Nikon LS8000 repair or replace with Epson V800/850?

[JWMster]

Servos are screwing up. My guess is they've gotten linted up somehow. Minimum. I've had this thing serviced a bunch. Wonder whether Epson V800 series (850) with Betterscanning's frame holders is a better current-day replacement? This Nikon is screeching and grinding. V800 looks to do 6 frames of 120 with Betterscaning's holders. Not sure the mechanics, but a flat image is a flat image. I have liked my Nikon, but speed ain't its thing.

Wonder what's your experience?

 

[gorbas]

If you are on FB, you can join Nikon Coolscan group (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1514948298527146/). In the group there are two guys from USA who can fix broken Nikon scanners.

 

[shutterfinger]

The Nikon has LED light source and a 4.2 Dmax, The Epson has a LED light source and a 4.0 Dmax.
I would get an estimate for repair/overall evaluation of the Nikon as mechanics and electronics do wear out. If the repair of the Nikon equals or exceeds the Epson then get the Epson as the resulting scans at maximum optical resolution of each should be very close to equal.

 

[Oren Grad]

Wonder whether Epson V800 series (850) with Betterscanning's frame holders is a better current-day replacement?

If the repair of the Nikon equals or exceeds the Epson then get the Epson as the resulting scans at maximum optical resolution of each should be very close to equal.

No no no no no no no no no.

No!

Speaking as the owner of a Nikon 9000 as well as an Epson V700: the Epson resolution specifications are fantasy, the Nikon's are real. The actual resolution achieved by the V-series flatbeds is barely more than half of what the Nikon achieves. If you've been using the Nikon's resolution to the full, the Epson is a poor substitute.

 

[KenS]

Well.... I got my Epson 850 Pro just under a year ago.. So I cannot give you any "professional' input other than the fact that I am more than just 'satisfied' with the results it provides for 'my' needs.

Ken

 

[shutterfinger]

No no no no no no no no no.

No!

Speaking as the owner of a Nikon 9000 as well as an Epson V700: the Epson resolution specifications are fantasy, the Nikon's are real. The actual resolution achieved by the V-series flatbeds is barely more than half of what the Nikon achieves. If you've been using the Nikon's resolution to the full, the Epson is a poor substitute.

Once again the LS8000 and V800/V850 have a LED light source as does the 9000. The V700/V750 has a cold cathode florescent light source.
The LED light source produces a sharper scan than the florescent light source. Think Fuji apples compared to delicious apples.
I have a V500 (LED light source) and a V700. The V500 scans are crisper than the V700 scans.

The scan resolution is a reference number that both the manufacturer and scan software use so they are on the same page in terms of units. Test procedure and target determine the resulting numbers.
Edit:
I did a google search for "who makes Epson scanner lens"
I did not find an answer. I did find this useful pdf http://dasch.rc.fas.harvard.edu/papers/Scannerevaluation1.pdf
and this evaluation https://www.scanyourentirelife.com/epson-v800-vs-v850-photo-scanner-differences/

 

[Oren Grad]

https://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV850Pro.html
https://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV800Photo.html

https://www.filmscanner.info/en/NikonSuperCoolscan9000ED.html
https://www.filmscanner.info/NikonSuperCoolscan8000ED.html

 

[JWMster]

This forum continues to astound. Thank you. I will look go with the agony of a repair. But the time is coming when this thing goes and then, I'm not sure what will take its place. Digital photography is one option, and I have the equipment for that. Just haven't liked it all that much - even though I have a Sony A7R2. I mean it works, and it takes nice shots, but it's not as fun or engaging.

 

[Oren Grad]

This forum continues to astound. Thank you. I will look go with the agony of a repair. But the time is coming when this thing goes and then, I'm not sure what will take its place. Digital photography is one option, and I have the equipment for that. Just haven't liked it all that much - even though I have a Sony A7R2. I mean it works, and it takes nice shots, but it's not as fun or engaging.

Yes, I worry about what I will do when my 9000 breaks and has become unrepairable. I think DSLR "scanning" isn't quite there yet for my purposes. Some months back, I rented an EOS 5DsR and mounted an Apo-Rodagon-D on a bellows to see what I could do. 50 megapixels notwithstanding, I couldn't even match the 9000 results let alone exceed them, at least in part because it was difficult to nail the focus even with magnified live view, and probably in part because it's 50 Bayer-filtered megapixels, which means a lot less information than the nominal resolution would imply. Futzing with it was also a lot more hassle than just popping a film carrier into the scanner. And I actually want better than the 9000, because the resolution of the 9000 is right at the "sour spot" that generates nasty grain aliasing with Tri-X.

But eventually the DSLRs/mirrorless cameras will get there... for a 35mm frame. To scan medium or large format that way will still require an elaborate stitching setup.

 

[JWMster]

Yes, I've seen some amazing stitched stuff with DSLR scans. I've done the scans, but didn't have the patience for stitching. Love to have a MF scanner that worked like a Pakon F-135 and scanned a whole roll in 5 minutes. I used to do everything at high res, but I've begun backing that down to just get a feel for the images and worry about "the best" images later. I'm also looking for a "scan only" type of service. I've got a Jobo and don't mind developing the rolls, but it's the scanning that eats your life away. Greatest thing of the LS8000 is the batch scan. Worst thing? The loudest and oldest servos on the planet.

 

[Oren Grad]

I used to do everything at high res, but I've begun backing that down to just get a feel for the images and worry about "the best" images later. I'm also looking for a "scan only" type of service. I've got a Jobo and don't mind developing the rolls, but it's the scanning that eats your life away. Greatest thing of the LS8000 is the batch scan. Worst thing? The loudest and oldest servos on the planet.

So I have to add that if preliminary image review, rather than getting a definitive file for printing, is your primary need for a scanner at this point, one of the consumer-grade flatbeds might be just fine.

Low-priced commercial batch-scan or develop-and-batch-scan services are pretty crude. OK for image review, but IMO not for doing justice to the negative or transparency if the goal is to make prints of high technical quality. Unfortunately, anything that requires substantial human attention to fine-tune for best results is necessarily going to be very expensive.

 

[mgb74]

Whatever you decide, factor the time to load/unload film into your speed equation. I can multi-task while the film is actually being scanned, so that time is less critical to me.

 

[Les Sarile]

This Nikon is screeching and grinding.
Wonder what's your experience?

All of my Nikons (Coolscan 5000 and 9000) have always been loud since brand new. Fortunately, they don't sound any louder - and scans exactly the same, tens of thousands of frames scanned later.

I have a V500 (LED light source) and a V700. The V500 scans are crisper than the V700 scans.

The scan resolution is a reference number that both the manufacturer and scan software use so they are on the same page in terms of units. Test procedure and target determine the resulting numbers.

I am not sure I would characterize the V500 scans as crispier but it surely lacks actual detail in the capture especially when there is actual detail on the film to be resolved.

Also, they may reference the same numbers but the results at the same numbers are obviously not the same.

Full res V500 scan of Fuji RVP -> http://www.fototime.com/33269E445D10043/orig.jpg

Full res V700 scan of Fuji RVP -> http://www.fototime.com/11F59FA46FF9497/orig.jpg

And of course the 4000dpi resolution of a Coolscan actually captures a bit more of the detail then the supposed 6400dpi of an Epson even with ICE turned on.

Full res Coolscan scan of Fuji RVP -> http://www.fototime.com/02BB797801DCA89/orig.jpg

 

[alanrockwood]

... I've had this thing serviced a bunch. Wonder whether Epson V800 series (850) with Betterscanning's frame holders is a better current-day replacement? ...
Wonder what's your experience?

The Nikon will almost certainly give you higher actual resolution and better dynamic range. The dynamic range I believe will mainly mean better shadow detail. However it all depends on what quality level you want. It's a trade off, money for quality. For example, you could probably get even better quality than the Nikon if you bought a drum scanner, but the cost and inconvenience might make this a bad idea. The Epson might be good enough for your purposes, particularly for medium format. Advice here is good, but the only way you will know for sure is if you buy (or borrow) one and compare.

Here's my suggestion, with an eye toward conserving money. For 35mm buy a used Canon FS4000US on ebay for about $150. (Be sure it includes the film and slide holders because these are no longer available from canon.) This will give you scan quality for 35mm that rivals that of your Nikon. Buy Vuescan professional edition for $89 to run the FS4000US. (It will also run almost any other scanner.) Buy an Epson V800 for medium format and large format. If you find that golden negative or slide that absolutely needs higher quality than the Epson can supply then have that negative or slide scanned by someone who can do a drum scan at about $100 per photo.

