Nikon Coolscan 9000 or Epson V850

[pradheep thavamani]

I have someone selling both of these scanners. All these days I have given my films to photolab so I don’t have much experience in scanners. These two scanners have big price difference, but I’m thinking of getting best one. If you can help me to choose better scanner. And I shoot 120 and 35mm films, and I’m also thinking of doing large prints in future.

 

[Michael W]

I have a Coolscan 5000 and an Epson 4990 and the Nikon is way superior in resolution. I have compared by scanning mounted slides on both scanners. It makes sense when you think about it - one is a dedicated film scanner while the other is a flatbed scanner with film capability.

 

[pradheep thavamani]

Have you tried wet mount scanning on Nikon 5000?

 

[Les Sarile]

I have the 9000 and V750 but have not tried the V850. Unless you need 8X10 scanning, the Coolscan can extract considerably more detail from your film much more quickly and cleanly. Of course this will depend on the film type and if you captured it on the film.

Have you tried wet mount scanning on Nikon 5000?

It is not possible to wet mount with the 5000. Out of curiosity, what do you hope to achieve with wet mounting.

 

[EdSawyer]

I have both of these. Unless you need to do 4x5 or larger, or to scan flat artwork (non-film) like prints or something, the 9000 is the clearly better choice. Ultimately it is worth it to have both if you need to scan larger than 120 (which is why I have both)

 

[pradheep thavamani]

I have the 9000 and V750 but have not tried the V850. Unless you need 8X10 scanning, the Coolscan can extract considerably more detail from your film much more quickly and cleanly. Of course this will depend on the film type and if you captured it on the film.



It is not possible to wet mount with the 5000. Out of curiosity, what do you hope to achieve with wet mounting.

I use mostly color negatives and b&w. But scan science has wet scanning kit for Nikon 9000, I just want to experiment wet scanning for large prints.

 

[pradheep thavamani]

I have both of these. Unless you need to do 4x5 or larger, or to scan flat artwork (non-film) like prints or something, the 9000 is the clearly better choice. Ultimately it is worth it to have both if you need to scan larger than 120 (which is why I have both)

I have no intention of going larger than 120. I am more worried about repairs for Nikon, apparently Nikon doesn’t repair these scanners anymore.

 

[Les Sarile]

I use mostly color negatives and b&w. But scan science has wet scanning kit for Nikon 9000, I just want to experiment wet scanning for large prints.

I have read and seen some wet scanning from flatbeds before and none have produced quantifiably better results. However, the difference in results between the 9000 and these desktop type scanners can be substantial and not something that can be compensated for in post work. Again depending on film type, camera equipment and technique.

 

[mgb74]

I have no intention of going larger than 120. I am more worried about repairs for Nikon, apparently Nikon doesn’t repair these scanners anymore.

There is a very active facebook group focusing on the Nikon Coolscans, including 1 or 2 individuals who do repairs. But they are US-based which may not do you much good. And the 9000s are getting a bit old. So I'd factor in reliability unless you have a reasonably convenient repair option for the Nikon.

 

[jim10219]

I have no intention of going larger than 120. I am more worried about repairs for Nikon, apparently Nikon doesn’t repair these scanners anymore.

I wouldn't recommend any flatbed scanner for 35mm film (unless you just want a contact sheet proof). Even on 120 film, they're not all that impressive. Dedicated film scanners are much better by comparison. Though I prefer to go the DSLR scanning route for 35mm and 120 film. You can get even better results that way, and save a lot of money if you already have a good DSLR (or mirrorless).

 

[pradheep thavamani]

I have read and seen some wet scanning from flatbeds before and none have produced quantifiably better results. However, the difference in results between the 9000 and these desktop type scanners can be substantial and not something that can be compensated for in post work. Again depending on film type, camera equipment and technique.

What software are you using for 9000?

 

[pradheep thavamani]

I wouldn't recommend any flatbed scanner for 35mm film (unless you just want a contact sheet proof). Even on 120 film, they're not all that impressive. Dedicated film scanners are much better by comparison. Though I prefer to go the DSLR scanning route for 35mm and 120 film. You can get even better results that way, and save a lot of money if you already have a good DSLR (or mirrorless).

I scan my 35mm at lab, I’m not planning to do large prints on 35mm.

 

[BMbikerider]

The Nikon Scanner is old technology, but don't let that fool you. There is not a flatbed scanner that will come anywhere close to it. What flatbed will allow you to scan in RAW? Well the Nikon can. The DMax on the Nikon is slightly higher - 4 (flatbed) against 4.2, not a lot, but enough to make a difference. Apart from all that there is no problem with out of focus negatives, the Nikon auto- focuses each frame before each scan. No flatbed I know can do this. The Digital ICE cubed correction software will correct negative faults far better than any flatbed. If anything it is too good. Do I need to say anything about the Nikon APO lens that is used by the scanner.

The only 2 downsides I know of against the Nikon is the scanning is not the quickest, and the Nikon software will only use Windows XP but it will work as well if not better if you install Silverfast. But - oh - the results! A 35mm negative will give a file size around 24MB and a 120 square negative will give around 165mb. If I was in the market for one I know what I would choose.

