Nikon scanners discontinued?

[PeterAM]

I just read something in the December issue of SHUTTERBUG that states: "Nikon scanners are no longer in production and to my knowledge will be unsupported after the current stock are sold out". The comment is in the "Digital Help" section, written by David Brooks. He's responding to a question about scanning 35mm;the Nikon mentioned by the person asking the question is the 5000 ED, so I can't tell if his response is specifically about that scanner or the MF scanner also.

Anyone know if Nikon is going out of the scanner business?

 

[pellicle]

well it wouldn't surprise me ... big companies seem to focus on big production and big margins

 

[mesh]

Here in Australia, many dealers are advertising their "last 5000 ED's" so I suspect it may be true. Wonder if anyone else will step up to the plate... surely there must be some demand?

 

[PeterAM]

I have a 35mm Nikon scanner (V ED) that I bought new a few years back and used with my slides/negs as I entered the world of post processing and printing. It's used pretty infrequently now that I shoot mostly digital, but I am concerned about the availability of drivers as the computer operating systems change.

 

[JBrunner]

well it wouldn't surprise me ... big companies seem to focus on big production and big margins

Compared to Canon or Sony, Nikon is a tiny company. If anyone with the kind of capability that they have could exploit a niche market, it would be them. I think the top end scanners were being purchased by pros, both those still shooting film and those needing to digitize past work. I think most of the past work has now been digitized, and fewer pros shooting film. Hopefully it is model specific.

 

[Loris Medici]

I don't own one yet (will purchase soon, to match with negatives from a Bessa III also going to be purchased soon) but from what I read in the reviews (respectable sources) it seems that the upper-class Epson flatbeds are better than the dedicated film scanners of few years ago. Not better than Imacons perhaps but better than (or in par with) most amateur / advanced amateur dedicated film scanners. Is that true indeed? If yes, I think people are going for them. (Just like me!) Those scanners are very nice with many many format options up to 5x7" large format (even larger)... Also, the majority of current film users (who intend to scan later, not average Joe's who are satisfied with 4x6" lab prints) are shooting MF not 35mm, therefore a product like 5000ED doesn't have a use for them. Right?

 

[pellicle]

Hi

...I think most of the past work has now been digitized, and fewer pros shooting film. Hopefully it is model specific.

well with the V dropped how many models would that leave? The 9000 only IIRC

sad but true, I think 35mm high quality expectations are limited to dinosaurs like me and some of the other readers here ... and as for me, I'm more into digital than 35mm and really only bother to use 120 and 4x5 film now

 

[pellicle]

Loris

I don't own one yet (will purchase soon, to match with negatives from a Bessa III also going to be purchased soon)

that would have to be the 9000 then

but from what I read in the reviews (respectable sources) it seems that the upper-class Epson flatbeds are better than the dedicated film scanners of few years ago. Not better than Imacons perhaps but better than (or in par with) most amateur / advanced amateur dedicated film scanners. Is that true indeed?

not that I've read ...

If yes, I think people are going for them. (Just like me!) Those scanners are very nice with many many format options up to 5x7" large format (even larger)... Also, the majority of current film users (who intend to scan later, not average Joe's who are satisfied with 4x6" lab prints) are shooting MF not 35mm, therefore a product like 5000ED doesn't have a use for them. Right?

well for 120 and 4x5 I'm quite comfortable with my 4990 ... I haven't seen anything from the V700 (a friend owns one) to suggest it is a significant or even noticeable improvement over my 4990

my LS4000 does nicely for 35mm and scans over 2200dpi of 6x9 or 6x12 120 film are quite large. I'm happy to send them to people like Bruce Watson for scanning.

I expect that LS-5000's will remain available on the used market for some time

 

[pschwart]

I can get a decent scan of a 35mm original using an Epson V7xx using a glass holder, but my prints have not been larger than 8x10. I am much more comfortable using the Epson for medium format, but I still use a glass holder.
It's not a replacement for a dedicated scanner -- maybe it *could* be if Epson would get serious and provide real film holders and autofocus. Until then, the Epson is worth having just because it can scan a full sheet of negs for proof sheets. The Nikon 9000 is an ornery bugger and Nikon Scan has a truly funky interface, but I am glad I made the investment, especially for scanning 35mm.

Loris



that would have to be the 9000 then



not that I've read ...



well for 120 and 4x5 I'm quite comfortable with my 4990 ... I haven't seen anything from the V700 (a friend owns one) to suggest it is a significant or even noticeable improvement over my 4990

my LS4000 does nicely for 35mm and scans over 2200dpi of 6x9 or 6x12 120 film are quite large. I'm happy to send them to people like Bruce Watson for scanning.

I expect that LS-5000's will remain available on the used market for some time

 

[pellicle]

I can get a decent scan of a 35mm original using an Epson

and I can get a decent scan too with my Epson 4870 and 4990

Stuff like this:

Dead Link Removed

and this:

Dead Link Removed

have printed quite acceptably to 8x12 ... its just that I know my LS-4000 does a much better job of 35mm

 

[Loris Medici]

...
well for 120 and 4x5 I'm quite comfortable with my 4990 ... I haven't seen anything from the V700 (a friend owns one) to suggest it is a significant or even noticeable improvement over my 4990
...

This shows a pretty remarkable improvement for the reviewer:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson V700/page_9.htm

Have you noticed that article before? It made me salivate for a V700... Do they BS? (Doesn't seem so to me but who knows?)

I feel that I really need a good scanner to get the most of the perfectly sharp/high resolution negatives I'm (hopefully) going to make with the Bessa III. I don't mind a large file size; since my experience is even if you don't need that large files (I mean for the prints you're going to make), downsampling makes tones much better/smoother. So I always scan at the max. convenient resolution and downsize to print size. (Scan, 0.9 px 50-90% USM, bicubic downsize to target print size 300/360dpi depending on printer and go on from there...)

What do you think?

 

[cooltouch]

I don't own one yet (will purchase soon, to match with negatives from a Bessa III also going to be purchased soon) but from what I read in the reviews (respectable sources) it seems that the upper-class Epson flatbeds are better than the dedicated film scanners of few years ago.

Hmmm . . . I don't think so. I own an Epson 4990, which was Epson's top-of-the-line scanner just a few years ago, and which is still on par, resolution-wise, with Epson's latest V-crop, from what I've read. It's actual true resolution is somewhere around 2000 ppi, despite its 4800 ppi claim. I also own an HP S-20 dedicated film scanner -- a consumer grade product with a maximum claimed resolution of 2400 ppi, that's probably close to 10 years old. I'd have to give a slight edge to the S-20 when it comes to resolution, based on my comparisons. It's a very slight difference, but detectable.

Because of the Epson's relatively low resolution, I have begun playing around with a couple of slide duplicator rigs I own. Both have glass elements to allow for correct focusing, but with one of them, the glass element can be removed. Until today, the closest I could get to a full-frame dupe with my crop-body DSLR was using a 28mm lens, and a Vivitar 2x macro-focusing teleconverter attached to the dupe tube. It still left a perimeter all the way around the image that probably amounts to 20% or so of the total image area. Today, I received in the mail a set of extension tubes. I hope to be able to assemble the right combination that will allow me to use my 55mm macro lens and get close to a full-frame dupe.

BTW, I believe this will be a likely wave of the future when it comes to digitizing slides and negatives -- shooting dupes with DSLRs. It's quick and the results are much better than that I've gotten with my scanners. Even dupes of medium and large format slides and negs can be made using the right backlighting and appropriate lens.

 

[cooltouch]

This shows a pretty remarkable improvement for the reviewer:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson V700/page_9.htm

The reviewer states, "The V700 is producing a much better scan at 4800 dpi than the 4990," which frankly I consider to contain considerable hyperbole. The V700's scan is sharper, yes, but only by a slight amount. And there is absolutely nothing in that scan that a bit of USM or high-pass sharpening won't do to bring the 4990's scan up to being equivalent to the V700s. It would be more more indicative of improvements if the two scans showed some extremes in contrast, the better to observe the differences in D-Max between the two units in addition to any supposed sharpness difference.

 

[pschwart]

Loris:
It's a no-brainer Get a refurbished V700 from Epson and a Better Scanning holder with ANR glass. The V700 is a great tool for making proof sheets, and general use scanning for stuff like OCR and faxing, so even if you decide to add a dedicated scanner later, the Epson will still be useful.

This shows a pretty remarkable improvement for the reviewer:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson V700/page_9.htm

Have you noticed that article before? It made me salivate for a V700... Do they BS? (Doesn't seem so to me but who knows?)

