings that are 2nd to non. The Digital Ice software is far superia to that on a flatbed and will get rid of quite difficult marks without a great deal of fuss. The D max is if I remember 4.3, when flatbed scanners struggle to get to 4. There is no glass plate to atract dust and the film is held perfectly flat. Even so there is an auto focus feature that ensures this. Scans at high resolution are not exactly speedy, but who wants to hurry quality?

The main drawback is if you use the original Nikon software then it won't work with any later Windows than XP. You can get hold of Silverfast software which will get things moving again, but I am not so sure if you retain all the facilities if the scanner. I have also heard that sometimes it is awkward to get the Silverfast to work properly. I get around this by using an XP laptop with my scanner and saving the scans onto a memory stick. Then transfering the memory stick onto my PC and use Photoshop for any afterwork.

One advantage of the Nikon scanner is you can scan negatives or transparencies into RAW files. Ordinary Adobe RAW will take care of them. BIT depth is either 8 or 12 and with 35mm negatives in NEF (RAW) scanned at 4000DPI my files are well over 120MB each, so think of the available information that is recorded even off 35mm.

 

[IanBarber]

- I have both an Epson V700 and a Nikon 9000. I can get reasonably good medium format scans on the Epson, but it's far easier on the Nikon.

Would you say the difference between the Nikon and Epson is Chalk and Cheese ?

 

[pschwart]

Not enough info -
- what size film are you scanning?
- are you scanning for paper print or monitor?
- what is the final image size?

The Nikon is a very nice scanner, and it might be attractive if the price is reasonable and you want to print larger than 11x14. Consider availability of service and parts. Personally, I would want return privileges for a used 9000. I certainly would not pay $2000 USD.

 

[Les Sarile]

Would you say the difference between the Nikon and Epson is Chalk and Cheese ?

Depending on how important resolution, color/contrast accuracy, ICE and speed of workflow are important to you, the difference can be substantial. Of course only you can evaluate if the differences in quality can be realized from your own film.

The build quality of the Coolscans are also designed for it to provide a long and reliable service. I have over 30,000 frames of films scanned on my Coolscans 5000 and 9000 and they still scan like they did when I first got them.

 

[IanBarber]

Not enough info -
- what size film are you scanning?
- are you scanning for paper print or monitor?
- what is the final image size?

The Nikon is a very nice scanner, and it might be attractive if the price is reasonable and you want to print larger than 11x14. Consider availability of service and parts. Personally, I would want return privileges for a used 9000. I certainly would not pay $2000 USD.

what size film are you scanning?

• 120 (6x4.5), (6x6)
• 35mm

are you scanning for paper print or monitor?

• Inkjet print

what is the final image size?

• 13x19 inches

The cost is equivalent to $2,871 but that includes the FH-869G Glass Holder

 

[pschwart]

what size film are you scanning?

• 120 (6x4.5), (6x6)
• 35mm

are you scanning for paper print or monitor?

• Inkjet print

what is the final image size?

• 13x19 inches

The cost is equivalent to $2,871 but that includes the FH-869G Glass Holder

Personally, I would not pay almost $3000 for a used 9000, but I would want a dedicated film scanner, especially for formats smaller than 6x6. I guess it comes down to how satisfied you are with the V800, and how much you are willing to spend.

 

[Les Sarile]

Examples of the resolution differences between the Coolscan and Epsons V500 and V700 when scanning the same frame of Kodak Ektar 100 taken under optimal settings.

Full res Kodak Ektar 100 with Coolscan
Full res Kodak Ektar 100 with Epson V500
Full res Kodak Ektar 100 with Epson V700

Keep in mind, the test frame above was taken under ideal conditions and settings with a high resolving film on a scene with enough detail to distinguish the difference in resolution.

In less then ideal setting, the difference may not be so obvious as shown below using Fuji 100 negative.

Full res Fuji 100 with Coolscan and Epsons

 

[Les Sarile]

Examples of automatic scanning modes on Kodak Ektar 100 and how each system interprets the colors.

 

[artobest]

Hi Les, interesting comparisons. Regarding the colour, have you profiled your V700?

 

[Les Sarile]

Hi Les, interesting comparisons. Regarding the colour, have you profiled your V700?

These are just straight up automatic/batch scanning with defaults.

Speaking of default colors, how about Kodak Gold 100 below automatically scanned with the Coolscan compared to a minilab Noritsu.

I recall Kodak stating that there is no standards for color negative scanning so who really is to say which of the results above is the "correct" version anyway . . .

 

[artobest]

These are just straight up automatic/batch scanning with defaults.

Speaking of default colors, how about Kodak Gold 100 below automatically scanned with the Coolscan compared to a minilab Noritsu.

I recall Kodak stating that there is no standards for color negative scanning so who really is to say which of the results above is the "correct" version anyway . . .

That's right, scanning negatives is a matter of taste. Transparencies, however, are another thing. I find both reflective and transparency profiles are tremendously useful on the V7xx. I made mine with the Monaco software that came with the scanner - so obviously not the latest tech! But very good profiles, whereas profiling directly with Silverfast (version 6.x) gave me a faulty profile with holes in the gamut.

There are also Silverfast's built-in negative profiles to consider, but they're blunt instruments IMO.

 

[Les Sarile]

There are also Silverfast's built-in negative profiles to consider, but they're blunt instruments IMO.

Below is an example of using the Vuescan built-in profile for Kodak 160VC in conjunction with the built-in color modifiers compared to the default neutral scan using Nikonscan - both software running on Coolscan 5000.