New Nikon Coolscan 9000 or Used Imacon Flextight II?

[Craig Joiner]

I've searched the forum for the answer but I cannot find it so here goes.

I'm in a position where I could buy a new Nikon Coolscan 9000 or a used Imacon Flextight II for around the same money. An Imacon Flextight Photo Precision II is also a possibility. My main objective is to scan a regular stream of 6x7 transparencies, mainly Provia 100 btw, to around 70-80MB file size but I also use larger formats from time to time.

I'm struggling to identify if either of these have a clear advantage regarding image quality.

I have weighed up the obvious pros and cons, ie Imacon can scan LF but is rather elderly and could suffer a costly break down whereas the Nikon has full warranty, manufacturer support and possibly a longer working life but but is limited to 6x9 and smaller.

Ultimately it is the quality of the final image that will tip the balance and I was wondering if anyone has any experience of both machines.

Thanks in advance,
Craig.

[Walter Calahan]

A friend had the Nikon 8000 but switched to the Imacon because he said it was easier to clean his transparencies in the Imacon mount. Something to consider.

[Deliberate1]

Craig,
I have been using a Nikon 9000 to scan 6x6 chromes for three years. After processing and Photoshopping, I print 10x enlargements (24"x24") on my Epson 7800. While I started making big prints for my own enjoyment, people started buying them. I can tell you with confindence I have found that the Nikon can get as much information out of a chrome as you could see reproduced by this high end printer. I generally scan in native resolution (6x6 at 4000 ppi) which creates a file that is around 450mg. I can then work from there with a smaller file. I use the dust removal which works brilliantly. It is not a fast machine and can take up to an hour to scan a 6x6 chrome at the highest resolution. To make a comparison, I had A&I do two drum scans of two very challenging chromes. While the drum pulled out a bit more detail from the shadows vs the Nikon, the difference would be imperceptable in a print. I have never had any technical problems with it. You must buy the glass carrier if you end up with this machine. All in all, I would consider it to be at the top of the heap in its price range. And if you do not like it, someone on Ebay will. Hope this helps. David

[Kirk Gittings]

Having used both a Nikon 8000 and many Imacons, One factor if you are scanning quantity is speed. Imacons are much faster to set up and scan much faster. In terms of quality I have not had the opportunity to compare MF scans from both machines side by side.

[sanking]

I've searched the forum for the answer but I cannot find it so here goes.

I'm in a position where I could buy a new Nikon Coolscan 9000 or a used Imacon Flextight II for around the same money. An Imacon Flextight Photo Precision II is also a possibility.
Craig.

I would definitely go with the new LS-9000. You will get as good a scan as with the Imacon, and a new scanner with warranty to boot.

If possible you might also want to pick up a fluid mount system for the LS-9000. That will increase slightly the quality of your scan.

Sandy King

[gary mulder]

I had the nikon 8000 and trade it for a Precision II. The image quality scanning transparencies with the Imacon wins. But it has no automatic dust removal and it is very hard to get the color right with color negative.

[Eric Brody]

I do not know what type of connection the Imacon you are considering uses, but the 9000 works like a charm with easy to set up firewire and does not require a SCSI connection as did some of the older Imacons.

Eric

[Craig Joiner]

Thanks everyone. Some interesting things to consider.

I've previously used an Epson V700 with Silverfast. Although slightly quirky to use, I found Silverfast invaluable once calibrated from an IT8 target.

It seems Sliverfast is only an option for the Nikon though. Does anyone know what sort of calibration, if any, the Imacon software offers?

[Jeremy Moore]

Don't forget you also have the option of Vuescan, which is what I use with a Nikon 8000.

[Andrew ren]

I happened to have a test between my 8000ed and a X5.
same 67 tmax. I didn't see big difference between these two files. but I think the Hassle grey color management profile perhaps is better. but they are pretty close.

I vote for the 9000ed.

Andrew

[Matus Kalisky]

Well. I can not speak for the Flextight II, but I just got my scans of a few 6x6 Negatives, positives, BW that were made with both Collscan 9000 and Imacon X5 (current top model). These scans were made with 3200 spi with Imcaon and 3000 spi with Coolscan. Apart from the fact that some of the Coolscan scans suffered from the non perfect film flatness, (which could be for sure taken care of) they look pretty much the same both in terms of resolution and color - (save for the dust removal) - although I will spend some more time comparing, as the scans with Coolscan are much cheaper. But if I were to decide between an older Imacan and new Coolscan (I do not have to - I need to scan 4x5 too :o ) - I would go with the Coolscan as it would save me a lot of time with the dust spotting.

Just my 2 cents ..

[Clyde Rogers]

I agree with many of the points brought up that favor the Nikon, but want to be clear about what the Flextight has to offer.

Imacon film holders are quick and easy to load, and it is simple to align film for scanning with the Imacon's light table (reducing/eliminating the need for Photoshop rotation). As a scanner for films where ICE doesn't work, the Imacon is hard to beat---flat, edge-to-edge sharp scans with much less dust spotting. If you find glass carriers and wet scanning joyless, the Imacon likely gives the best results you'll find without them. The Imacon is excellent for 4x5 (and even 5x7), and it certainly beats stitching Nikon scans for the larger panoramic formats.

All Precision II scanners are actually a Precision III (it was a software upgrade), just download the last supported FlexColor version from the Hasselblad site. I connect my SCSI Imacon using a firewire adapter---it was easy and works fine (but does add some cost, and some people have found it harder than I did). In my opinion, the FlexColor software is much better than Nikon Scan (faster, more stable, and simpler to use, at least on my Mac). I also prefer it to VueScan by a fair measure (I like VueScan's power, stability and scan quality, but often spend too much time tweeking its many knobs and dials to get good results).

I don't know if these items make any difference to the original poster, but a Precision II in nice condition is certainly a very fine scanner, and, in my opinion, worthy of full consideration.

Until later,

Clyde

[Larry Menzin]

Another vote for the Imacon. It will scan 6x12 and 6x18, along with 4x5. It is very easy to load and doesn't require glass holders or wet mounting. It may also be faster.

[Darren Kruger]

Just saw a Imacon Flextight Precision II advertised on craigslist in San Francisco for $2800. No idea on if this is a good price or not and I have no connection to the seller but I thought people might be interested.

-Darren

[SergeyT]

If my memory serves me well:
The Nikon would not scan anything larger then a MF (6x9) not even 6x12.
The Imacon would go up to 5x7 but as the size of the film to be scanned increases the lens on the Imacon has to be zoomed out to cover it meaning one will get about 1800 dpi max optical resolution on a 4x5 film and even less then that on a 5x7.

SergeyT.