My Nikon 9000 arrived...

[mesh]

About a month ago I received some great advice on this forum on purchasing a new scanner... I 'thought' I had bought a Polaroid 120 but the seller ended up being a little dodgy... So in the end I decided to bite the bullet and go for the 9000. I have just spent some time this afternoon scanning... here are my thoughts (with a few questions too please).

DR is fantastic - a very tangible improvement from my V700 and everything I'd ever need. Good detail across full tonal range. Wonderful shadows.

Nikon Scan appears stable on my Snow Leopard iMac. I used to hate Nikon Scan years ago when I used it... but I don't seem to mind it now ;-) Frankly the Silverfast test scans don't seem any better, so I think I'll stick to Nikon Scan.

The Depth of field is ridiculously small... I can see that I will HAVE to get a glass holder for 120. Could someone explain the difference between the G and rotating version please? Any real negatives using a glass holder? I assume IQ is slightly less but hope there is no affect on DR.

The difference between 'sharpest and not so sharp' on the V700 is much less noticeable. Scans on the 9000 are stunning in parts (where I have focussed) and simply not acceptable in others (much worse than the V700). The holder seems to get the film flat but gee... it's terrible ;-)

Digital ICE not great - slightly disappointing. Seems to introduce some slightly weird noise. More time in PS ;-) No real drama to me as volumes are relatively small.

Haven't tried 35mm yet - assume it wont be as much a drama as the 120 (hope...) Anyway I am very happy apart from 120 sharpness - will have to get the glass holder and then I imagine all will be rosy!

 

[SWphoto]

Thanks for the update! Re. the holder, have you looked at Dante Stella's website (dantestella.com) and seen his article about using the regular MF holder? It's in the RH column under photography/technical as I recall.

I got the regular glass holder, rather than the rotating, and it's fine for what I need. Perhaps I missed something, but I couldn't find anything about the rotating version which sounded like it was worth the extra $100 or so. I gathered it is easier to "straighten" the film, being able to rotate, but couldn't find much about why one would spend the extra $100- you'd think Nikon would make a case for it if there was one

 

[mesh]

Thanks for the link Rick. Very worthwhile, but have decided to go for the glass holder anyway. Still enough of an issue to be a concern and my 'test negs' are pretty flat. Ordered the non-rating version ;-) Thanks again.

 

[Tony-S]

Have you had a chance to use the glass holder? It would be nice if you could post a high resolution comparison between the Nikon and the Epson. It would help some of us make a decision!

Thanks,

Tony

 

[mesh]

Hi Tony,

The glass holder should arrive tomorrow so I'll do a comparison with V700, standard 9000 holder and the glass holder.

David

 

[Herb Cunningham]

Nikon 9000

had no problems with mine, but holy s*** it is slow.
I use silverfast, as I have used it for years with my old 3200 epson, and it does not want to multiple scan a set of 3 6x6 negs. Glass holder and all.

Back to the tech service folks at silverfast.

 

[mesh]

Sorry for the delay... only just received the glass holder (B&H were pretty slow!) I've attached a sample of 9000 v 700 - nothing scientific, and I guess we've seen lots of similar samples before.

Both examples are 100% crops from a 6x6 neg and were simply the 'best I could get' from each scanner. Epson is with Silverfast ai and the betterscanning holder, and Nikon using Nikon Scan and glass holder.

Dead Link Removed

The Epson is supreme value for money and really great to use, but the 9000 clearly outclasses it for DR and sharpness. No buts IMO.

The glass holder is indeed a must-have for 120... pity really as the quality difference is quite tangible. With the standard holder, the section you focus on is superb, and then other areas near the edge would be considerably worse than the Epson. It's fairly easy on the V700 to get say '6 out of 10' across the frame. On the Nikon using the standard holder it might be a 9 in the focus area and then as bad as a 4 on the edges. Must be depth of field as the film looks flat! Better than on the Epson yet it still get's a more acceptable DOF somehow. Using the glass holder you get an 8 across the frame.... newton rings can be a nuisance though, so you need to fiddle a bit with the supplied spacers.