The Epson V850 may or may not be better for you than the V800. It has a few extras, but they may or may not be worth it to you. For example, I believe the V850 includes the silverfast SE Plus scanning software, but chances are you will do just fine using either the software supplied with the V800 or vuescan for scanning. The V850 also includes some extra film holders.

This scheme is probably a 90-95% solution for half the money compared to buying another Nikon scanner.

 

[JWMster]

Didn't have time to reach out to Frank today, but one of the issues lies in banding that comes and goes at the top of the frame... by which I mean it's not always noticeable. Likely it's still there even when I don't see it. One thing very positive about the Nikon is that dust isn't the problem I found with DSLR scanning. Not sure why. Maybe it's the way the servos pull the frame holder into the machine. But equally, it could be I'm just better with it than I was with the Plustek 8200 and DLSR scans. Dunno. Banding bugs me. Drum scanning's a price beyond my reach.

 

[Ai Print]

But eventually the DSLRs/mirrorless cameras will get there... for a 35mm frame. To scan medium or large format that way will still require an elaborate stitching setup.

Before selling my otherwise perfect 9000ED scanner, I did rigorous tests of my Nikon D850 and 60mm Macro lens on the things I typically scan which is color slides and black and white negatives. I found that in most cases, the range and certainly the ease of using Lightroom CC to stitch into one large DNG file to well exceed what I could get done with my LS9000ED.

So I sold the scanner and bought a good used Sinar P2 with some spare parts and made it into a scanning station. I still use it for long lens work for stability but stitching a 120 or 4x5 neg is such a breeze with this setup I could never go back to what are now one trick ponies ( scanners ).

Here is the setup when in test stage:

 

[JWMster]

AI Print: If you don't mind my asking (since I don't have any LF gear) what gear are you using for a 120 film holder... and the rest? Looks like a much better set up than I've used.

 

[Ai Print]

AI Print: What are you using for a 120 film holder?

I have about 5 glass negative carriers for my enlargers, so I have standardized on that. I just put a mask on it for the scan.

 

[EdSawyer]

Looks like a nice setup if you want to spend time stitching, but the ICE, batch-scanning, and overall better optics of the Coolscan 9000 are still better than that setup.

 

[shutterfinger]

Banding in scans is usually caused by contaminates in the scanner's optical path. Lubricants and plastics in the scanner gas out and it collects on the glass, mirrors, lens, and sometimes the sensor. Another cause is the transport not running smoothly.

 

[Oren Grad]

Didn't have time to reach out to Frank today, but one of the issues lies in banding that comes and goes at the top of the frame...

Have you tried running the 8000 in "super fine" mode? That forces single-line rather than triple-line scans. The scans take longer, but banding that arises from calibration bugs in the three-line scan is suppressed.

 

[JWMster]

shutterfinger: Thanks. Sounds like a good explanation.
Oren Grad: I've done "FINE" but don't think I've seen "SUPER FINE", but thanks for the suggestion.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Have you tried running the 8000 in "super fine" mode? That forces single-line rather than triple-line scans. The scans take longer, but banding that arises from calibration bugs in the three-line scan is suppressed.

I've done a lot of scanning recently with my Coolscan 9000 and experienced the banding problem firsthand in VueScan. As you say the single-line 'superfine' option gets rid of this issue.

Tom

 

[JWMster]

That's amazing to hear. I'm going to have to look for it. Are you on the current version of Vuescan (or thereabouts)? I think it's version 12.xxx.xx something. Like I said, I've used "FINE", but didn't see "SUPERFINE". Can you tell me which of the option tabs you find it under? (I am at work and don't have that here). Thanks!

Curious also what DPI / Bit you're scanning at for COlOR / B&W for EVERYDAY and KEEPERS. I was doing everything at KEEPER level, and I'm ditching that approach for 1) Disk space issues and 2) Time. There's a fair amount out there on the specs folks used about 6 versions back in the software, but today's options settings are somewhat changed. Either that, or whenever we post our settings, we're not giving the specs as well in terms of what our originals are and our intent. And yes, I am a cranky old man I guess who is still learning and puzzling and chewing the cud.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

That's amazing to hear. I'm going to have to look for it. Are you on the current version of Vuescan (or thereabouts)? I think it's version 12.xxx.xx something. Like I said, I've used "FINE", but didn't see "SUPERFINE". Can you tell me which of the option tabs you find it under? (I am at work and don't have that here). Thanks!

I can't remember what the mode is called exactly but it is the 'fine' mode. VueScan version 9.6.20