I have just noticed the comment about repair. I don't know about over the pond from UK, where repairs/servicing are available by approved companies, so I'm assuming there will be the same in the U.S. I have a Nikon Coolscan V and have just had mine serviced, but only because it is 'getting on a bit', so I thought a service and a clean would be beneficial. There was nothing wrong with it apart from a bit dusty inside the workings and the lens had a atmospheric film over the front. The full resolution scan even with 35mm will easily give me an A3 print and some left over so just think what a 120 neg will do!

 

[EdSawyer]

you can easily install NikonScan under windows 10 or any of the Windows OSes. I have it running on a Mac using Boot Camp, and it works fine. It's better than vuescan or silverfast.

 

[BMbikerider]

you can easily install NikonScan under windows 10 or any of the Windows OSes. I have it running on a Mac using Boot Camp, and it works fine. It's better than vuescan or silverfast.

Hmmmmm! Interesting. Is your version of windows 32 bit or 64? My windows 10 is 64 bit and for that reason I cannot see how it can be used. Nikon Scan is only 32 bit

 

[bdial]

I have a Coolscan 8000 and an Epson 4900, the newer Epsons aren't a lot different. As stated, for small negs the Nikon is superior. If I were choosing today, and the money was comparable, I'd go the DSLR route with a macro or bellows.

 

[Les Sarile]

What software are you using for 9000?

I prefer using Nikonscan so I maintain a Windows Vista machine just for scanning. I believe there are well documented ways to run this Nikonscan on newer OS or use others like Silverfast.

 

[BMbikerider]

I prefer using Nikonscan so I maintain a Windows Vista machine just for scanning. I believe there are well documented ways to run this Nikonscan on newer OS or use others like Silverfast.

Likewise. I have a Dell laptop with XP loaded which is the sole reserve of the scanner which does all I need. The scans are then transferred to a memory stick and then worked upon with my desktop with Adobe CC. The finished scan in RAW with a finished JPG is saved in a folder onto a external drive in date order the scans were made. It works for me.

 

[Les Sarile]

I scan my 35mm at lab, I’m not planning to do large prints on 35mm.

With the Coolscan's 4000dpi and color accuracy it will not be the reason you can't make posters from 35mm if you want.

 

[pradheep thavamani]

With the Coolscan's 4000dpi and color accuracy it will not be the reason you can't make posters from 35mm if you want.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Any Nikon scanner is obsolete. Not only from manufacturing support, but from where it is connecting to operate.
Basically to get it works these days, you need to buy obsolete computer with obsolete OS.

You will get decent results with flatbed like v600 from 120 and for 135 you could get Plustek. New and well supported, under less price for both than obsolete 9000.

 

[shutterfinger]

Hmmmmm! Interesting. Is your version of windows 32 bit or 64? My windows 10 is 64 bit and for that reason I cannot see how it can be used. Nikon Scan is only 32 bit

Open File Explorer, should be on the left side of the task bar or under Windows System on the Start Menu, expand the C drive and you will see Program Files and Program Files (x86).

Program Files is your 64 bit programs while Program Files (x86) is the 32 bit programs installed on your computer. Not all older 32 or 64 bit programs will run on newer OS.
The older program such as Nikon Scan may need to be installed to get the driver for the scanner installed on your computer.

32 bit programs run on 64 bit machines; 64 bit programs do not run on 32 bit machines.

 

[BMbikerider]

Any Nikon scanner is obsolete. Not only from manufacturing support, but from where it is connecting to operate.
Basically to get it works these days, you need to buy obsolete computer with obsolete OS.

You will get decent results with flatbed like v600 from 120 and for 135 you could get Plustek. New and well supported, under less price for both than obsolete 9000.

The Nikon Coolscan V, or the 9000 or even the 8000 models are very definitely NOT obsolete. They may be old, they may not have the original ease of access but they are shed loads better than any cheap flat bed scanner such as the v600. Read my original post about focussing, scanning format (RAW), and absolute build quality, non of which is available in a flatbed.

I could if I wanted to, download Silverfast or Vuescan and use Windows 10, but the Windows XP in my Dell Laptop serves the purpose perfectly. The scans are automatically sent into the 'pictures' folder and then transferred onto a memory stick and then worked on using my desk top and the Adobe CC. It isn't the operating system that is used to receive the scans, it is where the actual after work is performed.

I have seen results from a Plustec scanner and to be honest they seemed to be little better than a flatbed. Optical corrections a poor in comparison with a Nikon and showed quite pronounced fringing. The absolute resolution is more than a Nikon but it cannot be used because of the optical deficiencies.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

BMbikerider,

Do you have a link to where you got the Nikon scanner serviced? I have the 9000 model - purchased new in 2006 - and although it is working fine at the moment I'm certainly interested in this subject. I'm currently using VueScan under Mac OS 10.13.

Tom

 

[BMbikerider]

BMbikerider,

Do you have a link to where you got the Nikon scanner serviced? I have the 9000 model - purchased new in 2006 - and although it is working fine at the moment I'm certainly interested in this subject. I'm currently using VueScan under Mac OS 10.13.

Tom

I used to have it but no longer. However if you speak to Gray's of Westminster telephone 020-7828 4925, they are the ones who gave me the contact details. They are based in London. SE11, somewhere around Kennington if I remember correctly. It cost me £125 plus post and packing.

UPDATE To save you the bother, I spoke to Gray's and the company is called Fixation and they are in Kennington Lane. Their phone number is 020 7582 3294. They are closed today but give them a call for the full address. The turn around time is about 10 working days (or it was when I had mine done.)