35mm is no contest. The Nikon is simply wonderful and the Epson doesn't get close... as you'd expect really.

Other quick note... ICE is a disappointment to be honest. Nikon Scan works reliably on Snow Leopard for me... fingers crossed. I actually like Nikon Scan and don't think I'll upgrade to Silverfast. Overall quality is great - but 120 still a little fiddly. No big deal however for my workflow.

I will keep my Epson for the odd time I scan large format or reflective. I still rate it very highly but the Nikon is worth it IMO. But you know... back in day when I used loads of drum scanners... It's still MUCH easier to get film flat on an Imacon or a drum and if money was no object... ;-)

 

[glhs116]

How is the ICE a disappointment? Is it because you do BW and it is not supported? Or do you have any issues when you scan colour with it. I always felt the ICE was very good and I never scan without it. I'd be interested what your issues were. I use it at "standard" level, by the way.

 

[mesh]

The B&W I tried with ICE was 400CN ;-) and I tried it on Portra and Ektar negs also. I wouldn't say it's useless - it certainly does work, but there is a difference in fine detail. You can't really expect anything less - there always has to be some trade-off.

That said, there are lots of times it would be indispensable. I just prefer to clean the neg, and do some spotting in PS for the extra quality - even if it is relatively marginal.

I say it's a disappointment because I too would have liked to use it all the time but IMO the quality difference isn't worth the extra time spotting. But my volume is very low. Yes I used standard - fine is worse. I will try it again however - it may have been the type of negs and image perhaps... I must say I used it on an 8000 years ago and thought it was great at the time.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

thanks for posting.

Sorry for the delay... only just received the glass holder (B&H were pretty slow!) I've attached a sample of 9000 v 700 - nothing scientific, and I guess we've seen lots of similar samples before.

Both examples are 100% crops from a 6x6 neg and were simply the 'best I could get' from each scanner. Epson is with Silverfast ai and the betterscanning holder, and Nikon using Nikon Scan and glass holder.

Dead Link Removed

The Epson is supreme value for money and really great to use, but the 9000 clearly outclasses it for DR and sharpness. No buts IMO.

I see some sharpness in these 100% crops (and would be quite interested to see this in a print context) but I don't really see what you are referring to in the DR (I assume Dynamic Range) differences here. Could you perhaps explain a little, as I see them having quite the same dynamics

 

[mesh]

pellicle - to me the dynamic range difference is clear, and I am also basing that on lots of different scans. In the above example it's primarily shadow detail, but also the way the 1/4 tones are rendered. Prints to about A4 on an Epson 2880 certainly reflect a tangible tonal improvement IMO. But it's all in my opinion...

Everyone sees different things and I am not about to make a statement that cannot be verified scientifically. I am not a photographer (I am a designer and art director) so my bias is quite different - I certainly wouldn't take my judgements on dynamic range over a photographer. I'm no expert. That said, I have also worked as an imaging specialist over the years for Canon, Kodak and Minolta and really care about DR and I am glad to have the improvement in the 9000 - at least what I can see ;-)

Just for the record - I am not bashing the Epson... it's a GREAT scanner but I could justify the extra for the 9000. I can't however justify the extra for an Imacon/Hasselblad or a Tango for that matter. And I CAN see the different on screen, in prints (even at smaller sizes) so my opinion is that the Nikon offers an improvement almost irrespective of type of output. And frankly it's what you'd expect for a scanner costing over 3x as much!

 

[glhs116]

I can also see much more "open" shadows and better micro detail. The sharpness difference is very pronounced. It's as if the resolution was x4.

As you say, it is only a small crop. These things can be hard to articulate. My old Konica Minolta Scan Dual IV was at least as sharp as my 9000 but there really is no comparison in the scans. From texture to colour the whole image is 100 times better from the 9000. For negs it was almost unusable. For slides I could sometimes tease good results out of it. I chalk it up to the KM not as accurately distinguishing between light levels giving fewer "shades of grey" to work with. This disability is obviously exaggerated with negs because there is so much DR expansion to create the final image. Really, this sort of thing is also a kind of measure of dynamic range measurement too.

