New Nikon Coolscan 9000 or Used Imacon Flextight II?

[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 ) - 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.