Why did Nikon Discontinue the Coolscan scanners?

[brian steinberger]

This just seems stupid to me. I've been watching prices on ebay for the 9000ED slowly going up. They seem to be bringing about $3200 on average and one still in the package, never opened went for almost $5000 the other day. Why would Nikon discontinue this line of coolscan scanners? The demand is obviously very high as people are paying almost twice the price for a used one that you could get one new for just a few years ago. I'd really like a 9000ED but am cautious to spend that much money, and I'm also hoping Nikon will bring in back out.

 

[brian steinberger]

Oh and btw... Nikon still lists the 5000 ED and 9000 ED on their site, so there's still hope.

 

[pschwart]

This just seems stupid to me. I've been watching prices on ebay for the 9000ED slowly going up. They seem to be bringing about $3200 on average and one still in the package, never opened went for almost $5000 the other day. Why would Nikon discontinue this line of coolscan scanners? The demand is obviously very high as people are paying almost twice the price for a used one that you could get one new for just a few years ago. I'd really like a 9000ED but am cautious to spend that much money, and I'm also hoping Nikon will bring in back out.

Tell Nikon But a few willing to spend a lot does not equal high demand. I may buy an F6 before that disappears,
too.

 

[Marco B]

Tell Nikon But a few willing to spend a lot does not equal high demand.

x2...

It may be viable to build a $1,000,000.- super car one at a time, but that does not say it is viable to build these scanners, at least not in the context of a big company like Nikon...

 

[t.s.k.]

I think the bigger question is why aren't the film manufacturers motivated to produce a quality scanner.

 

[indigo]

The reason is simply the demand is very low. Kodak used to make scanner of all types. Low in demand and high in supply makes price goes down. But manufacturers quit making them so the demand is still low but is higher than the supply so price goes up. To make just enough scanners to meet the demand is expensive because you don't have the saving of mass production.
And you do see it. There was a time when scanner prices went down before they went up.

 

[cooltouch]

Well, it doesn't appear that either Epson or Plustek is going broke marketing scanners. So while the demand may be low, I think it is fairly continuous. Just think of all the billions of slides and negatives out there that a growing number of people will want to have converted to some sort of digital format. So you can continue to claim low demand. But I don't see that as a relatively bad thing. Hell, Apple caters to low demand with its computers. And look at them.

 

[t.s.k.]

Nikon sold every single scanner they produced. People waited months to pay $2000 for inventories to be replenished before the 9000ED was discontinued. How is that "very low" demand? I would not say it necessarily reflects high demand, but certainly a dedicated and perhaps even sustainable market.

 

[michaelbsc]

Nikon sold every single scanner they produced. People waited months to pay $2000 for inventories to be replenished before the 9000ED was discontinued. How is that "very low" demand? I would not say it necessarily reflects high demand, but certainly a dedicated and perhaps even sustainable market.

It may not be low demand, but you can bet some guy figured out that it was too low to make the next production run worthwhile.

We cannot know what went into that calculation, but you can bet your booty that they didn't flip a coin.

 

[ctscanner]

It may not be low demand, but you can bet some guy figured out that it was too low to make the next production run worthwhile.

We cannot know what went into that calculation, but you can bet your booty that they didn't flip a coin.

Could it be something as simple as Nikon wanting to sell their Digital Cameras without dedicating any further resources to Film Scanning. And, If you look at how often new D-Cameras come out, and compare that with the number of scanner models they produced during the same period (a lot of which which are still in use) it would seem they can readily keep the Camera market churning along.

 

[michaelbsc]

Could it be something as simple as Nikon wanting to sell their Digital Cameras without dedicating any further resources to Film Scanning. And, If you look at how often new D-Cameras come out, and compare that with the number of scanner models they produced during the same period (a lot of which which are still in use) it would seem they can readily keep the Camera market churning along.

I will guarantee you that the decision was about money. Nothing more and nothing less.

I cannot say exactly how they determined it was more profitable to drop them than to continue them. But it wasn't a protracted discussion about right vs. Wrong or good vs bad. It was about which path provided better long term potential revenue. Period.


