Keep Nikon 9000 or sell it in favor of Eversmart/Fuji C-550/Agfa XY-15

[Vord]

I've been debating whether it would be a good idea for me to sell the Nikon and buy a pro flatbed instead but I find it incredibly difficult to figure out if this would be a smart move.
My biggest concerns are scan quality, how the hell I would get one over here on the second floor of my elevatorless apartment (in this respect the eversmart would still be an option, plus I'm probably moving soon so perhaps the size weight won't matter in the near future). It's proven to be be extremely difficult to find any comparisons done on the internet or even to find a proper high res scan done on one of these pro flatbeds and opinions are all over the place, one person says the Nikon isn't far off from what these flatbeds can do, one says the Nikon is better and another says the flatbeds are much better... most of the times when these things are discussed at some point you can distill somewhat of a general idea of how something compares... not so much when it comes to these.

I'm quite satisfied with my Nikons scan quality (I scan mostly 6x4.5 and 6x7) but the process is tedious and I would welcome an increase in productivity, I was hoping one of these flatbeds would be a great alternative without having to compromise on scan quality, but after all this reading and googling I'm still very much in the dark about whether this would be the case. I'm hoping some of you experts can somewhat enlighten me.

Also, I live in the Netherlands so if anybody has one of these for me to try out I would love to come over so I can draw my own conclusions.

[MisterPrinter]

I have recently been comparing scans from a Nikon and iQsmart3, and with dry mounted film in the iQsmart there isn't a lot in it. Wet mounting on the flatbed is an improvement, but the real benefit is productivity.

On the iQsmart I can lay down many frames, preview and draw a crop around each one, then set it scanning for the day whilst I do something else.

There is a good scanner comparison on this very site:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

[Vord]

Oh yeah totally forgot about that comparison, judging from that though it seems to me that most of the pro-flatbeds even the ones that are considered amongst the best like the Fuji C-550 don't achieve the same amount of resolution even as something like the older Imacon Precision II which from what I've seen achieves something similar to what I get out of my Nikon 9000. The Eversmart seems to do quite a lot better than the Fuji C550, whereas the eversmart supreme scan seems quite bad and the supreme II looks great... I know the operator makes all the difference but the results look erratic to me.

To be more specific, the options I am looking at right now are:

Eversmart Pro II, which comes with most of what I'd need (SCSI Card, Software) except a old mac but I have that. No support available on this end of the world that I'm aware of.

AGFA XY-15, doesn't have the transport locks though but it's not too far from my house (Would it even be wise to move it without them at all though?), no real way to test it either but it wouldn't cost me much except a bunch of hassle moving the thing.
Software is included, nothing else. I have the mac as mentioned but no SCSI card. AGFA won't do any more support on this scanner.

Fuji C-550, comes with software and an old mac. Not sure if it's still supported by Fuji over here.

Another option would be to sell my Nikon first in order to be able to buy a Heidelberg Topaz II from Karl Hudson, big advantage of this would be that it'd be a refurbished scanner, with all the bells and whistles and a support system if it ever gave me trouble.


The Eversmart, Fuji and the Agfa all can be had for a steal and them being built for commercial use I imagine these things are quite durable so they may still be working great?

[MisterPrinter]

The Fuji and Agfa appear to me to be quite rare and difficult to support. The Eversmarts have a few users and spares are available, for now.

Why not look at an iQsmart3 ? It's nearly as good as a late Eversmart, mine just resolves 6/6 on the USAF test target which equates to about 5700pi. It has firewire and software will run on reasonable Mac hardware, and is easy to use and maintain. A wet-mounting station is available too.

[Vord]

That would be ideal definitely but those cost far beyond what I can afford.
The Fuji, Agfa and Eversmart are offered for literally a couple of hundred so I could afford getting them in the short term without first getting rid of my Nikon 9000.
I found out there's a company in the UK that services Eversmarts though so I might give that a go.

I found a review a year ago or so that had some Downloadable high resolution files made with the Eversmart pro, that was reasonably impressive I thought back then I believe, I haven't been able to find it anymore though. The way I understood it the Eversmart pro and pro II are pretty much the same scanner but the pro II has 16bit saves which I would want, right?

[Peter De Smidt]

Do you scan color or bw? When you scan on the Nikon, do you use ICE? That is not available on the pro scanners, and spotting manually adds a lot of time.

[Vord]

Yeah I do use ICE most of the time, great time saver, though I scanned with a Polaroid Sprintscan for a few years which didn't have it, it's annoying but not a deal breaker and I imagine the flatbeds are a bit easier to make dust free than a glass holder with effectively four surfaces to have dust settle on.

[Peter De Smidt]

I can only speak to a Screen Cezanne, as I have one. I use their clam shell holders, which is just like a glass carrier but with special plastic. There are just as many surfaces for dust. If you use the main tray for scanning, you also need a hold down tray to lay on top to keep the negative flat. While the main try is 6mm, and so any dust under the main tray is pretty out of focus, dust on the top, or on the negative, or on the cover tray will be apparent. I haven't used an Eversmart of Lanovia, but I expect they need to keep the film flat too, which means something which does so, along with surfaces for dust.

I bought my Cezanne because I want to scan 4x5 and 8x10 film. If I only needed 120, I would've bought a medium format Coolscan. I used to have a 35mm one.

[MisterPrinter]

I imagine the flatbeds are a bit easier to make dust free than a glass holder with effectively four surfaces to have dust settle on.

They're not too bad, the Eversmart top glass is floating in the top cover, it moves about 5mm to allow it to press film down. When you lift the top cover the glass stays still for the first 5mm of lift and this creates a bellows effect which can suck dust into the top cover through the side vents. Dust that settles on top of the top glass can appear as dark patches on scans but it's very rarely a problem and fairly easy to clean.

Eversmart lamps are still available, but ( this is a guess ) they might not be for much longer. They are a fluorescent tube with a special gap in the phosphor coating.

Glass is expensive, but because the Eversmart can scan at full resolution over the whole bed you can avoid using the part with scratches. Check the printing on the butting target at the end of the glass, these can get worn / scratched by careless users and if the pattern is damaged the scanner will not work. There is a white reference underneath the bottom glass, this can yellow with age although I guess you could correct colour problems afterwards.

I have a some software for these, let me know if you need it.

[Vord]

I bought my Cezanne because I want to scan 4x5 and 8x10 film. If I only needed 120, I would've bought a medium format Coolscan. I used to have a 35mm one.

How come Peter? Like I said I'm quite happy with the results of the Nikon, but swapping out frame after frame doesn't make for very good productivity, at the time I'm just making contact sheets with an old Epson 4870 I have select off of that and then scan them properly on the Nikon.