This continues to be my test image. My latest 9000 attempt is here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/samagnew/5041102905/
Contrast is a little low here. My monitor was on the wrong profile but you can see the scan quality.

My initial Konica Minolta attempt is here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/samagnew/4436416072/
Sharpness is not an issue in either case. Fidelity in nearby tones and overall "cleanness" is.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

pellicle - to me the dynamic range difference is clear, and I am also basing that on lots of different scans. In the above example it's primarily shadow detail, but also the way the 1/4 tones are rendered. Prints to about A4 on an Epson 2880 certainly reflect a tangible tonal improvement IMO. But it's all in my opinion...

sure ... I am uncertain if you tone is defensive (how text does this I'm not sure) but I just wanted you to explain it to me was all. I often find that person A says X and others hear X and think it means Y, while others still are just not sure what X meant in the first place. I was just wanting to avoid making any assumptions.


I can see what I can see but I just wanted you to express what it was you were seeing so that I could understand more clearly what you were meaning.



Thanks for taking the time to do that.

 

[mesh]

Yes I didn't sound that great in the post ;-) I didn't mean to be defensive pellicle... all you can do is make assumptions though. That's photography... I can't think of anything more subjective ;-) That's why forums do so well!!!

Like a lot of people I REALLY wanted to believe the Epson was as good as a Nikon 9000. I read sooo many posts cliaming it was.... My assumption say it's not ;-) It's not chalk and cheese - the improvements are somewhat subtle and in some cases might not even render in a print. Agree. But every scan on the 9000 is better in some way.

I'd still LOVE to see a V800 or whatever with better holders (I don't like the betterscanning holders) and other tweaks to the optics. It would be sensational.

I saw a 5x4 today and who knows, I might sell the 9000 and my Hasselblad kit and go large format... but that's just me. I am an idiot sometimes ;-)

 

[mesh]

@glhs116 - some great pics in your Flickr stream!

 

[glhs116]

@glhs116 - some great pics in your Flickr stream!

Very kind of you.

As pertains to the subject at hand, I have used the 9000 for most of my scanning. I always use Nikon Scan and I nearly always use the "negative" scan mode for scanning negs rather than a manual inversion.

I sometimes use the ColorPerfect plugins if I think it suits an image, this is usually noted in the comments. The ColorPerfect software is very good but often does such a good job that the images lose some of the character I like. I have a shot (not published) of a dingy interior under extremely off-colour artificial lighting that came out looking like a daylight scene. It really will remove most colour casts.

Living where I do, most of my shooting is negative 35mm and I have been extremely happy with the results of Nikon Scan and the 9000 in almost default configuration. I often get dirty and scratched film from the local processing and always scan with the ICE in "normal" mode. Generally, I scan my negs at 2000dpi and my slides at 4000dpi.

I recently went through a "dark" period in between losing access to the 9000 at work and buying my own 9000. During this time I made do with a Konica Minolta Scan Dual IV which is a simple little 35mm film scanner with no ICE. During this time I did a lot of experimentation with different scanner software and techniques in an attempt to improve the quality of my scans. I must say that all this effort did pay off in terms of improving what I could get from the Konica. That said, hardly any of these various techniques have seemed to be worth the hassle now that I again have a Coolscan 9000.

The Nikon scanner with the Nikon software is just such a good combination that you have to work very hard to achieve quite a small improvement. I've seen pelicle post examples of Nikon Scan negative scans from a 4000 that were badly clipped by the Nikon software. With the current (4.0.2) version and the 9000 I've never had such an experience. I find the autoexposure to be so conservative that taking manual control yielded no benefit.

Qualifying all of the above, I do no black and white work. I'm pretty much 95% negative, 5% slide; 95% 35mm, 5% 120. I would shoot more of slide and 120 if I could get local processing.

