Nikon 9000 scanner or Epson V750?

[Cesare Berti]

Cesar, is the AN glass usable with the 120 holder that comes with the scanner or does it need to be modified?

[Gene McCluney]

The 120 holder that comes with the scanner is a glassless design. I can't quite see (on my own holder) how one would adapt it to glass. It has a design that grips the edge of the negative and applies tension to flatten it.

[Cesar Barreto]

It's quite easy to use the glasses with the 120 holder and you just need to discard two hinged plastic bars that fix the film on place. And although it may not be necessary with every film, on most cases I found a pair of AN glass to be ideal, so one sheet lays down naturally on it's place and a second one can be used with tape or alike.

[Frank Petronio]

You guys think like our government who would never, ever not spend the maximum amount possible. The ideal is to spend only $400 on a decent basic camera and a decent basic scanner and make great art with just that -- and it is totally plausible. You can get the aftermentioned Epson 700 reconditioned for $125 and there are plenty of $275 or less 4x5 w lens outfits... Crowns, monorails, etc.

And then pay bills and SAVE the $1600.

It's off topic but we should point this out to beginners, the cost of entry to large format photography doesn't have to be big bucks -- and if you buy wisely, you can still do work that is competitive or superior to people who blow thousands on their outfits.

[cobalt]

Well, that is one plan. But then you will have spent all your money on film, lenses, tripod, whatever, and have nothing left over to buy yourself a decent scanner (Nikon 9000),which you will need for up to 8-10x enlargement. The flatbeds are good to 3-4x (if that size is enough, go for the consumer flatbed).

I must disagree, having owned the 9000 and the 4990 (Epson). Yes, the Nikon is a bit better at scanning 120, and much better at scanning 35mm. I have found that, enlarging up to 11x14, the Epson holds its own against the Nikon pretty well. That is one reason I sold mine; it wasn't better by a wide enough margin for my needs, and the Epson does a really good job with 4x5 and larger formats.

I think there is so much discourse about which is better that which that making images often gets lost in the shuffle.

[Paul Kierstead]

The ideal is to spend only $400 on a decent basic camera and a decent basic scanner and make great art with just that -- and it is totally plausible. You can get the aftermentioned Epson 700 reconditioned for $125 and there are plenty of $275 or less 4x5 w lens outfits... Crowns, monorails, etc.

Bravo. I thought it bore repeating.

[sanking]

Bottom line is that if you are happy with the results you get with the Epson 4990 that is all that matters.

I personally don't find any conflict between discussing the technical merits of scanners, and making images. There are plenty of places on this forum where one can discuss matters of aesthetics if they are so inclined.

Sandy King

I must disagree, having owned the 9000 and the 4990 (Epson). Yes, the Nikon is a bit better at scanning 120, and much better at scanning 35mm. I have found that, enlarging up to 11x14, the Epson holds its own against the Nikon pretty well. That is one reason I sold mine; it wasn't better by a wide enough margin for my needs, and the Epson does a really good job with 4x5 and larger formats.

I think there is so much discourse about which is better that which that making images often gets lost in the shuffle.