I feel that I really need a good scanner to get the most of the perfectly sharp/high resolution negatives I'm (hopefully) going to make with the Bessa III. I don't mind a large file size; since my experience is even if you don't need that large files (I mean for the prints you're going to make), downsampling makes tones much better/smoother. So I always scan at the max. convenient resolution and downsize to print size. (Scan, 0.9 px 50-90% USM, bicubic downsize to target print size 300/360dpi depending on printer and go on from there...)

What do you think?

 

[pellicle]

Hi

Loris:
It's a no-brainer Get a refurbished V700 from Epson and a Better Scanning holder with ANR glass. The V700 is a great tool for making proof sheets, and general use scanning for stuff like OCR and faxing, so even if you decide to add a dedicated scanner later, the Epson will still be useful.

that's always sound advice .. as the cost of theV700 falls it becomes better value. This same scenario has repeated each time a new model has come out since the 3200 (which I happen to also own)

 

[Loris Medici]

cooltouch/Michael:
I have an Epson 2450 and a Minolta Dualscan III. The real resolution of the 2450 is something around 1600dpi, that makes ~67% of the stated resolution.

If your 4990 scanner gives only 2000dpi real resolution then this isn't an improvement over 2450 (in fact it's going back - since the real res./hardware res. ratio is way lower than my 2450, at ~42%) and/or there's something wrong with your scanner (or your particular working style)...

The 2880dpi Minolta scans are way better than my Epson 2450 scans, naturally, because they're real 2880dpi scans.

Now, if V700 practical resolution is the half of the stated hardware resolution then it's OK for me, 6400dpi x 50% = 3200dpi. That makes about 10x enlargement, which is fine for my needs and also reasonable for any film/developer combination I'm going to use. (Mostly Delta 100, new TMax 400 and occasionally good old friends FP4 and HP5 in Xtol and/or Pyrocat MC...) OTOH, with 4990 I'm taking a risk since the practical resolution I need makes ~67% of the hardware resolution. In any case it's always better to have more samples per given area, as long as noise (due smaller micro-sensor size) is under control/manageable.

Phil:
We don't have refurbished stock here in Turkey, I will have to purchase a brand new one. And as I said before I already have an adequate scanner for the alternative tasks you mention, is it still a no-brainer?

Regards,
Loris.

 

[pellicle]

Hello

This shows a pretty remarkable improvement for the reviewer:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson V700/page_9.htm

Have you noticed that article before? It made me salivate for a V700... Do they BS? (Doesn't seem so to me but who knows?)

he does not seem to BS to me ... however its hard to be using scanners since the Epson 3200 and not develop better technique. I can certainly say I scan better with my 3200 now than I did then.

For instance this is done on my 3200

and a detail segment

keep in mind that this is a 100% segment without any significant processing. To simulate this stand about 2 meters from your screen and that's about what you'll see when examining a 300dpi print (cos screen is about 100dpi with bigger pixels)

This equates to a file around 12, 000 x 9, 600 pixels (a little less actually) which would make a fine 50 inch (or 1.2 meter) wide print.


you can find a few notes on my flickr stream about these here

all things considered I find the Epsons 'sufficient for my needs' and to get the better results which the Nikon can obtain one needs to employ some dedication.

Some of my experiences in exploring this

http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2009/03/nikon-iv-ed-vs-epson-flatbed.html

http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2009/05/digital-vs-film-scans-screens-and.html

so while the LS-4000 / 5000 can get a better scan it is not a certainty. I think that "near enough is good enough" for so many and thus the Nikon scanners are under threat as more and more move to digital or MF

 

[Loris Medici]

...even if you decide to add a dedicated scanner later, the Epson will still be useful...

BTW, I don't plan to invest on a dedicated film scanner, I will be using the Imacon at the institution where I teach photography if I feel I need something better... (Hardly, but who knows?)

 

[pschwart]

I still have a 2450, too. I made a lot of nice medium format scans with it but haven't used it in a long time. I do think the V700 is an improvement, but I never did any real side-by-side comparisons to prove this. I really like using the V700 for making proof sheets -- this is a real improvement in my workflow, and it wasn't possible using the 2450.

cooltouch/Michael:
I have an Epson 2450 and a Minolta Dualscan III. The real resolution of the 2450 is something around 1600dpi, that makes ~67% of the stated resolution.

