Microtek 120tf vs. Nikon 9000 which to choose?

Pendejo. All the power of a good insult and usable in mixed monolingual company.

Yup, I'm in the process of getting stuffed! This scanner is beat!!! It even arrived with a missing film holder, and an incomplete/rejected insurance claim form from 7/13/2007!

If I didn't have a regular job I'd go and confront this jerk! Man I am pissed!

And yes I did file a dispute with Paypal, but I have learned from experience that this is a pointless action, Paypal will not help me in the least! They burned my on my drum scanner, but that was only $300, this is $1200!!!

Believe it or not, the guy already sent me a refund (pending). Guess I can't hate him too much.

Thats is great news! Let us know how this turns out.

Well it also gives me some funds to add to a bid on a drum scanner. Ultamitly a drum is what I want, but it is a little bigger than I need. (actually a lot bigger).

Of course today does have a downside... When I was scanning the claim documents to show the guy, I noticed that my Epson 3200 is showing odd things. So I need to buy another flatbed too, but probably a cheap flatbed for general document scans and stuff. My Scanmate 3000 drum is actually looking pretty good, so I might be able to finish fixing it and buy nothing. I have about 4 days to decide.

Well, let's see what happens... Just bought Nikon 8000 number 2. Hopefully it will arrive in functional condition. This one even has a couple more film holders including 2 different 120 glass holders, and it cost less money (a little less) than the last one.

And if I can get the drum on my Scanmate 3000 cleaned and polished, I'll be able to scan up to 8x12 at up to 3000ppi. Except for the filthy drum that is not removeable, it is actually working fairly well (despite being bashed, battered, and dented beyond belief). Waiting for polishing materials to arrive.

OK, my scanner is finally here, and here is the first scan compared to a scan of the same slide done on a Microtek 4000tf. Both at 4000ppi, autofocus, rough color correction, blah, blah, blah, no sharpening. The Nikon is at SuperFine 8x like everyone says you need to get good results. The slide is an old Kodachrome mounted and used in the correct holder for mounted slides. These two scanners should be of the same level from nearly the same years. I will withhold my comments so as not to bias anything.

Microtek full image:

Microtek crop image:


Nikon full image:

Nikon crop image:

Greg_E said:

OK, my scanner is finally here, and here is the first scan compared to a scan of the same slide done on a Microtek 4000tf.

Click to expand...

To my eyes the Microtek looks slightly sharper. Over all dynamic range of the two scanners appears to be the same.

Don Bryant

Don Bryant said:

To my eyes the Microtek looks slightly sharper. Over all dynamic range of the two scanners appears to be the same.

Don Bryant

Click to expand...

Don,

Strange. To my eyes the Nikon scan is clearly sharper than the Microtek?

Sandy King

The different contrast is throwing out problems with perceived sharpness, but it does look like the Microtek added a little sharpening too. The muddy blacks with clogged up the detail reflected in the sunglasses is the big point I was trying to make. For a first scan and rushed corrections to make them close to matching the Nikon seems to be a clear winner. If I cut some 100% crops of the flesh tones, you'll see even more reason why I think the Nikon is better, the Microtek looks all grainy, but I don't think it is really grain or they should both show the same problems.

I believe the film is Kodachrome 64, but unfortunately as you can see the subject is not in focus and there really isn't any object in focus so it is going to be a little hard to determine it's over all "sharpness" until I scan some other films.

I've had more than a little bit of experience using the Microtek software so I had a good idea about what I was doing, the Nikon software is the first time I've ever used it, and I haven't really read through the book yet. So there could be some things that slipped past me in the Nikon software. It was scanned with the default Kodachrome setting in NikonScan 4.02. And I can't wait to see what I can get with other images and wet mounting.

Nikon looks better to me

sanking said:

Don,

Strange. To my eyes the Nikon scan is clearly sharper than the Microtek?

Sandy King

Click to expand...

Okay, I've just opened the images on a different monitor ( I have a two monitor system) and the Nikon scan does look sharper on my LCD compared to my CRT - wierd.


Don

Don, are you actually looking at the full images, or the 100%, pixel per pixel, crops (the glasses detail)...

Comparing the full size images is useless, as it will tell you nothing about the quality of the scan. Even a very poor scan of the cheapest scanner will look good if the image was scaled down from let's say 2000 * 3000 to a mere 400 * 600 pixels for display on the web...

You can ONLY compare 100% images, that show each-and-every pixel scanned. Any other comparison is useless (this is an error I unfortunately all to often see happening on the web).

And yes, the Nikon result is FAR superior, even withstanding the poor focus of the original image... just look at the details of the reflection in the glass (you can even recognize the front guys block patterned shirt in that reflection on the Nikon scan , something wholly impossible with the Microtek scan), and the overall glass frame and clip on the left...

Marco B said:

And yes, the Nikon result is FAR superior,

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it is far superior.

I scanned a negative that I shot in our TV studio at work, it was whatever Kodak still sells that is tungsten balanced and C41... Not really happy with what negatives give compared to what the above Kodachrome gave as far as film grain. I think the tungsten was a 160 speed film. I tried it in both the open 120 frame, and the glass 120 frame. The glass frame has a diffuser on the LED side of the glass, and must be anti-Newton glass on the inner surfaces. The glass holder scan was a little softer, not sure if that was due to the diffuser or the AN glass.

Greg, I've never had any problems with the Nikon AN glass holder. With or without glass - both scans feature an identical sharpness.

Regarding the above samples: the Nikon clearly delivers more detail in the shadows and far better sharpness/resolution. If you use VueScan check the 'restore colors' and you'll end up with more vivid colors like the ones of the Microtek, if not better.

If you'll scan with NikonScan and VueScan you'll see a hughe difference in resolution/sharpness - VueScan wins hands down.

Vuescan is on my list, right up there with wet mount supplies.