Corporations are soulless. As well as amoral.

 

[glhs116]

The big problem for a camera company like Nikon about scanners is the software. They could probably just keep on profitably churning out 9000s if it weren't for the fact that Nikon Scan is completely out of date and there is no budget or business plan for the investment to update it. Likewise, to launch a newer model they would have to have a plan that showed how they were going to sell tens of thousands of units to cover the R and D investment.

It's a catch twenty-two. Until film gets more popular there won't be the market for the production of up-to-date modern scanners. Furthermore, as long as all new film shooters only experience mushy scans from cheap flatbeds this will be their only point of comparison with digital and many will never see what was possible with film.

The advancements in sensors and DSPs that have accompanied the DSLR wave this decade have been massive. If you rolled only those advances into the existing scanner mechanisms you would have some unbelievable scanners. However, the truth is that we are unlikely to ever see again scanners made to the standard of the existing models because there is no justification for anyone investing that much in it.

As for the film companies. Yes, they should be doing this because it would help them. If the film divisions of the big film companies were independent businesses then I'm sure that is exactly what you would see. However, they are simply profitable divisions of large companies that are trying to pour as much of that as possible into their digital efforts which is where they see their future. If cinema ever goes digital things will get a lot worse!

 

[ctscanner]

I will guarantee you that the decision was about money. Nothing more and nothing less.

I cannot say exactly how they determined it was more profitable to drop them than to continue them. But it wasn't a protracted discussion about right vs. Wrong or good vs bad. It was about which path provided better long term potential revenue. Period.


Corporations are soulless. As well as amoral.

Agreed, agreed, agreed!

And I think the Film Scanner vs D-Camera model supports this philosphy. If you are constantly putting new camera models, updates to existing cameras etc!, are you not getting more "churn" in the market then you ever did with just selling Film Cameras.

I am afraid it will be a Plustek for me next time.

 

[BetterSense]

The big problem for a camera company like Nikon about scanners is the software. They could probably just keep on profitably churning out 9000s if it weren't for the fact that Nikon Scan is completely out of date and there is no budget or business plan for the investment to update it.

This is why companies should just release the driver specifications and let the community develop open-source software for it.

 

[cooltouch]

I for one would sure like to see an inexpensive 4000 ppi scanner with good software, but unlike many of the folks here, I'm not so sure that all is lost just because Nikon is no longer producing scanners. Or Canon with their FS4000US or Konica-Minolta with their various high-end units. Plustek is just about the only ~4000 ppi 35mm scanner left that I know of that is still in production. And it's even priced fairly reasonably, but I have yet to see scans from one, so I'm still withholding judgment on just how good it is. Now, it seems to me that all of these scanners have been based on rather old technology by today's standards. And as others have mentioned, the hot ticket would be to use a chip such as is used in modern DSLRs. Now, it also seems to me that, from a design standpoint, such a scanner would actually be easier to produce. The high-precision stepper motors, for example, wouldn't be necessary, since such a sensor with the right lens would be able to image much larges swaths of the image area than a traditional scanner with it's one-line-at-a-time scanning. It would be much faster, too. Am I wrong?

So it seems that this technology might be attractive enough for an independent to come out with a product. Especially when the costs for CMOS sensors or CCD sensors or whatever drop to such a level where they can be included in the product's costs for a reasonable sum. It is inevitable. Sooner or later sensors will get cheaper -- even big ones -- and will cease being the costliest component of a DSLR.

As I stated before, there might not be many folks shooting film anymore, but there are billions of negatives and slides out there, just waiting to be digitized. So this can and will be a steady market for years to come. It may not be a red hot one the way digicams have become, but it will be steady. And besides, if the scanners are built as flatbeds with film capabilities, they can be used for other things, like scanning documents, for example. And here's another thing -- something I've already run into. Say you start out with a scanner that you think does a good job, and you scan a bunch of slides. Then a better one comes out, so you get it, and then what? Why you rescan those same slides, of course. And THEN yet another scanner comes out and you can't help yourself -- you gotta have it. So you buy it, and once again, rescan those same slides. Because you want the best possible resolution and image quality out of your slides, you'll keep upgrading your scanner in the hopes of achieving that goal. Now, this is something I've already fallen victim to, which is why I mention it, and if it's happened to me, then I know it'll happen to others as well. And there's no reason why it won't also happen with future technology.

 

[pellicle]

Could it be something as simple as Nikon wanting to sell their Digital Cameras

or it could be that there would not have been as many people waiting, some left in stores and some not sold if they made as many as 50% more ...

I know it seems wrong to us, but that heaps of people are using digital cameras only is the reason. Heck I haven't used a roll of film in 12 months even though I'd like to use more. It just seems like I don't need to right now and digital just covers my needs.

 

[ctscanner]

or it could be that there would not have been as many people waiting, some left in stores and some not sold if they made as many as 50% more ...

I know it seems wrong to us, but that heaps of people are using digital cameras only is the reason. Heck I haven't used a roll of film in 12 months even though I'd like to use more. It just seems like I don't need to right now and digital just covers my needs.

And, if your experience is typical, and it probably is to a certain extent; the situation is not going to get better. Film shooting will become more and more a niche market, which would seem to imply there would be no pressure on the camera manufacturers to devote resources to a product that would very little growth potential. One thing that might change that dynamic might be if we film shooters/"digitizers"/"hybridiers" (whatever we are?) would call for and support a substantially pricier product.

I think the bottom line is we can find several reasons why Nikon stopped making all their Film Scanner model except the 9000.

 

[ctscanner]

I for one would sure like to see an inexpensive 4000 ppi scanner with good software, but unlike many of the folks here, I'm not so sure that all is lost just because Nikon is no longer producing scanners. Or Canon with their FS4000US or Konica-Minolta with their various high-end units. Plustek is just about the only ~4000 ppi 35mm scanner left that I know of that is still in production. And it's even priced fairly reasonably, but I have yet to see scans from one, so I'm still withholding judgment on just how good it is. Now, it seems to me that all of these scanners have been based on rather old technology by today's standards. And as others have mentioned, the hot ticket would be to use a chip such as is used in modern DSLRs. Now, it also seems to me that, from a design standpoint, such a scanner would actually be easier to produce. The high-precision stepper motors, for example, wouldn't be necessary, since such a sensor with the right lens would be able to image much larges swaths of the image area than a traditional scanner with it's one-line-at-a-time scanning. It would be much faster, too. Am I wrong?

So it seems that this technology might be attractive enough for an independent to come out with a product. Especially when the costs for CMOS sensors or CCD sensors or whatever drop to such a level where they can be included in the product's costs for a reasonable sum. It is inevitable. Sooner or later sensors will get cheaper -- even big ones -- and will cease being the costliest component of a DSLR.

As I stated before, there might not be many folks shooting film anymore, but there are billions of negatives and slides out there, just waiting to be digitized. So this can and will be a steady market for years to come. It may not be a red hot one the way digicams have become, but it will be steady. And besides, if the scanners are built as flatbeds with film capabilities, they can be used for other things, like scanning documents, for example. And here's another thing -- something I've already run into. Say you start out with a scanner that you think does a good job, and you scan a bunch of slides. Then a better one comes out, so you get it, and then what? Why you rescan those same slides, of course. And THEN yet another scanner comes out and you can't help yourself -- you gotta have it. So you buy it, and once again, rescan those same slides. Because you want the best possible resolution and image quality out of your slides, you'll keep upgrading your scanner in the hopes of achieving that goal. Now, this is something I've already fallen victim to, which is why I mention it, and if it's happened to me, then I know it'll happen to others as well. And there's no reason why it won't also happen with future technology.

Dave Brooks, who writes the "Digital Help" column for "Shutterbug" magazine, feels that the Plustek 7600-I (and don't hold me to the model number) in conjunction with the use of Silverfast AI is a pretty good option. In other words, Scanner and Software as a package provide a pretty decent result. Might be worth a look.

 

[glhs116]

I shoot a lot of colour negative 35mm. For this, I really haven't found any good alternative to scanning everything because you really can't evaluate the film. I can do a roll of 36 frames in three "loads" on my 9000 which lets me do other things whilst scanning. On the Plustek or similar I would have to reload six times and advance the frame by hand thirty-six times. Even if the quality were the same (it won't be) I can't imagine working like that. And whilst flatbeds might be usable for sizes 120 and up it just doesn't really cut it for 35mm.

It would just be so fantastic if some place like Kodak were to put their resources behind a real affordable but decent prosumer level scanner. But highly unlikely.

 

[brian steinberger]

I am afraid it will be a Plustek for me next time.

Do they make a 120 film scanner though? Pacific Image is soon releasing a 120/35mm scanner, similar to the Nikon Coolscan 9000, but its only 3200dpi, not 4000. I'd love to hear if anyone knows anything about it. It's $1800 after rebate.

 

[brian steinberger]

As I stated before, there might not be many folks shooting film anymore, but there are billions of negatives and slides out there, just waiting to be digitized. So this can and will be a steady market for years to come. It may not be a red hot one the way digicams have become, but it will be steady. And besides, if the scanners are built as flatbeds with film capabilities, they can be used for other things, like scanning documents, for example. And here's another thing -- something I've already run into. Say you start out with a scanner that you think does a good job, and you scan a bunch of slides. Then a better one comes out, so you get it, and then what? Why you rescan those same slides, of course. And THEN yet another scanner comes out and you can't help yourself -- you gotta have it. So you buy it, and once again, rescan those same slides. Because you want the best possible resolution and image quality out of your slides, you'll keep upgrading your scanner in the hopes of achieving that goal. Now, this is something I've already fallen victim to, which is why I mention it, and if it's happened to me, then I know it'll happen to others as well. And there's no reason why it won't also happen with future technology.

I agree with this. This is one of the reasons I shoot film. Film scanners will always get better which means I can get the best possible scan of a piece of film, even if I shot it 50 years ago. With digital you're stuck with that picture with whatever technology you had at that time. It can never be improved even though technology continues to improve. I hope some of these newer companies producing scanners will recognize this and produce a top quality line, like the Nikon line. We need another 120/35mm dedicated 4000 dpi scanner for under $2500.

 

[brian steinberger]

Here's the link to the new Pacific Image scanner I was mentioning. See what you think.

 

[brian steinberger]

I see that Amazon has a few used Coolscan 9000's for $3500-3800. I'm really thinking of pulling the trigger on one. Atleast they have a 180 day warranty, better than ebay. I've been watching these on ebay for about a month now and at first the average price they were going for was around $3000. Not I'd say the average price is $3300. It's amazing how valuable these things are right now.

 

[Diapositivo]

I was surprised myself that Nikon stopped production of their film scanners after having remained, once Canon and Konica-Minolta got out of this business, basically a monopolist in that price bracket.

I suppose the reason is that they thought that competition from high-range DSLR would have soon created a problem. Maybe they were afraid of remaining with too much inventory.

If I had to buy a 35mm film scanner at the moment I would seriously consider a high-end DSLR instead. Bellows, bellows lens, slide duplicator. For duplicating slides the solution would be inferior in resolution and dynamic range to a Coolscan 5000, but would be exempt from the "flare" problem which is quite annoying. One could take two exposures and blend the two. A bellows lens should be decently good for this kind of work. Results could be comparable to a "proper" scan for most uses. With negatives I suppose the comparison would be even easier. And you can use your high-end DSLR to take pictures, too.

I'm glad my Coolscan 5000 works well (touch wood). But I understand Nikon hesitation in continuing production. Or maybe the production line was needed for another model. Productive resources are limited.

 

[brian steinberger]

I emailed Nikon to ask them about their scanners the other day. Today I just got a response. Here's what they said:

"Thank you for contacting Nikon. We are no longer manufacturing scanners and have no plans to do so in the near future."

So I guess the secondary market is going to continue to explode.