If your 4990 scanner gives only 2000dpi real resolution then this isn't an improvement over 2450 (in fact it's going back - since the real res./hardware res. ratio is way lower than my 2450, at ~42%) and/or there's something wrong with your scanner (or your particular working style)...

The 2880dpi Minolta scans are way better than my Epson 2450 scans, naturally, because they're real 2880dpi scans.

Now, if V700 practical resolution is the half of the stated hardware resolution then it's OK for me, 6400dpi x 50% = 3200dpi. That makes about 10x enlargement, which is fine for my needs and also reasonable for any film/developer combination I'm going to use. (Mostly Delta 100, new TMax 400 and occasionally good old friends FP4 and HP5 in Xtol and/or Pyrocat MC...) OTOH, with 4990 I'm taking a risk since the practical resolution I need makes ~67% of the hardware resolution. In any case it's always better to have more samples per given area, as long as noise (due smaller micro-sensor size) is under control/manageable.

Phil:
We don't have refurbished stock here in Turkey, I will have to purchase a brand new one. And as I said before I already have an adequate scanner for the alternative tasks you mention, is it still a no-brainer?

Regards,
Loris.

 

[pellicle]

Hi Loris

cooltouch/Michael:
I have an Epson 2450 and a Minolta Dualscan III. The real resolution of the 2450 is something around 1600dpi, that makes ~67% of the stated resolution.

If your 4990 scanner gives only 2000dpi real resolution then this isn't an improvement over 2450 (

there is more to the advances than just DPI (and your argument about it going backwards are really a reflection of over optimistic appraisal)

I happen to own (don't ask why) a 3200, a 4870 (bought first) and a 4990 and while I can get similar scans from all three I prefer the 4990 for a few reasons ... wider scan area is one of them, nicer film holders is another.


Have you tried the methods which (for example) Sandy has done for testing his scanner? I suggest you try that with your 2450.

If one owned a 4990 I would not suggest looking into a V700 / V750 but if I only owned the 3200 I would be looking into it as I can scan strips of 6x9 more easily than with the 3200

 

[Loris Medici]

I don't know Sandy's methods. Is there a thread about those here? If yes, can you please provide the URL?

What I've done was to scan the same slide twice, once at 1600dpi and once at 2400, then see if the 2400dpi scan has indeed some more detail. (Unfortunately there wasn't more detail, only the file was bigger and that's all about it.)

Regards,
Loris.

...
Have you tried the methods which (for example) Sandy has done for testing his scanner? I suggest you try that with your 2450.
...

 

[pellicle]

Hi

a quick search gave this thread


perhaps Sandy may clear up anything not obvious in that thread...

 

[pellicle]

another thing you may like to check on your 2450 is its responce.

I've compared my 3200 and 4990 here, and while I 'feel' the 4990 handles my c-41 blue channel better I don't really see significant reasons for that in the results of testing against stouffer wedge

dunno

I paid $100 for my 4990 recently ... that it will allow me to scan 2 strips of 6x12 is an asset to me, naturally YMMV

 

[Loris Medici]

Thanks for mentioning.

But since I always calibrate/profile my scanners with a 4x5" IT8 target (from LaserSoft Imaging) and I'm only interested in scanning B&W negatives developed in pyrocatechin (mostly, which makes easy-to-scan optically thin negatives), I feel pretty safe about response irregularities...

Regards,
Loris.

another thing you may like to check on your 2450 is its responce.

I've compared my 3200 and 4990 here, and while I 'feel' the 4990 handles my c-41 blue channel better I don't really see significant reasons for that in the results of testing against stouffer wedge

dunno

I paid $100 for my 4990 recently ... that it will allow me to scan 2 strips of 6x12 is an asset to me, naturally YMMV

 

[sanking]

2450.

If one owned a 4990 I would not suggest looking into a V700 / V750 but if I only owned the 3200 I would be looking into it as I can scan strips of 6x9 more easily than with the 3200

I owned a 4990 for several years and recently replaced it with a V700. In careful testing I was never able to get more than about 1800 ppi effective resolution from the 4990, the V700 gives about 2300 ppi. The difference is of little consequence for scanning LF film where moderate size enlargements are intended but for MF the difference in image quality should be fairly significant.

Sandy King