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

[Ivan J. Eberle]

K25, I don't have any service offerings. You might be confusing me with Lenny Eiger. But I can recommend that you do hand Lenny a really crisp 35mm or 645 Kodachrome slide or neg to scan on his Aztek Premiere at 8k dpi (say, 6 microns aperture). The difference in a large print between one of Lenny's scan and ones from Tangos (Laserlight at 5k, and the now-defunct Calypso at 10k, interpolated) for me was like cheese and chalk. I mention this as WCI advertises that they too scan on a Tango. Fine for 4x5 transparencies, not so great for negs if not true 16bit (it is a matter of what software they're using), and to me just not worth the money compared to a high end CCD, on small format images, those Tango scans...

[georgl]

Are there any samples available on the net? I've done thorough research before buying the Tango and when looking for samples showing superior quality of 3micron-aperture I always ended up with marketing comparisons done by Aztek itself. I only had the chance to compare to two different Howtek D4000 (6micron) and the effective resolution wasn't better than with the 10micron Tango - but the build quality is certainly worse...

[Lenny Eiger]

Are there any samples available on the net? I've done thorough research before buying the Tango and when looking for samples showing superior quality of 3micron-aperture I always ended up with marketing comparisons done by Aztek itself. I only had the chance to compare to two different Howtek D4000 (6micron) and the effective resolution wasn't better than with the 10micron Tango - but the build quality is certainly worse...

There are no real comparisons on the net, none that actually can help one distinguish. The Tango is a good scanner. The 4000 is 5 generations back from the current Aztek Premier. The Premier's build quality is excellent, ceramic bearings on the main screw, etc. 3 micron capability does make a difference. So do the choice of apertures, the technique of the operator.

Lenny

[Vord]

The only reason to get rid of it would be to get a drum scanner. With all of those scanners, you are still working with a CCD... some have better lenses than others, but withy all you are going thru another lens. If you want better results, go to a PMT.

The idea of spending 25K is ridiculous, IMO. There are so many scanners out there for $1500-$7500 with all the trimmings, which would be far superior to the X5. We don't even know how long film will be around. I'm hoping forever, but we don't really know. Investing 25-50K doesn't make sense unlesss you can make that back in a year or two.

Lenny

A drum scanner does seen like the only proper upgrade I could get.
I'm looking at a Howtek D4000 this Sunday that comes with everything I would need.
I'll be holding on to the Nikon 9000 for prints up to 20x30 etc. but found that's the point things go downhill a bit.
I'm also looking to venture into 4x5. Any additional advice anyone has for me going this route is much appreciated.
Thanks for all the advice thus far everyone, I'll ofcourse also be delving into the forums archive for information.

[David Higgs]

I once found an article (since lost - I'll try the bookmarks on another computer) where a guy was scanning 4x5 on his 9000. If I remember correctly he was using the glass carrier, he could get the 4x5 in there by trimming away the edges on the neg hidden by the dark slide. Then scanning 4 times, flipping the 4x5 between each scan, until he could stitch them up in photoshop. The results were impressive and looked comparable to the Imacon. I never bothered as if I need a big print from 4x5 I ditch the V750 and pay for a drum scan. I'm lazy and an hour of my time is worth as much as a drum, which will be better after all, but might be worth a try with your current set up.

[coisasdavida]

Sometimes you find scanners for free, that would make the decision quite easy.

[Vord]

I once found an article (since lost - I'll try the bookmarks on another computer) where a guy was scanning 4x5 on his 9000. If I remember correctly he was using the glass carrier, he could get the 4x5 in there by trimming away the edges on the neg hidden by the dark slide. Then scanning 4 times, flipping the 4x5 between each scan, until he could stitch them up in photoshop. The results were impressive and looked comparable to the Imacon. I never bothered as if I need a big print from 4x5 I ditch the V750 and pay for a drum scan. I'm lazy and an hour of my time is worth as much as a drum, which will be better after all, but might be worth a try with your current set up.

I saw that article and considered it, it could also be a possibility.
The Howtek isn't too expensive though and right now I can afford it so I figured I'd try that out and see how I like it, I could always sell one of the scanners on based on my findings.
My reasons for wanting to try the Howtek is because I'm curious about drum scanners in general, I don't think I'd mind the process as much as having to spend additional time stitching and photoshopping my scans and it does seem to me a proper increase in quality. From what I've been able to find out and compare maybe not that much an increase in resolution, but the quality increase seems to be mostly in the way a drum scanners renders a scan, nice and uniform, even sharpness all over, better colour separation, no halation etc.. Apart from that I'm starting to make bigger prints and would like to go even bigger, but like I said I've found that for me 20x30 inch prints is the limit of what I consider the Nikon can do perfectly. Another thing I figured is that I could recoup some of the costs using it to do scans for others.

[Don Dudenbostel]

No experience with the Nikon but if you're happy with the scans stick with it. On big plus I'd Nikon support and size. I've had hundreds of scans done on Eversmart machines and had three Fuji. I used a 5000 Finescan Fuji for six years till it died and bought a Lanovia Quattro which is the updated version of the C550. I currently own a Hasselblad / Imacon 848 that I bought from Hasselblad.

The Eversmart and Fuji scanners are pretty much equal with a slight edge to the Fuji. The Fuji is extremely fast compared to the Eversmart. I believe the Fuji 5000 and Agfa XY 15 are the same machine. Unfortunately there is no support for the Fuji. Sad because it's superb. I found it very easy to use and keep running. The last version of software was Mac OSX 10.4 and Windows XP. You must have their software and dongle with appropriate and unique unlock codes. I sold my Lanovia Quattro last year and still have an OSX and OS9 dongle with software I'm trying to sell. Without this it only runs in demo mode.

The c550 is a monster at nearly 350 pounds. The 5000 and Lanovia Quattro are around 150pounds. They are quite large at around 28x36 inches. The floor stand came with some and is very large and heavy too.

The 848 is comparable in quality to the Fiji and Creo. It's slightly slower but still plenty fast. It's a very fine machine with comparable dynamic range to the Fuji LQ. The big plus with Nikon and Hasselblad is current support and modern software.