5000 vs 9000

[Harrejesus]

A salesperson recently told me that Nikon coolscan 5000 has a narrower range than 9000. Thus including less info in the shadows and especially highlights which makes 5000 less suitable for scanning B/W. Anybody knows anything about this?

 

[KenD]

I sure hope this is wrong. My 5000 should arrive Monday. I have not seen anything on this in reviews. Is the store highly reputable with knowledgeable staff? The 9000 for sure has a higher price range!

 

[sojournerphoto]

Don't think so really. The 9000 has a 3 row ccd compared to the 2 rows of the 5000, but both scan 35mm similarly. The 9000 wil also take mf. If you scan black an white in slide mode then both ends of the histogram tend to be away from the edges - suggesting that there's no issue with dyna=mic range for most B&W film.

Mike

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I've made scans of the same frames with the 5000 and 9000. There is no dynamic range difference that I could find.

The 9000 scans film far far far better, though. There is far less grain antialiasing in the scans taken with it than the 5000 due to its diffused light.

The only real gain I noticed for my 35mm scans between the two (other than less time with the 5000) is that the 9000 scans Ilford Delta 3200 in a far more beautiful way than the 5000. All else is virtually the same. As far as the end-result image is concerned.

 

[sojournerphoto]

That is interesting - I hadn't ralised the light source was different. Certainly the 5000 an seem to emphasise grain.

Mike

 

[Shac]

As Gabriel says - the light source differs between the 5000 and 9000
http://www.nikon.ca/en/pdf/brochures/coolscan_final_EN.pdf

 

[Harrejesus]

The store is quite reputable and specialized in Nikon gear but this particular person has given me wrong info in the past, hence my question on this forum. I actually entered the store to order a 5000 but did not. He also said this difference in range was due to a difference in software, which I thought sounded very weird. I'll call Nikon and see if I can get proper info (not always easy). Thanks for your time.

 

[mfogiel]

I have the 9000, but I do not think the Dmax is the real point - B&W negatives have a far lower Dmax than slides, where this could be of some consequence. As to the light source, maybe CS9000 has a better source than CS5000, but anyway it is much better yet to use sharpening sparingly in order to keep the grain les visible- in fact I tend to prefer the sharpening "during the development" by using high acutance developers, and avoiding fine sharpening in PS altogether. My favourite developer for scanning is Prescysol EF (apparently equal to Pyrocat HD). FX 39 and Rodinal score high as well.

 

[JeremyLangford]

All this talk about differences between the 5000 and 9000 makes me feel worried about getting a Coolscan V like I have been planning on.

 

[sojournerphoto]

I wouldn't worry - they all scan 35mm better than a flatbed. The main advantage for me of the 5000 is the ability to put a whole roll through the SA31

Mike

 

[JeremyLangford]

I picked the Coolscan V because I don't really care about speed and I don't shoot anything but 35mm. I was thinking that the 3 current coolscans all got pretty much the same quality scans. And that the only reason to get the 5000 over the V would be for higher speed/putting an entire roll through. And the only reason to get the 9000 would be if you shot more than 35mm.

 

[Harrejesus]

I called Nikon today to ask if there's a difference in dynamic range between the two. The guy said that there is no such difference and as far as quality in general terms, the difference is so small that it's "hardly detectable by the human eye".

 

[Monte920]

I never owned a 9000ED, so I can't comment on the real performance. But at least according to Nikon official web site, the Dmax for both 5000ED and 9000ED are 4.8, so they are the same. And both scanners can generate 16-bit RAW images.

By comparison, V ED's Dmax is 4.2, and generates 14-bit images. It does not have multi-scan capability of 5000ED, either. The scanning speed is also slower. So, the specs simply look inferior on V ED. However, after owning both V ED and 5000ED, I can testify that I can't perceive any quality differences between the two, at least from my eyes. Although I do perceive a faster speed on 5000ED, but it is still slow. It is as if on the highway with speed limit of 70mph, V ED is driving at 30mph, while 5000ED is at 40mph. Upgrading your PC and memory might be a better move to improve the speed! 😛

 

[Olcay]

Hey everyone. Sorry for bumping this old thread. But I have the chance to get the Coolscan 5000 or the 9000 for the same price. I mostly shoot 35mm but sometimes 6x6 medium format. The pro for the 5000 would definitely be the increase in speed and the smaller size of the scanner. The pro for the 9000 would be (like i said) ability to scan medium format negs and firewire connection. I really would like to see the full quality of my medium format photos even if I don't really shoot a lot.

Hope you guys can help me to make a good decision!

 

[Tim Gray]

same price I'd take the 9000

 

[mfogiel]

No brainer, go for CS 9000.

 

[Frank Petronio]

If they are $1000 each get both and resell the 9000 for $2000 and enjoy your free 5000.

Roughly speaking the 5000 sells for $1000 and the 9000 for $2000.

 

[Olcay]

Nah they are around 2000$ each. That means I can choose only one. There are a lot of auctions on ebay but most of them will be sold for at least 3000$ (Coolscan 5000). The 2000$ bargain has just one problem. I don't know if I can trust the seller because there is no ensurance (deal is not on ebay). They are both used and in good condition but everyone can say that on the internet. I suggested to ship the scanner in a way so that I can pay at the door and open the box at the same time to check if there's really a scanner in it and not just a few stones. Hopefully one of them will accept my offer.