semrich
Well-known
Anyone have experience with a comparison of the quality of MF scans from the Epson V750 and the Nikon 9000?
degruyl
Just this guy, you know?
Unfortunately, no experience with the Nikon.
The Epson 750 works pretty well with silverfast, and probably with Epson Scan. Neither software works particularly well with color Negatives. Positives and B&W work fine. It is the annoying color balance issue, of course.
I would recommend adding on the betterscanning film holder, with the ANR glass, though. That works very well.
The Epson 750 works pretty well with silverfast, and probably with Epson Scan. Neither software works particularly well with color Negatives. Positives and B&W work fine. It is the annoying color balance issue, of course.
I would recommend adding on the betterscanning film holder, with the ANR glass, though. That works very well.
daveywaugh
Blah
I have just gone through the process myself... the Nikon 9000 over here in Australia is over five times the price of the Epson. I went for the Epson and a betterscanning holder with ANR glass, thinking I will possibly 'upgrade' when my photos get good enough to warrant it 
Comparing my scans with the 8000 I have used (yet to try the 9000), there is unfortunately more difference than I would have hoped for. I still firmly believe that the 700/750 is remarkable value for money and is very good in every respect... but not great (as the price would suggest). It simply doesn't compare to the Nikons IMO. It's mainly to do with sharpness. The DR of the Epson is pretty good, but no amount of height adjustment or betterscanning holders can mask the fact that it doesn't have the punch of clarity that you get from the Nikon.
IMO, if you are in the States and you can stump the extra bucks, I'd go for the Nikon. Don't get me wrong, the Epsons are wonderful but there IS a difference.
Comparing my scans with the 8000 I have used (yet to try the 9000), there is unfortunately more difference than I would have hoped for. I still firmly believe that the 700/750 is remarkable value for money and is very good in every respect... but not great (as the price would suggest). It simply doesn't compare to the Nikons IMO. It's mainly to do with sharpness. The DR of the Epson is pretty good, but no amount of height adjustment or betterscanning holders can mask the fact that it doesn't have the punch of clarity that you get from the Nikon.
IMO, if you are in the States and you can stump the extra bucks, I'd go for the Nikon. Don't get me wrong, the Epsons are wonderful but there IS a difference.
daveywaugh
Blah
Stupid me - just saw that you are not in the States... not sure what it's like there Richard, but if the price difference is similar to what we have in Australia, then certainly the Epson is probably more attractive BTW - I am basing my experience on 6x6. I guess the bigger you go, the less difference there would be. Of course 645 would be the opposite and would make the choice clearer IMO.
BTW - I am basing my experience on 6x6. I guess the bigger you go, the less difference there would be. Of course 645 would be the opposite and would make the choice clearer IMO.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
I have no experience with the V750 - but with the older 4870 versus Nikon 9000 the immediately apparent differences are the Nikon has a better dynamic range and resolution - which is to be expected at the price differential.
Also on flat bed scanners, you need to do some test regarding its optimal resolution. You may find that 2400 dpi is as good as it get without seeing fuzziness in the grains - if you are scanning traditional B/W.
Also, in my experience color positives, along with C41 B/W and Color scan better than traditional B/W.
Also on flat bed scanners, you need to do some test regarding its optimal resolution. You may find that 2400 dpi is as good as it get without seeing fuzziness in the grains - if you are scanning traditional B/W.
Also, in my experience color positives, along with C41 B/W and Color scan better than traditional B/W.
mfogiel
Veteran
This has been beaten to death already... I have both, and in my opinion there are 3 problems with MF and V750, even when using Doug Fisher's holders with glass:
1- the negs will not be flat unless you put them betwen 2 glass surfaces, at which point you have to deal with too much image degradation
2- even if perfectly focused, this scanner does not resolve the grain, it maxes out around 2200-2400 true dpi, so for quality prints you are limited to 6-7x enlargement
3- if you want to scan colour, things get uglier, with little dr and unfaithful colours
My opinion is, this scanner is perfectly ok for 4x5 or larger B&W negs, but for other things it is a compromise.
At which point, I would suggest to either get the CS9000 or to sell your MF gear and get a good 35mm scanner.
1- the negs will not be flat unless you put them betwen 2 glass surfaces, at which point you have to deal with too much image degradation
2- even if perfectly focused, this scanner does not resolve the grain, it maxes out around 2200-2400 true dpi, so for quality prints you are limited to 6-7x enlargement
3- if you want to scan colour, things get uglier, with little dr and unfaithful colours
My opinion is, this scanner is perfectly ok for 4x5 or larger B&W negs, but for other things it is a compromise.
At which point, I would suggest to either get the CS9000 or to sell your MF gear and get a good 35mm scanner.
Last edited:
J. Borger
Well-known
Keep in mind that all scans from a flatbed need a fair amount of sharpening.
So comparing straight scans from any of the non flatbed scanners with a flatbed scan will always give the conclusion that the other scanner get sharper results.
Sharpening both scans makes them look more simmilar.
So if you read comparissons... always keep this in mind.
I have only experience with te Epson 700. I am ready to believe the Nikon will get better scans but..... for my intended printsize (A3+) i use the Epson V700 with confidence.
For the occasional larger print i can always have a professional scan made with an immacon.
So comparing straight scans from any of the non flatbed scanners with a flatbed scan will always give the conclusion that the other scanner get sharper results.
Sharpening both scans makes them look more simmilar.
So if you read comparissons... always keep this in mind.
I have only experience with te Epson 700. I am ready to believe the Nikon will get better scans but..... for my intended printsize (A3+) i use the Epson V700 with confidence.
For the occasional larger print i can always have a professional scan made with an immacon.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
It's like the difference between a flatbed and drum scanner.
The Nikon 9000 is still the best $2000 scanner value for medium format. The Nikon 5000 for 35mm. The Epson 700/750 for 4x5 and 8x10 (unless you go $$$ with a Creo or Drum). End of story.
The Nikon 9000 is still the best $2000 scanner value for medium format. The Nikon 5000 for 35mm. The Epson 700/750 for 4x5 and 8x10 (unless you go $$$ with a Creo or Drum). End of story.
degruyl
Just this guy, you know?
And 4x5 is the reason I went with it in the first place.
If all you will ever do is MF / 35mm, go with a dedicated film scanner.
cs_foto
Member
I have used both and also have used extensively an Imacon...
So yes, the nikon will give you better results, definitely. but, is it worth the extra money? I don't think so, I say the only scanners that really do justice to film is from the Imacon upwards, Neither Epson nor Nikon will take you to grain level.
The Epson will allow you to look at your images, maybe post some online, and even print some 10x8 for clients etc.
So yes, the nikon will give you better results, definitely. but, is it worth the extra money? I don't think so, I say the only scanners that really do justice to film is from the Imacon upwards, Neither Epson nor Nikon will take you to grain level.
The Epson will allow you to look at your images, maybe post some online, and even print some 10x8 for clients etc.
sper
Well-known
I agree with cs_foto. I have used a LS-9000, and I own both a V700 and an LS-50. The Nikons are better, but only slightly. Honestly in many cases they can be a headache because of 1. Rapidly aging software that Nikon no longer supports and 2. the heavy amount of retouching each piece of film requires.
When looking at side by side comparisons the difference is there, but it's not night and day, and that in my opinion does not warrant the substantial expense.
Plus I don't know if you live in NYC, but if you DO!
Photo Village will let you rent a Hasselblad X5 for $175 dollars for 4 hours. They say you can do about ten scans an hour, at the very least. So that's 40 scans, using one of the best machines in the world, for $175.00.
This level of resolution is only necessary when large prints are being made, as my V700 with a 6x6 negative makes lovely prints for my 11x14 portfolio. Now that means you can scan about 11 or 12 times before you equal the cost of the Nikon, and the scans will be better. That's probably more than you would need to scan over the course of 2 years. That's 440 scans, at least. You have to ask yourself, do I need 440 mural sized prints from my 120 film in the next two years?
If no, get the Epson. Batch scan, retouch very little. Spend the 2000 on a new Leica or lens.
Plus the 4x5 scans are some of the best I've seen period. So spend the 2000 on a field camera.
When looking at side by side comparisons the difference is there, but it's not night and day, and that in my opinion does not warrant the substantial expense.
Plus I don't know if you live in NYC, but if you DO!
Photo Village will let you rent a Hasselblad X5 for $175 dollars for 4 hours. They say you can do about ten scans an hour, at the very least. So that's 40 scans, using one of the best machines in the world, for $175.00.
This level of resolution is only necessary when large prints are being made, as my V700 with a 6x6 negative makes lovely prints for my 11x14 portfolio. Now that means you can scan about 11 or 12 times before you equal the cost of the Nikon, and the scans will be better. That's probably more than you would need to scan over the course of 2 years. That's 440 scans, at least. You have to ask yourself, do I need 440 mural sized prints from my 120 film in the next two years?
If no, get the Epson. Batch scan, retouch very little. Spend the 2000 on a new Leica or lens.
Plus the 4x5 scans are some of the best I've seen period. So spend the 2000 on a field camera.
semrich
Well-known
Thank you all for your responses, it's been helpful. I will soon be getting a Nikon 9000ED.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Richard, glad to hear it !!
I would agree with the statements of Andrew (Solinar) and Frank Petronio on this one.
I recently went through a similar frustration with my old (very old now it appears) Epson 2450. I tried as best as I could to scan some 6x9 and 6x6 negs with it but there was just too much hassle in getting a decent quality scan - this is without going and purchasing the ANR glass holder online and such.
So, I opted for the Nikon 9000 as soon as it came back into stock from B&H.
I haven't used any of the newer epsons but I am impressed by the huge size of the scans out of the 9000 for MF film. For 35mm, it's not as fast as the 5000 but the quality is just as good imho. I'm currently scanning on a Mac and using VueScan.
Here's a shot from the Rolleiflex scanned in using the Nikon:
Cheers,
Dave
I would agree with the statements of Andrew (Solinar) and Frank Petronio on this one.
I recently went through a similar frustration with my old (very old now it appears) Epson 2450. I tried as best as I could to scan some 6x9 and 6x6 negs with it but there was just too much hassle in getting a decent quality scan - this is without going and purchasing the ANR glass holder online and such.
So, I opted for the Nikon 9000 as soon as it came back into stock from B&H.
I haven't used any of the newer epsons but I am impressed by the huge size of the scans out of the 9000 for MF film. For 35mm, it's not as fast as the 5000 but the quality is just as good imho. I'm currently scanning on a Mac and using VueScan.
Here's a shot from the Rolleiflex scanned in using the Nikon:
Cheers,
Dave
mfogiel
Veteran
@ semrich
Remember to buy the non rotating glass film holder too.
Remember to buy the non rotating glass film holder too.
Marek, just learning about all this stuff .... why the non-rotating type over the rotating type?
fbf
Well-known
9000ed is ...significantly better than v750. The price has gone up recently.
as for the glass carrier, I don't like neither. I prefer the hacked 120 strip carrier with AN glass.
as for the glass carrier, I don't like neither. I prefer the hacked 120 strip carrier with AN glass.