Nikon 9000 scanner or Epson V750?

[Cesare Berti]

I've been reading with great interest the various threads on scanning. I have an Epson 4880 that does a creditable job on 4x5 & 5x7 but only fair on 2 1/4 negs. This was further highlighted when I began using the new Epson 3800 that I bought mainly for B&W prints.

My question is will the V750 close the gap on 2 1/4 negatives compared to the older 4880 or would the Nikon 9000 be the way to go for medium format and keep the 4880 for the larger film sizes. I'm aware of the large price difference with the Nikon scanner but I have a large library of 2 1/4 and my ultimate aim is the final print quality.

I know there is usually not a simple answer in these "product A vs. product B type questions. I would howver appreciate any feedback from members with some experience with either scanner.

[sanking]

The Nikon LS-9000 is a much better scanner for MF negatives than the Epson V750.

Sandy King



I've been reading with great interest the various threads on scanning. I have an Epson 4880 that does a creditable job on 4x5 & 5x7 but only fair on 2 1/4 negs. This was further highlighted when I began using the new Epson 3800 that I bought mainly for B&W prints.

My question is will the V750 close the gap on 2 1/4 negatives compared to the older 4880 or would the Nikon 9000 be the way to go for medium format and keep the 4880 for the larger film sizes. I'm aware of the large price difference with the Nikon scanner but I have a large library of 2 1/4 and my ultimate aim is the final print quality.

I know there is usually not a simple answer in these "product A vs. product B type questions. I would howver appreciate any feedback from members with some experience with either scanner.

[Aender Brepsom]

Hi Cesare,

although I have not used the Nikon 9000, it is know to be an excellent scanner. When I compare 6x9cm scans from my Epson V700 and my Polaroid Sprintscan 120, it is absolutely clear that the dedicated film scanner gives better results. If you wish to have the best scan quality, you should get the Nikon 9000.

[Ed Richards]

Is the 9000 still sold?

[Oren Grad]

Yes. It's often out of stock at B&H, but if you search more widely you can find one.

[Rolfe Tessem]

The Nikon 9000 is definitely still sold. Don't be put off by the fact that it is constantly out of stock or on backorder -- that has been the case since the day it came out. Just get on a list someplace and you'll get one.

[cobalt]

Actually, you might try Unique Photo. They have the uncanny ability to keep them in stock, it seems. And delivery is quite reasonable from them.
Oh, and I obviously had one. I know only have the Epson 4990, and find the difference, for enlarging up to 11x14, to be negligible. The 4990 is a whole lot better than you might think, and the 750 is probably better.

[Walter Calahan]

It's not 'or', but 'and'

I have a Nikon 8000 and a V750. One scanner can not do everything.

[Peter De Smidt]

I'd recommend the Nikon.

[Cesare Berti]

Walter I have to agree. While the V750 would be a good compromise, it would be just that in my mind, a compromise. So it looks like I bite the bullet and get the Nikon and live with the old 4880 for the larger sizes.

Hope everyone has a great 2009, 2008 was not my favorite year. Cheers!

[Gene McCluney]

Probably the "best" under $2000 scanner for medium-format and 35mm film is the Nikon 9000ED, but you really need the accessory glass film carrier. It may, or may not still be available. A couple of years ago I had to wait about 6 months to get one.

[Oren Grad]

Yes, unfortunately the glass carrier is mandatory - the glassless plastic frame ones that come with the 9000 are adequate for 35mm but utterly dysfunctional for 120.

B&H happens to have both flavors of the glass carrier in stock at the moment.

[wfwhitaker]

What is the largest image size that the Nikon 9000 can accommodate? My understanding is that 6x9 cm is the max. If I want to scan 6x12 cm, then I'll need something else. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

[sanking]

Fluid mounting is also an option. KAMI makes a holder kit for the Nikon 8000 / 9000, sold through Aztek, and thee is also the Image Mechanics Fluid Mount Tray. Both around $600. I understand that Scan Science may also offer a fluid mount kit for less but don't have the details.

Sandy King

[Cesare Berti]

Oren, sorry to see you used the word mandatory.

I've seen some comments regarding film flatness issues with 120 film but thought I would wait until I tried the holder included with the scanner first. Having no experience with fluid mounting I will probably opt for the glass holder but I don't look forward to the price tag. One would think that a scanner designed for 120 film would be usable for 120 film without having to buy accessories!

[Cesare Berti]

Just checked out B&H for the 120 glass film holder. I wasn't aware there are two, one is called a rotating film holder. Can anyone explain the difference?

