ymc226
Well-known
Looking to scan MF negatives (99% B&W)
The Nikon Coolscan 9000 is a film dedicated scanner up to 4000 dpi while the Epson V750 M Pro scanner is 6400 dpi, is a flat bed and much cheaper/available.
What is the upside for the Nikon in terms of image quality?
The Nikon Coolscan 9000 is a film dedicated scanner up to 4000 dpi while the Epson V750 M Pro scanner is 6400 dpi, is a flat bed and much cheaper/available.
What is the upside for the Nikon in terms of image quality?
mfogiel
Veteran
The upside is, that it has a real 3800dpi resolution, and in a glass holder the negatives are actually flat and sharp edge to edge. Epson has a real resolution of 2200 dpi, and even if you get a third party glass holders and learn how to focus (!) them, the negatives will never be perfectly flat. Apart from that, it is about 3 times faster. However, if you are happy with 6x max enlargement, both will do. The Epson scans are not able to resolve the grain and come out very soft. When you sharpen them brutally, it actually produces a fairly grainless scan, in B&W some people like it, however you can hardly get the Tri X grain effect.
Last edited:
lorenzo1910
Established
Ha! Nikon scanner is equal to Leica cameras...Epson scanner is equal to....a Bessa (maybe...)
tammons
Established
As above, but I will add the V700/750 scan results are highly dependent on the film sharpness.
if you are resolving 48lp/mm on film, IE easily resolved on a drum scanner with a 2400 dpi scan, to get that rez with a v700 you will have to scan at 4800 dpi.
If your film is 35mm or extremely sharp medium format, like in the 80+ lp/mm range and you can keep it flat then you can get crisp 2400 dpi native scans from the V700/750.
The 9000ED works in increments of 2000-4000 dpi or 40lp/mm - 80 lp/mm roughly.
Much better and much sharper scanner than the V700/750 and can almost double the resolving power, but you have to keep the film flat.
if you are resolving 48lp/mm on film, IE easily resolved on a drum scanner with a 2400 dpi scan, to get that rez with a v700 you will have to scan at 4800 dpi.
If your film is 35mm or extremely sharp medium format, like in the 80+ lp/mm range and you can keep it flat then you can get crisp 2400 dpi native scans from the V700/750.
The 9000ED works in increments of 2000-4000 dpi or 40lp/mm - 80 lp/mm roughly.
Much better and much sharper scanner than the V700/750 and can almost double the resolving power, but you have to keep the film flat.
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
Ha! Nikon scanner is equal to Leica cameras...Epson scanner is equal to....a Bessa (maybe...)
Oh, thanks, I get it: same quality for a tenth of the price. Great!
bigeye
Well-known
I'm always curious about this discussions. Are you scanning for web viewing or do you make prints? It's OT, but I seem to have more trouble getting good prints from digital than good scans...
-Charlie
-Charlie
nksyoon
Well-known
lorenzo1910
Established
I have a Minolta Scan Dual (2400 dpi) and usually I scan for printing...maybe 2400 is a poor resolution but it's much better than the "commercial" lab scan
bizarrius
the great
I have the Epson V600 and i think i am happy with my scans.
I blame my skills on taking a picture on everything i don't like.
You can see samples in my flickr page.
I made some thoughts on selling the V600 and go buy the Nikon scanner. I can get the small one for about 600 euros here. Will it make me a happier photographer in any way since i think i like my Epson V600 ?
I blame my skills on taking a picture on everything i don't like.
You can see samples in my flickr page.
I made some thoughts on selling the V600 and go buy the Nikon scanner. I can get the small one for about 600 euros here. Will it make me a happier photographer in any way since i think i like my Epson V600 ?
mfogiel
Veteran
@ bizarrius
I have a suggestion - sell your Leica lenses and replace them with sandpapered russian glass. If you stop them down to f8.0, the results will probably also be acceptable, and you will remain a photographer you are now, plus you will have some spare cash on hand.
I have a suggestion - sell your Leica lenses and replace them with sandpapered russian glass. If you stop them down to f8.0, the results will probably also be acceptable, and you will remain a photographer you are now, plus you will have some spare cash on hand.
FPjohn
Well-known
At some point you may want something better
At some point you may want something better
Hello:
The V600 is a good scanner. You may at some point, say, when and if you want large hard copy prints rather than web images, become interested in a higher resolution scanner.
"Horses for courses".
yours
FPJ
At some point you may want something better
Hello:
The V600 is a good scanner. You may at some point, say, when and if you want large hard copy prints rather than web images, become interested in a higher resolution scanner.
"Horses for courses".
yours
FPJ
Last edited:
bizarrius
the great
either i didn't get your point or that was the most rude thing that anyone ever told me :S
whichever is the case please elaborate, thanks.
FPjohn, I will never inkjet my photos, What i scan is web use only, if i want prints i give the negative to a lab.
mfogiel
Veteran
The point is, that in photography the weakest element in your imaging chain degrades everything quite substantially. It is a simple matter of trying to get to "MTF 1.0" This could only be obtained if all the elements in your chain had a MTF of 1 as well. If you take the best lens (MTF >0.8 hopefully) best fillm (same) and best scanner(same), you would roughly get the image ready to print or display digitally with a final MTF of 0.8X0.8X0.8 = 0.51. However, if your scanner has a MTF of 0.5 only the result will be = 0.32, so it will be 37% inferior.
There are countless people who are doing fine using cost effective solutions in their lives, and this is OK. However these who opt for state of the art, costly technology normally take care not to degrade it by using inadequate supplies or so. I do not know of Ferrari or Rolls Royce users who mix their gasoline with water, because "the car will go on the same". Similarly, people who pay thousands of USD for a premium lens, should take reasonable care in how they process the images it takes. I continue being amazed why so many users here are not getting this point. Personally, I would only want to use a flatbed ( I have the V750) for enlargements up to 5-6 times maximum, and provided I could keep the film flat to begin with.
There are countless people who are doing fine using cost effective solutions in their lives, and this is OK. However these who opt for state of the art, costly technology normally take care not to degrade it by using inadequate supplies or so. I do not know of Ferrari or Rolls Royce users who mix their gasoline with water, because "the car will go on the same". Similarly, people who pay thousands of USD for a premium lens, should take reasonable care in how they process the images it takes. I continue being amazed why so many users here are not getting this point. Personally, I would only want to use a flatbed ( I have the V750) for enlargements up to 5-6 times maximum, and provided I could keep the film flat to begin with.
not_in_good_order
Well-known
A well made tool designed to perform a specific task will always produce better results than a general purpose device.
Last edited: