Nikon Coolscan 9000

[dalibor]

Hi everyone,

I just bought a secondhand Coolscan 9000. I need it since I work with 35mm and MF.
I'm a bit anxious when buying secondhand, and I need your help.
Did anyone have mechanical or other problems with this scanner, what are the things I should check and be careful about once I receive it and test it in a few days.

Thanks a lot for your help!

 

[literiter]

Hi everyone,

I just bought a secondhand Coolscan 9000. I need it since I work with 35mm and MF.
I'm a bit anxious when buying secondhand, and I need your help.
Did anyone have mechanical or other problems with this scanner, what are the things I should check and be careful about once I receive it and test it in a few days.

Thanks a lot for your help!

I have this scanner and I like it.

The only thing I would advise you will be to make sure the film holders are always always completely closed and you have insured that there will be no way that the film holders will jam inside the machine. ( Like there is no film sticking out in such a way as to cause such a jam.)

This happened to me and I had to unplug the unit, remove the top cover and remove the jammed film holder.

You don't want to do this!

Aside from this precaution, you will enjoy a very nice scanner.

 

[Bob Parsons]

If possible try to get the thin black cutout film masks that were originally supplied with the machine. They have various apertures such as 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 etc. Without them you may find you get flare from "bright" gaps between images.

Check when scanning the dense sky areas of negatives that there are no repeated striations in the image caused by imbalance between the 3 RGB channels or cyclic stepping errors. This disappears if you use Vuescan (for example) in fine mode where only one CCD line out of the three is used for all channels.

Check when scanning a black & white negative in 3 channel color mode there is no patchy variation in color balance ie. the CCD response is uniform along it's length. Also there are no strips of different density due to dust particles on the CCD cover glass.

Overall it's a very fine scanner and has given a new lease of life to my medium format equipment.

Bob.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

If possible try to get the thin black cutout film masks that were originally supplied with the machine. They have various apertures such as 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 etc. Without them you may find you get flare from "bright" gaps between images.

Those only came with, and worked with, the rotating glass neg carrier. The glass carrier is a requirement for highest quality scans though, the supplied non-glass holders are incapable of holding the film flat enough. The only really bad thing about the scanner. The glass carriers were optional and expensive, the rotating glass carrier is $350, but worth every penny!

 

[Bob Parsons]

I purchased my machine used and it came with assorted glassless carriers, the non rotating glass carrier and film masks. Since the original seller implied they were selling everything they had I'm assuming the masks were aslso supplied with the non rotating mount, they certainly fit.

I agree the glass carrier is essential for the best results. Only the top glass is anti newton ring treated though and with hardened emulsions processed in C41 I find I can sometimes get rings. Usually breathing on one side of the film fixes that long enough to complete a scan.

Bob.

 

[Jamie123]

Those only came with, and worked with, the rotating glass neg carrier.

Actually, they also come with the non-rotating glass carrier.

 

[dalibor]

Yes, I have also bought separately the glass MF film holder.
Now I use a borrowed Minolta Dimage Scan 5400 and I know that holders without glass are terrible in terms of sharpness...

Thank you all for your help!
Is there anything that can be broken or wrong with a used scanner that I should check?
I couldn't find any news about updated drivers? I use both Mac and Windows. Are there any important differences in drivers/software for the two operating systems?

Thanks!

 

[BobYIL]

Yes, I have also bought separately the glass MF film holder.
Now I use a borrowed Minolta Dimage Scan 5400 and I know that holders without glass are terrible in terms of sharpness...

I use Minolta Dimage Scan 5400 II since years and do not get any sharpness issue as long as I place the strips carefully into the holder. Actually this is an issue for all glassless holders. Excessively wavy frames I mount into a plastic slide-frame with anti-Newton glass; the results come out perfect.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Actually, they also come with the non-rotating glass carrier.

A friend of mine bought the non-rotating one new in 2006, and it did not come with the same masks the rotating one did. What it had was one big mask that held the side edges of the film. For the space between frames, it came with a sheet of adhesive black mask strips you had to stick on the film by hand, then peel off after scanning.

Yes, this is as big a pain in the ass as it sounds.

The rotating one (which is what I have) has a set of precut masks for each image size, but they are single frame masks...you can put a strip in the holder but only one frame at a time shows because the rotating carrier has smaller glass.

Did yours come with the individual masks? Would be nice if they changed it so it did, it would make the non-rotating carrier a usable option, especially since it costs $100 less than the rotating one.

 

[Jamie123]

A friend of mine bought the non-rotating one new in 2006, and it did not come with the same masks the rotating one did. What it had was one big mask that held the side edges of the film. For the space between frames, it came with a sheet of adhesive black mask strips you had to stick on the film by hand, then peel off after scanning.

Yes, this is as big a pain in the ass as it sounds.

