Nikon Super CoolScan 9000

Good scanning services are almost impossible to find for me, now. So it seems I should get a film scanner eventually... soon. I'm eyeing the Nikon Super CoolScan 9000 scanner, but not really knowing much about film scanners, is this the best option... that is, without going up to drum scanners?

Also, does the 8000 and the 9000 use the same spare film strip holders?

Depends on your needs/output. Are you printing or just for the web, etc? If printing, how large will the prints be? Are you are printing from 35mm vs medium format? Depending on the answers, you may need a dedicated film scanner. The 9000 is your best bet short of a drum scanner if you need MF film capability. It is very large compared to other MF scanners, but the only one available new.

I only have the 9000 (excellent), so don't know about the film strip holders. You could search for the brand/part number online, and places like B&H Photo may say whether the holder works with which scanners. Nikon site may also provide info.

Good luck!

The 8000 and 9000 have the same trays. It is one of the best CCD scanners and one of the highest resolution scanners for medium format. It also has the benefit of currently being sold new and therefore potentially coming with a warranty. If you don't need MF capability you can save some money and space and get a 5000. It is also faster for 35mm with most of the same capabilities (with the notable exception of losing the ability to use ICE with Kodachrome).

Get one while you can, I say.

Thanks for the replies. I am scanning for web delivery, but 35mm... for now. The plan is to dabble in MF, especially to play around with some unique looks that older lenses can produce. Minolta / Sony / Carl Zeiss has made and makes some fantastically sharp lenses, but that's not what I always want.

In the mean time, I've got a lead on a local shop that might be using a good film scanner (no idea of the type just yet). That doesn't stop me from learning more about the Nikon 9000.

Hi

if it is 35mm now then I suggest a 5000 or 4000 as they will cost you a lot less. Up front. If you are going to dabble in MF then (especially for web sizes) you will also save money (even adding the cost of the two together) with the addition of a Epson 700 (or even a good used 4990).

Of course the 9000 is an excellent device.

The 5000 and the 4000 however have a nice tool to allow easy strip feeding that I do not think the 9000 has. This may assist in reducing time if you happen to be doing this for a business.

If you would like to see actual comparisons then have a look at my blog here. Keep in mind that the sections represented are 4000dpi scans and with an inch and a half of width that is well over what you would scan for web delivery ... perhaps even what you would scan with 8x10 printing.

So for an overview of the image


I am examining this tiny portion (of the drum scan)


and the Nikon


The nikon 4000 actually does pretty well against such a benchmark, the Epson is not as sharp:


but when you resize them to be an appropriate section of a web sized scan that difference diminishes remarkably

epson-nikon-compared by aquinas_56, on Flickr

Thanks so much for the comparisons. I assume that colour casts can be sorted out in calibration or in LightRoom... assuming LR is an acceptable tool to use in post processing?

ablyth said:

Thanks so much for the comparisons. I assume that colour casts can be sorted out in calibration or in LightRoom... assuming LR is an acceptable tool to use in post processing?

Click to expand...

I can normally get them close but I don't normally try that hard. I also don't normally scan the same thing on both, but it may be an issue if you were offering a service. I have not compared it but I expect that no matter what when scanning negatives and manually setting black and white points for the media that you aren't likely to get identical results even with the same machine from scan to scan. Toss in a different machine (with different curves in its responce to a given media) and you'll get more differences too.

Its kind of like clocks ... you have one and you know the time, you have two and you're never sure.

How about a LS-8000 vs. LS-9000? I have a LS-8000 for 3+ years now and am happy with it. What am I missing vs. a LS-9000.

Thanks.

8000 vs 9000. Better ICE. Newer presumed better CCD and electronics. I believe optics and transport essentially the same.

9000s are also physically newer. Dust on mirror is a problem of older units and requires some surgery to clean. If you don't like dismantling your equipment you might want the newer unit.

glhs116 said:

8000 vs 9000. Better ICE. Newer presumed better CCD and electronics. I believe optics and transport essentially the same.

9000s are also physically newer. Dust on mirror is a problem of older units and requires some surgery to clean. If you don't like dismantling your equipment you might want the newer unit.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Since my main use is to scan B&W (mainly Tri-X), it doesn't sound like I am missing much then. I get the drat "band" problems sometimes, but checking the "fine mode" seems to help.