[Gene McCluney]

The rotating holder allows you to shift (rotate) the negative thru a few degrees to correct for tilted horizons in the original negative...thus you don't have to use "rotate" in Photoshop.

[Brian_A]

I don't really like using my 750 for anything less than 6x17. Anything smaller just doesn't seem to be that great. Just my personal opinion though...

[Oren Grad]

What is the largest image size that the Nikon 9000 can accommodate? My understanding is that 6x9 cm is the max. If I want to scan 6x12 cm, then I'll need something else. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

Yes, it's 6x9. I've seen some discussion about scanning 6x12 in two passes and stitching, but I've not tried it.

[Oren Grad]

Oren, sorry to see you used the word mandatory.

I've seen some comments regarding film flatness issues with 120 film but thought I would wait until I tried the holder included with the scanner first. Having no experience with fluid mounting I will probably opt for the glass holder but I don't look forward to the price tag. One would think that a scanner designed for 120 film would be usable for 120 film without having to buy accessories!

Yes, one would think a $2000+ device should be usable for its intended purpose right out of the box. But it's not. It's hard to imagine how Nikon let this holder design out the door - it's rare for them to sell such an out-and-out lemon. Fortunately, the scanner itself is much better engineered.

I ended up with the rotating holder simply because at the time I bought my 9000 I was able to get one immediately, while the plain glass holder was out of stock. Apart from whatever's going on in the picture, it also makes it easier to correct for minor misalignments of the film in the holder. FWIW, so far I've not used the rotation feature.

[g.lancia]

I own two Epson scanners, 3200 and 4490, plus an old Nikon ls-20 35mm scanner. A close friend of mine owns a Nikon 9000. Nikon scans are sharper, since it does use autofocus lenses and no cheap glass in the middle. On the other hand, its light source is harsher and brings out more film grain. It all depends on what you are after. For my customers grain is an issue. They prefer digital cameras output, in fact. So I can't use Nikon scanners, unless I resize medium format to 4MP, which is ridiculous.

[Jeffrey Sipress]

Another excellent choice is the Minolta Dimage Dual Pro, which is a dedicated film scanner that handles up to 6x9 cm. I believe it's tops in it's field.

[Frank Petronio]

The quality difference between a generation of Epson scanners is not very easy to even discern! At least for 120 film, the Nikon 9000 is in a different league, probably the best way to scan until you get into the better drum scanners and Creo flatbeds.

[Jim Graves]

And in a different league price wise ... Epson 700 refurbished $419, Epson 750 refurbished $598 [from Epson.com] ... Nikon 9000 $2200 [new on Amazon.com.]

You can buy the Epson 750 and have $1600 left over for film, lens, tripod, whatever.

[Frank Petronio]

Which is why I don't shoot 120 anymore, a 4x5 scan from a cheap Epson is pretty nice and a 6x6 scan is pretty nasty.

[Jim Graves]

Oh yeah, and the extra $1600 invested in a great lens will probably provide more improvement in your photos than the scanner (in both wet darkroom and digital) ... and you won't have to learn 75 computer adjustments to see the improvement and it won't become obsolete in 2 years and be worth 1/20th what you paid for it.

[sanking]

The other side of that coin is that if you don't need perspective control and/o swings and tilts to control sharpness, 6X7 cm or 6X7 cm MF scanned with a high end scanner gives higher print quality than 4X5 scanned with an Epson flatbed.

Sandy King



Which is why I don't shoot 120 anymore, a 4x5 scan from a cheap Epson is pretty nice and a 6x6 scan is pretty nasty.

[Frank Petronio]

Which, if I could afford to have it all, I'd get a couple of nice Rolleiflex 2,8 E2s and that Nikon Coolscan 9000 in a heartbeat. It would be as nice a combo as anything else ever made.

[Cesare Berti]

I just ordered the Nikon 9000 this morning. The fact that I shoot medium format at least three or four times as often as 4x5 (just easier to carry around I guess) and have a library of 2 1/4 negs and slides combined with the quality considerations convinced me to give one a try.

I noticed the prices on used 9000's on ebay have held up relatively well compared to the digital world so if it turn out not to be a good fit off it goes.

[Cesar Barreto]

Cesare, I suggest you to order some anti-newton glass from Focal Point, instead of buying a whole new mask, unless you intend to use wet-mounting. That's the way most of the people who buy this scanner follow and it will cost you a fraction of a new mask.
And that's a very nice machine. Good luck!

[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. :confused: 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.