The rotating one (which is what I have) has a set of precut masks for each image size, but they are single frame masks...you can put a strip in the holder but only one frame at a time shows because the rotating carrier has smaller glass.

Did yours come with the individual masks? Would be nice if they changed it so it did, it would make the non-rotating carrier a usable option, especially since it costs $100 less than the rotating one.

The big masks for the non-rotating glass holder go around the first frame and for the other frames you can use the adhesive strips (although I rarely bother). The reason for this is, of course, that frame spacing can vary from camera to camera. Here's what it looks like: http://www.filmscanner.info/Bilder/Nikon9000Glasbuehne.jpg

There are several different masks for the different frame sizes.

So basically if you only want to scan one frame you don't need to bother with the adhesive strips.

 

[dalibor]

Did yours come with the individual masks? Would be nice if they changed it so it did, it would make the non-rotating carrier a usable option, especially since it costs $100 less than the rotating one.

I just bought the scanner and the holder and I'm still waiting for their arrival. I wanted to know the eventual issues so when it arrives I was ready to test it and eventualy send it back if something didn't work well.
I should received them next week.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/290718670265?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1497.l2649#ht_1496wt_1141
This is the holder I purchased.

 

[dalibor]

I use Minolta Dimage Scan 5400 II since years and do not get any sharpness issue as long as I place the strips carefully into the holder. Actually this is an issue for all glassless holders. Excessively wavy frames I mount into a plastic slide-frame with anti-Newton glass; the results come out perfect.

My experience is that all the negatives show different sharpness from center to edge of the film using a holder without glass. The film is never flat and the thing makes sense... Using the glass resolves the problem of course.

 

[craygc]

My experience is that all the negatives show different sharpness from center to edge of the film using a holder without glass. The film is never flat and the thing makes sense... Using the glass resolves the problem of course.

I use the standard holder with a single sheet on AN glass - cut to fit from focalpoint - on top. Screw down the big screw tight until the clamp doesn't move and remove the rubber strips and it works fine...

 

[Bob Parsons]

...........I couldn't find any news about updated drivers? I use both Mac and Windows. Are there any important differences in drivers/software for the two operating systems?

Thanks!

There are no official Nikon drivers for Windows 7. However I found if I first installed Vuescan and then Nikonscan that Nikonscan 4.03 would work with 64 bit W7 without needing to install any other drivers. If you search the net there are posts describing how you can use the Vuescan drivers with Nikonscan and x64 W7. You can get the drivers by downloading and installing the trial version of Vuescan.

I also installed a trial version of Silverfast Ai after View and Nikon scan and subsequently found that neither Nikonscan or Silverfast would work - scanner not found. Previously a Silverfast only install had worked - I need to find out what's happened.

I assume you are aware that the LS9000 interface is Firewire and unless your PC already has a port you'll need a card.

Bob.

 

[Dana B.]

The film scanning world is now divided between haves and have nots -- those who have the discontinued Coolscan 9000 and those who don't. I am of the latter. Unfortunately, I didn't buy one during its last run, for around $2,800. They now run more than that, used. And twice that much still in the box. Hard to justify paying that much for scans of negs out of $200 vintage cameras.

And hard to believe no company has stepped in to fill the Nikon void (I'll believe Plustek when I see it). Congrats on your new used Coolscan.

 

[Jamie123]

The film scanning world is now divided between haves and have nots -- those who have the discontinued Coolscan 9000 and those who don't. I am of the latter. Unfortunately, I didn't buy one during its last run, for around $2,800. They now run more than that, used. And twice that much still in the box. Hard to justify paying that much for scans of negs out of $200 vintage cameras.

I was lucky enough to get one for $1000 a couple of years ago. I was at a photographer's studio and was talking about wanting to rent some time on an Imacon to get good scans. He said 'Do you want to buy my scanner?' and pointed to a box in the corner. I looked at it and asked how much he wanted. He replied 'make me an offer' $1000 was my offer 🙂

That being said, seeing what they sell for today I'm often tempted to sell it when I see what they go for these days.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

The film scanning world is now divided between haves and have nots -- those who have the discontinued Coolscan 9000 and those who don't. I am of the latter. Unfortunately, I didn't buy one during its last run, for around $2,800. They now run more than that, used. And twice that much still in the box. Hard to justify paying that much for scans of negs out of $200 vintage cameras.

And hard to believe no company has stepped in to fill the Nikon void (I'll believe Plustek when I see it). Congrats on your new used Coolscan.

The 8000ED is almost identical in image quality to the 9000. I have used both and see no difference, and the 8000 (which I have, got it before the 9000 was introduced) is cheaper used.

 

[wblynch]

The 8000ED is almost identical in image quality to the 9000. I have used both and see no difference, and the 8000 (which I have, got it before the 9000 was introduced) is cheaper used.

Shhhh..... it's supposed to be a secret 😉

 

[dalibor]

Thank you all for your help!