Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: tikal on January 15, 2011, 08:00:15 pm
-
Is a new coolscan 9000 worth buy in 2011? 3500$. I plan to only use film from now on and will be needing something to use for print and retouching. I am not a regular photographer so comments about switching to film are welcome but I have my reasons.
Thanks
Kahl
-
Well you can find a used imacon for about the same money better quality. I own the 9000 nice scanner wish I had an imacon but the nikon suits me better, in that it works faster.
-
That price is insane. I bought a new one a few month ago for $2100 from a Nikon dealer. Now that they are discontinued, I am seeing prices up to $5K on e-bay. I have both an Epson 750 and a Nikon 9000 ED. The difference in scan quality isn't that much even though I prefer using the Nikon. Get the Epson and save a lot of money.
Steve
-
Thanks for the replies guys, everyone says to get another one but always says they prefer the nikon. I'm going to check this Imacon out. Thanks.
-
Well..if you are thinking Imacon, this is the one to look at: Hasselblad / Imacon Flextight X5.
Steve
-
Interesting contrast between your path and mine. I've been using a Pentax 67II and a Nikon 9000 until a month ago when I got a 645D. The 645D gives me an image approximately the equal of a 67 scan with all the advantages of digital. I miss looking at the film on a light box, but I don't think I'll be using much film in the future. For the price of an X5 you could buy a 645D and some lenses. Although I have limited experience with the X5, I have sent a few troublesome images for scanning on one and I don't see much advantage over the Nikon, IMHO.
In any case, $3500 for a 9000 is outrageous; I'm sure if you bide your time, you can find one for around $2000.
-
Hi guys, thanks for the response. This one has a 2 year warranty that's why I was thinking of getting it. I can definintely understand your 645D option. I will be shooting fine art mostly and I feel that althought digital is definitely the more convenient way to go, it gives me a snapshot mentality and I tend to shoot 100 pics and choose one instead of taking an hour to setup my shot the way I want and shooting 1 or 2 rolls. (the benefit of this is I end up with a shot exactly how I want it.) There are a lot of other reasons. I like the tangibleness of old photography, I think digital images aren't as "human" if that makes sense. I'm a computer programmer so it's not like I hate the future or anything either! ;D
-
I have a 9000ED, and I have to say it is really very good - it can out-perform many films, so there is little reason for improving things. It is quite possible an equivalent Imacon may be a bit better in some respects, but the difference is not as great as the price difference would suggest - and you won't see it anyway until your technique is near-perfect on both. The standard software, however, definitely does not do the Nikon justice - I'm now using VueScan which seems to realise the scanner's potential rather better (and works better with my brain, too).
It has become clear that Nikon ceased production well before actual demand was satisfied, and the second-hand market is therefore very strong - that inevitably means that prices for good-condition used items are high, and may well be increasing. That may also mean, however, that you might get your money back when you come to sell it! FWIW: I paid £2000 (GBP) for mine second-hand in VGC with a 6-month warranty a little over a year ago, which is equivalent to around $3000 (USD) on current exchange rates. I thought that was quite expensive, but prices seem higher now, if anything.
-
Thanks Ian, I think you're right. So the quality is good huh? do you also shoot digital? I think it might be worth my while due to the warranty.
-
As far as quality goes, the limitation is far more usually with the film part of the equation than with the scanner. At 4000dpi the scanner can actually be quite merciless in finding fault with the film, particularly with colour emulsions, and at first sight it can be a shock to see just how bad the initial results seem! However, things get rapidly better with practice and understanding. You will want to be careful with both your choice of materials and technique right through the work process, and that won't come without experimentation and practice. However, as long as you put the time in, and work through the inevitable disappointments and frustrations, you will be able to produce really superb images with one of these scanners.
The "style" of film-based capture is very different to an all-digital workflow. Comparing them at this level may well really be an apples vs. oranges question! Digital is certainly quicker and easier, and has immediate impact, but for artwork I'm not at all sure that matters - film has a particular feel all of its own.
-
...it gives me a snapshot mentality and I tend to shoot 100 pics and choose one instead of taking an hour to setup my shot the way I want and shooting 1 or 2 rolls.
Simple, only take a small card which will limit the exposures you take. I agree with the intangibles of working with the equipment but the extangibles (new word) of post processing wins it for me.
Larry
-
...There are a lot of other reasons. I like the tangibleness of old photography, I think digital images aren't as "human" if that makes sense. I'm a computer programmer so it's not like I hate the future or anything either! ;D
I understand your comment. I must admit to a certain sadness when I ordered the 645D, as I knew it would replace the 67. I enjoyed loading film, receiving the processed film in the mail and rushing to examine it on a light table. Heck, I even enjoy scanning-sort of.
There’s something else too, if you have a special shot, the film was there and exposed to the same light you saw and was irreversibly changed, as you may have been. I’m not usually so sentimental, but yes there is a difference.
“it gives me a snapshot mentality and I tend to shoot 100 pics and choose one instead of taking an hour to setup my shot the way I want and shooting 1 or 2 rolls”
How you work is your choice, not the camera’s.
I would suggest you ignore the attraction of a warranty. Buy a used 9000 for $2000, put the $1500 you saved in the bank. Should the 9000 fail sometime in the next two years, send it to Nikon for repair. If it doesn’t fail, use the money for something else.
-
Awesome advice, thanks. I guess you're right the camera shouldn't affect the way I work! very true. Also on the warranty thing, you're probably right, I should save the cash. I haven't even seen any used ones on ebay lower than 3000$ lately though.
Kahl
-
There’s something else too, if you have a special shot, the film was there and exposed to the same light you saw and was irreversibly changed, as you may have been. I’m not usually so sentimental, but yes there is a difference.
A very interesting, and profound, thought. Perhaps that's why my negatives are so precious to me, and why there is a certain sense of loss now I have moved to digital.
John
-
I like to compare it to recieving a handwritten letter and a printed one.
No matter what you do with the printed one, it'll never be as personal as the handwritten one. Kinda like when people give you a gift they made as opposed to something they bought.
-
I'm confused by the claims that Nikon has discontinued the 9000ED. I emailed Nikon directly, and their US office told me that the 9000ED is NOT discontinued. I've also been told that they make a batch per year, and the required batch size is estimated. This apparently makes a lot of retailers think it's discontinued since they never build enough of them to supply all dealers.
-
I think this proves dark matter exists.
.........since they never build enough of them to supply all dealers.
-
This from a Nikon dealer:
"Coolscan 9000 Discontinued
This was posted on the Nikon Japan website about a month ago, now it is official in the USA. All our backorders have been cancelled."
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21895
Steve
-
A very interesting, and profound, thought. Perhaps that's why my negatives are so precious to me, and why there is a certain sense of loss now I have moved to digital.
John
Thanks, it's nice of you to say that.
Tom
-
Thanks, it's nice of you to say that.
Tom
I have a photograph I took in Febraury 1984. I call it "Arrallas, Wet Sunday". It was taken on Ilford HP5 using my old Rollei 2.8F. My wife, brother, close friends and I had all gone for a walk after lunch on a very wet Cornish afternoon, with virtually no light and mist and drizzle hanging in the air. At the very end of the walk, just as we turned around to go home, I took just the one frame of a gateway, a lane and some trees.
Now, almost 27 years later, my wife and I are separated, my brother is disabled and in a wheelchair, and the other friends I don't see much any more. But I have that little square of film, and it was there, as we all were. So in that sense I can still reach out to touch the moment.
John
-
John:
That’s wonderful to have the memory and connection. Film does yet have some advantage, I don’t think a CF or SD card would invoke the same emotion.
Tom
-
I love my 9000 for 35mm film, but I've been unsatisfied with the MF that I get out of it. I love the look of film scanned on it, but I always always always get newton rings. Something I never got with my epson v500.
All of the pictures I end up printing for myself are from film.
(http://www.rttp.us/pics/misc/2009/Thumbnail.jpg)
(http://www.rttp.us/pics/misc/2009/Thumbnail1.jpg)
(http://www.rttp.us/pics/misc/2009/Thumbnail2.jpg)
(http://www.rttp.us/pics/misc/2009/Thumbnail3.jpg)
(http://www.rttp.us/pics/misc/2009/Thumbnail4.jpg)
(http://www.rttp.us/pics/misc/2009/Thumbnail5.jpg)
(http://www.rttp.us/pics/misc/2009/Thumbnail6.jpg)
(http://www.rttp.us/pics/misc/2009/Thumbnail7.jpg)
-
I love my 9000 for 35mm film, but I've been unsatisfied with the MF that I get out of it.
**********
What Nikon 120 film carrier are you using?
Steve
-
Rev said: "but I always always always get newton rings."
I never get rings with the glass holder using the masks. Some film is problematic if its wrinkled, but its easy enough to flip it so that it doesn't touch the glass. I made my own glass holder with some ANR glass, Linotape, and framers glass. Works great.
-
I've used both the Nikon and Imacon and there are a few differences but the biggest one to me is the speed and quietness of the Imacon. Secondly, I think the Flexcolor software is a little easier to use than Nikon Scan, Vuescan, and definitely easier than Silver Fast. Third, if you are on a Mac there seems to be a bit of trouble using Nikon Scan 4 when there are any other Firewire devices attached to the scanning computer. I've had to switch to Vuescan on certain occasions for that reason, though I prefer how the scans look with Nikon Scan.
I own the Nikon 9000 only because it was what I could afford at the time. If I could afford it, I would rather have the Imacon. Actually, I would rather have a Fuji Frontier so I could batch scan entire rolls, but that's another story.
-
Now that Nikon 9000 is gone, the only scanner i can buy for better results scans over my Epson V750 is the Hasselblad Flextight, it is way over priced now, but i have to wait until next year to afford it i think, but i hope that it will be still available.
-
Rev said: "but I always always always get newton rings."
I never get rings with the glass holder using the masks. Some film is problematic if its wrinkled, but its easy enough to flip it so that it doesn't touch the glass. I made my own glass holder with some ANR glass, Linotape, and framers glass. Works great.
wouldn't mind seeing a picture or two of that
custom glass holder ... if you'd care to share
-
I recently got a new 9000ED before the e-bay price doubled. I also have a 750. The 9000 scan results are better than the 750 but not dramatically so. You might try wet mounting the film that has the real "keepers" and see if the scans are better with the 750. Wet mounting with the 9000ED gives a small improvement especially with reducing dust and scratch artifacts.
Steve