gushing praise for the Nikon LS9000 ...

[Godfrey]

Okay, so I should have bought a Nikon Super Coolscan 9000ED back when they were still current production and new at $1800. I thought it was too expensive then.

But I didn't, and lack of a good 120 format film scanner is one of the things that pushed me to drop shooting film entirely in 2004. By that time, quality 5 and 6 Mpixel DSLRs were inexpensive enough and produced good enough results that shooting 6x6 film just became too onerous for what I needed to do at the time.

Well, seven years on and I found myself drawn back to 6x6 again, and a chance discussion in Dec 2012 led to my buying a practically unused Coolscan 9000 from a friend at a good price. I've added the ANR glass carrier to it, and a carrier adapter for Minox negatives. I've figured out how to get what I want out of it for 6x6 using VueScan. It works beautifully.

Over the weekend, my project was to scan about 90 more of my ancient slides spanning from early 1970s to middle 1990s. First time I used the five slide tray.

Just WoW! The 9000 is so easy to work with and produces such good results with these slides. Many are slightly damaged, poor exposures ... snapshots, really, of friends and family. The 9000 is even easier to work with than my Coolscan V, the light source is more diffuse and there's less dust and contrast problem. Image qualities are just wonderful. All of the delicious defects of film are readily apparent.

I'm so happy I went for the gusto and bought this scanner. It resuscitates film photography for me. 🙂

G

 

[KevinS]

"It resuscitates film photography for me."

I've been happy with the results I get from scanning Velvia on my CS V and CS 8000, especially medium format. But now that I'm shooting some faster film, I am bothered by how the grain looks. There have been several references here to the light source in scanners, and I am grateful for the detailed info, Godfrey. Looks like I need to buy just one more scanner, the CS 9000. I can't shake the desire to shoot more film and less digital. Now, how to tell the Mrs?

 

[Mystyler]

Damn you!
I've just been quoted $4615 for a NOS 9000 ED. Think I'll pass.

 

[GaryLH]

So how do u like tha anr carrier? Who made this one? Been thinking about getting one for my 9000.

Gary

 

[Godfrey]

So how do u like tha anr carrier? Who made this one? Been thinking about getting one for my 9000.

I bought an original, NOS Nikon FH-869G ANR glass carrier for a little less than $500 from someone on Ebay. Well worth the price ... it allows ultimate flexibility in scanning anything that will fit within the window, including film rebates and odd formats. It also has a place in scanning difficult, curled film that is hard to flatten and doesn't fit well into the appropriate dedicated carriers.

I've used it quite a bit, and like it a lot.

G

 

[Godfrey]

Damn you!
I've just been quoted $4615 for a NOS 9000 ED. Think I'll pass.

Is that a new one in the box? It's somewhat on the high end of the scale I have seen.

Mine was used but only lightly. I paid $2500 for it with the three standard carriers (35mm negative strip, 35mm slides, 120 strips). I paid another $500 for the ANR glass carrier, and $75 for a Minox adapter that fits in the 120 strip carrier. All told, about $3100. Not cheap, but given how much I've used it and the quality it produces, well worth it.

$2500-3000 seems the average for a good condition, used 9000 with the standard bits.

G

 

[GaryLH]

I bought an original, NOS Nikon FH-869G ANR glass carrier for a little less than $500 from someone on Ebay. Well worth the price ... it allows ultimate flexibility in scanning anything that will fit within the window, including film rebates and odd formats. It also has a place in scanning difficult, curled film that is hard to flatten and doesn't fit well into the appropriate dedicated carriers.

I've used it quite a bit, and like it a lot.

G

Thanks for update.

Gary

 

[jcrutcher]

I agree, best scanner out there!

 

[clayne]

Tip: Always use fine mode with VueScan, even with the LS-9000. While Nikon claims they've fixed the banding issues present in the 8000, they haven't really. Just avoid it from being an issue and use the slower scanning mode. Avoid any multi-exposure/multi-sample stuff as it's useless and just going to cost time.

I too use the glass carrier - pretty much for everything. The one thing I'd like to see VueScan handle better is a frame width - so that one doesn't have to keep remembering stupid offsets every time (20, -40, etc.) for non 6x9 frames.

Also consider, 5-6 mpx cameras weren't even close to the capability of 135 film and they're not going to be close to medium format at all. Purely pixel wise and assuming 4kdpi, 135 is pulling 20MP, 120 6x6 80MP. Obviously it's not a straight translation, but as an example, you're not going to out-resolve Velvia with a 4000 dpi scanner.

48-bit 6x6 scans are 500+ megabytes for those interested. It's a great scanner. I do believe the Plustek is also equally capable even though I own Nikons.

 

[rbrooks]

Tip: Always use fine mode with VueScan, even with the LS-9000. While Nikon claims they've fixed the banding issues present in the 8000, they haven't really. Just avoid it from being an issue and use the slower scanning mode. Avoid any multi-exposure/multi-sample stuff as it's useless and just going to cost time.

I too use the glass carrier - pretty much for everything.

Yes. Always fine mode.

Avoid multi-whatever as it doesn't really bring anything to the table.

Always use glass. I use a sheet of anti newton glass in the 35mm negative holder. The glass is too think to use 2 sheets of glass so you end up scanning only 1 strip at a time. The Nikon designed glass carriers are also very good. Just be aware that you can get light bleed on the edges of negatives.

 

[Robert Lai]

My CS 9000 with Vuescan does show banding in the scans if the multi-sampling option is set to 1. Setting it to 2 doesn't slow down the scanning too much, and eliminates the banding entirely. I don't bother to use the fine mode, as it takes way too much time in my view. Just doing this is easier and faster for me.

For negatives, the multiple-exposure mode is probably not needed. However, it does help to pull out more detail from the shadows of slide film.

 

[Godfrey]

My CS 9000 with Vuescan does show banding in the scans if the multi-sampling option is set to 1. Setting it to 2 doesn't slow down the scanning too much, and eliminates the banding entirely. I don't bother to use the fine mode, as it takes way too much time in my view. Just doing this is easier and faster for me. ...

I'll have to experiment with that. 6x6 full resolution scans in fine mode are kinda slow... ;-)

Thank you!

G

 

[Robert Lai]

Wait until you try a scan from a 6x9cm image! It's mind boggling!

BTW, 6x9 is the biggest that the scanner can handle with Vuescan.
A slightly longer strip of film will physically fit into the film holder, but I can't get the scanner to scan any longer than 9cm.

 

[sevo]

BTW, 6x9 is the biggest that the scanner can handle with Vuescan.
A slightly longer strip of film will physically fit into the film holder, but I can't get the scanner to scan any longer than 9cm.

The same goes for all software - that seems to be a hardware limitation. For anything above 6x9 you'll have to stitch.

 

[rbrooks]

My CS 9000 with Vuescan does show banding in the scans if the multi-sampling option is set to 1. Setting it to 2 doesn't slow down the scanning too much, and eliminates the banding entirely. I don't bother to use the fine mode, as it takes way too much time in my view. Just doing this is easier and faster for me.

I ran a time test of fine mode against a 2 multi sample and found that the times were about the same. This might be different depending on your computer I supposed.
In the end I've stuck with fine mode.

 

[Godfrey]

Wait until you try a scan from a 6x9cm image! It's mind boggling!

BTW, 6x9 is the biggest that the scanner can handle with Vuescan.
A slightly longer strip of film will physically fit into the film holder, but I can't get the scanner to scan any longer than 9cm.

I'd have to have a 6x9 camera for that. I don't ... and I have NO intention of buying another, larger camera! ;-)

Yes, far as I'm aware, any format longer than 6x9cm requires stitching. Although I haven't tried with the ANR glass carrier yet. No time to do so until the weekend at least.

G

 

[Robert Lai]

A Kodak Medalist II doesn't cost that much, and it has that great Ektar (Heliar) lens....
Of course, if you get Ken Ruth to go over it and convert it to 120 film then it does become a bit expensive.

 

[Godfrey]

A Kodak Medalist II doesn't cost that much, and it has that great Ektar (Heliar) lens....
Of course, if you get Ken Ruth to go over it and convert it to 120 film then it does become a bit expensive.

I prefer square format, thank you. I'm selling my 6x7 camera.

G

 

[Mystyler]

Is that a new one in the box? It's somewhat on the high end of the scale I have seen.

Mine was used but only lightly. I paid $2500 for it with the three standard carriers (35mm negative strip, 35mm slides, 120 strips). I paid another $500 for the ANR glass carrier, and $75 for a Minox adapter that fits in the 120 strip carrier. All told, about $3100. Not cheap, but given how much I've used it and the quality it produces, well worth it.

$2500-3000 seems the average for a good condition, used 9000 with the standard bits.

G

Yes it is. Sadly out of my price range!