I'm thinking of selling the Coolscan 9000 - questions about V700

H

htimsdj

Established
Local time
2:29 AM
Joined
Dec 22, 2010
Messages
79
View My Gallery
I use 35mm, MF, and LF film. Right now I cannot scan the LF negatives. The only real reason for scanning the negatives is to post them on the web, not for output. I'll occasionally print a scanned image if I cannot get to the lab, but that's not frequently. I really think the 9000 is overkill for what I am doing. Plus, I picked up an enlarger and hope to start printing on my own this year.

So, I think I'll sell the 9000. I will admit, the run up on ebay is part of the equation.

I have a Coolscan IV (2900 dpi) stored away. However, I would like to know, for those that have a flatbed (like the V700), can you make decent small prints from the Epson scans? If I want to make a quick 35mm scan and print a 6x9 inch print, will it be acceptable?

thanks for your input!

Jeff
 
I've had my 35mm scans from my V750 be used for 3' x 6' (2:1 crop) prints for a tradeshow. The V700 shouldnt be any different, of course a drum scanner would be better, the V700 series does an amazing job, especially for its Large Format capabilities.
 
Thats good to hear, bradbrok. I'm having a hard time justifying all this money tied up in the 9000 when all I do is scan and downsize to a web resolution. And your mention of a drum scan is right - if I really need a great scan, I can always send it out.
 
The V700 resolves somewhere around 40-48 lp/mm with super sharp film like 80lp/mm ++.

It is good for a 12X enlargement to hold 4lp/mm in print so in theory if everything is perfect, and you get a good scanner and your film is super sharp like 80 lp/mm ++ you can enlarge a 35mm piece of film to almost 12" x 18".

Softer film like average MF and LF does not scan that high on the V700 from what I have seen.

It has a good bit of fuzz, but say your image is resolving 48 lp/mm on film, and you overscan at 4800 dpi and reduce to 2400 dpi you can get decent results and the scan may resolve 30-36lp/mm just guessing.

I never got anything better from a 6400 dpi scan.
4800 was the usable max for me.

For slide film its got a very limited Dmax.
 
I have a V-750 and 9000ED. The 9000ED provides better resolution when printed to a larger size and the DMax is greater. There is no question that you are giving away a better scanner when these two parameters are considered. When posting on the Internet.. DMax and for the most part, resolution is limited. If you are being honest with yourself about what you want then you will not be losing much. I would not sell my 9000ED, but then again I usually buy high and sell low.
 
unless its the money you want I don't see the point in selling a supeior scanner. All consumer grade flat beds will perform poorly on 35mm film compared to your 9000. And you don't know your requirements a year or two down the line. You may want one again and think how much they will be priced then. If you don't use it much it will last you a long time with high quality scans.
I don't think flatbed technology is going to advance too much from where it is now but who knows.
 
I would add that since you really only need the V700 for 4x5 scans, you should consider that you really don't need one of the more expensive flatbeds to get good quality from a 4x5 neg. Especially if its only for web use. i.e. you could buy any cheap flatbed that will cover 4x5 and you'll get scans plenty good enough for web and print.
Think about it, at 2400spi from a 4x5 neg you'll get 12000x9600 pixels and thats enough for a 30x24 inch print at 360ppi output. If you downsize to 6000x4800 or thereabouts you'll get a really nice 16x12 print size. Could you tell the diffference between a v700 and a cheaper scanner? maybe but it would be marginal if noticebale at all at 16x12 after downsizing with tad of sharpening.

So it really comes down to: do you want the money from the 9000 or not ?
 
One thing I will add is that for any type of color the Nikon will probably do better. I have an 8000 ED and an Epson V500, and the Epson simply can't get the colors right, especially with color negative film. Regardless of scanning software.
 
Here's a color neg that I scanned yesterday with my V700 - the colors are bang on!
MichellesKats.jpg
 
I don't think that flatbed scanners will improve beyond the Epson 700 nor will desktop film scanners improve beyond the Nikon 9000.

I'd take a hard look at your workflow and where it will be in a couple of years, such as if your lab closes as they are prone to do. You may really regret giving up the 9000.

On the other hand, the Nikon's price jumped $1000 recently because of their discontinuation. I think they are at an all-time high, I doubt they will stay that way once they start aging and breaking. So if you're going to sell, now is the time.
 
I suppose I'm only providing half an answer since I've never had anything to to with the Coolscan 9000 but I have to say I've been very happy with the results from my V750. I suppose I might be less happy if I compared the two but that hasn't happened. Most of what I've read suggests that the 9000 is "better" but determining by how much is sometimes pretty subjective and for the "average" user I wonder how much real difference there is. I bought the V750 because I needed to scan some old prints--up to 8x10--of my Father's. A Nikon wasn't an option...
 
I can only tell from my experience, having a Coolscan4000ED and an Epson V700, the 9000ED would be nice but not necessary for my purposes. I mostly (95%) upload to the interweb and print sometimes (for the occasional exhibition or as a present) some of my scanned negatives using an Epson Maxart PX5000 (that 9 cartridges A3 printer).

For 35mm scanned with the Epson V700 , prints up to A3 size are possible with a good scanned negative and for nearly everything printed up to A4 size. You loose some Dmax and also some resolution when using the V700 compared to a Coolscan 4000ED.

However, the Coolscan needs some service then and now, dust and dirt builds up with time (Except you work in clean room). I have had my 4000ED recently serviced by Nikon and since it is a long discontinued model, I was lucky to get it serviced (spare parts no longer available). Also. I find that I get constantly better results in color with the V700, the Coolscan4000ED scans needs more tweaking with either Vuescan or Nikon Scan.
 
I was never, ever happy with my V700. It was horribly slow, unsharp at all height settings and total crap! It seems I might have had a bad copy or something.
 
I have a Microtek 120 MF scanner along with an Epson V700. While the Microtek is clearly better at scanning 35mm film, the lead really fades using medium format neg or chrome.

I use Silverfast on both units.
 
I was in the exact same situation as you. I had a nikon 9000 and a v700. Both had their benefits. It's fun to do a real contact sheet scan on the v700. The nikon gives as sharp a scan as you can get without an imacon.
But the 9000 is not perfect. It's loud and very slow to preview. The batch scanning on 35mm is fine enough but the scanner is terrible for medium format. It would not automatically fond the frames forcing you to preview, adjust the frame offset and preview again. I shot 6x9 which is just about the limit of the scanning aperture making it take forever to find the frame in the scanning window. Thus it became almost unusable for medium format.
I do agree that the v700 is basically too unsnarl for prints but for web and ease of use it is perfect. So I put my nikon 9000 on amazon for $4000 and off she went. I am waiting on my 3,697.00 and I'll have a gf670 and a d700 so I'm more than happy with the 1,100 i made on the scanner. I've got my darkroom for real prints
 
So I decided to keep the Coolscan 9000. I really like the results I get from it, and the money I would make by selling it is really not a big deal. I think I will sell the older Coolscan IV, however.

I have noticed that when scanning B&W with the Coolscan IV that it seems to pick up a lot more dust than the 9000. This surprises me becauses neither one is used with the ICE as it won't work with B&W.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom