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