Sam

 

[pellicle]

Hi

Like a lot of people I REALLY wanted to believe the Epson was as good as a Nikon 9000. I read sooo many posts cliaming it was ... My assumption say it's not ;-) It's not chalk and cheese - the improvements are somewhat subtle and in some cases might not even render in a print. Agree. But every scan on the 9000 is better in some way.

the more you magnify / enlarge the more the 9000 is better than a Epson. 645 users will likely feel the 9000 is more advantage than 6x12 users.

I wonder if the added benefits of not needing to spot out dust make up for heaps.

I'd still LOVE to see a V800 or whatever with better holders (I don't like the betterscanning holders) and other tweaks to the optics. It would be sensational.

as you know I don't have a 9000 and have only had a few scans (of 6x9) done for me with one (not driving one myself). Having spent some time tweaking hoders for Epsons and being the owner of a Betterscanning holder I can say that I don't think it will work much more magic on the Epson. As you identified yourself the Epson has a wide enough depth of field that ultimate flatness is not as critical as it is on the Nikon.

I saw a 5x4 today and who knows, I might sell the 9000 and my Hasselblad kit and go large format... but that's just me. I am an idiot sometimes ;-)

as a 4x5 (or 5x4 in other locations) user myself I often wonder the other way round ... would I be better off with a Blad or something. Pretty quick I decide that I don't use square and find I even shave a little of the edges of the 4x5 often using more like 3x5, so I'd want to have a 6x9 camera.

Then I find I'd be wanting movements with the larger area so I'm back to keeping my Toho. Of course can't make much use of the 9000 and thus make myself happy with the Epsons and professional scans where needed.

I'd be curious how you find the workflow time difference to laying (say) 2 strips of 6x6 onto the Nikon vs the Epson and doing 2400dpi scans of them.

 

[mesh]

Oops ;-) Well I'll elaborate on the betterscanning holders... they are beautifully made and certainly help a great deal with curvy negs but I just never had any improvement on the V700 for the vast majority of scans. I should be careful saying something like "I don't like them" and should have said "they didn't improve my scans". I see it more as a limitation of the V700 than anything else.

The ANR glass... well that's certainly been very useful on occasions.

Like you, I much prefer using the V700. I like Epson Scan and find the overall workflow smoother and faster. It's a fine line all this scanning thing... I guess I am being as bad as any digi pixel peeper and ultimately it matters little in real life environments. I still think for a lot of people the 9000 is a good investment. It's another 10K to 'step up' again or risk an old, second-hand Imacon and I wasn't prepared to do that.

I'd still like to see a V800 one day...

I have just finished scanning 25 rolls from my cousins wedding... I wont do that again! So I am over scanning for a week or so ;-)

 

[pellicle]

Oops ;-) Well I'll elaborate on the betterscanning holders... they are beautifully made and certainly help a great deal with curvy negs

gosh, am I really seen as some sort of ogre? Well I like my better scanning holder too ... I bought it as I scan 6x12 and the standard holder won't do that.

its nicely made and simple to work with

 

[glhs116]

The achilles heel of the 9000 is speed. Funnily enough, 120 scans a lot faster than 35mm. Strip film is the worst because the holder presents the thin edge to the sensor. Slides are a little faster as they go long edge to the sensor. Of course 120 is fastest because it uses the full sensor width.

On the flip side, there is no glass to keep clean. I live in a dust place and have kids around. The glass on my flatbed is never clean. I even find some sort of white stuff starts to form on the inside of the glass. Doing high quality work on a flatbed would probably drive me mad.

If Nikon made a Coolscan 10000 and the only change was to double the speed I would be the first in line!

 

[mesh]

gosh, am I really seen as some sort of ogre?

No you're not at all ;-) I just should have clarified my comment! Now 6x12... I'd like to try that one day. What camera are you using?

 

[pellicle]

What camera are you using?

my Toho with a 6x12 roll back. Here is a sample


snowyJarviRuoko by obakesan, on Flickr

 

[mesh]

Stunning pic... now I am lusting ;-)