Nikon 9000 v Imacon 646

[mesh]

I've been doing a fair bit of research recently on both models, and although there's been a bit said on the topic, I'd really appreciate a few more opinions on both scanners (a massive investment for me!) Have also posted this question on Photo.net but think more people here would perhaps have experience with both scanners.

I need to make a decision in the next 48 hours. Here in Australia, 9000 prices are quite high (A$5K) and availability limited (like in the US at the moment). There's one on hold for a couple of days for me...

I have an opportunity to buy a used 646 at the same price as a new 9000 with Silverfast Ai. 646 has done about 2000 scans - had one service a year ago, but just come up with a 'warning' asking for another. Has all film holders and is said to be in good condition. Warranty is tempting on the 9000 of course, but the 646 seller I am sure is honest and reputable.

I have used the 8000 and the 343 years ago and to be honest, I think for my purposes I'd be happy with either the 9000 or 646. From memory, the film holders on the Imacon seemed considerably sturdier and easier to use (which is appealing after using the V700 for a while). I will be scanning a mixture of 35mm, 645 and 6x6.

I am reasonably familiar with differences between hardware and software but there are a few questions I have for users of either:

- Does the 120 film holder for the 646 fit three 6x6 negs?
- How expensive, difficult and important is the yearly servicing for the Imacon (I know I will have to find out locally - just interested generally)
- Is one scanner considerably faster?
- Dust issues? I prefer not to use ICE but wondered if one scanner might be better at avoiding sucking in the dust?
- Any major differences in quality? A1 enlargements from medium format (usually A2), and A3 from 35mm would be the biggest I print.

Many thanks - sorry for the heap of questions!

 

[Marco B]

I can not tell you about the Nikon 9000, but from what I read here on Hybrid, it should be a decent scanner.

I have used the 646 and 848 Imacons though. Both are superb scanners, with very high true optical resolution, leaving little to desire.

I think the main advantage of the 646 is the almost garantueed "perfect" focus due to the way the negative is bend inside the scanner. You probably need a glass negative holder to be able to get the same results on a 9000.

I have not found dust a major issue, even though I rented the Imacons at a lab which probably wasn't paying the highest attention to these scanners in this respect. Just make sure you have a compressor ready to blow dust of the negatives.

The 646 is a slow scanner though. The 848 and 949 are much faster. A 4x5 negative scan on the 646 could take anywhere from 5-7.5 minutes or so to complete... Not suitable for high throughput scanning for sure.

 

[mesh]

Thanks Marco - appreciate the info.