Nikon 9000 and 35mm strip film holder

[Harry Lime]

I've never had a problem with the 35mm holder in my 9000ED and that is after hundreds of scans. Yep, it's plastic and should be handled with care, but so far so good.

My main beef with the standard 35mm holder for the 9000 is that it does not use glass to keep the film flat. This was a standard feature on the high end units from Minolta and Microtek.

The 5000ED has the same problem and what's even worse is that while the optional carrier helps it also does not use glass.

So, if you want to get the best out of the 8000/9000ED you need to invest in one of the two optional glass carriers. They work very well, but it can be a PIA to load the film straight. I recommend the one that can be rotated for this exact reason. If you're a little off you can always rotate the holder a touch, instead of having to reload.

Otherwise the 9000ED is the best scanner you are going to find this side of the highend IMACON/Hasselblad units that cost considerably more (especially since the 343 is gone).

The Minolta Dimage II is also outstanding, but it uses a fluorescent bulb that is becoming difficult to replace. The Nikons use LED and will last for a very long time.

 

[Harry Lime]

In the end I think the Nikon 9000 is a great sanner but in my book it's not top notch no matter what kind of carrier you use. The difference between a Flextight or a real drum scanner and a Nikon 9000 is night and day, IMO.

I think it also has to be taken in to consideration that the 9000ED was selling new for about $2500, whereas the Hasselblad Flextight X1 or X5 list for $12,995.00 and $19,995.00 respectively. For that amount of money the Flextight better blow the Nikon clear to kingdom come... ;-)

A new drum scanner makes either one of the Flextight look like a bargain.

I've been looking at used 646 or 949 units, but they still cost a small fortune. I've seen used 343 going for $3000-5000, but from what I have read the difference between it and the 9000ED is pretty much academic, so it doesn't seem like it would be worth it. When the time comes for an upgrade I want it to be a substantial one.

 

[Jamie123]

That might be my trouble. I noticed that the clear glass was much thicker than the ANR glass. Is it pretty easy making a mask? What material did you use and how? Maybe I can still salvage my current glass without ordering the 1mm version and or nikon glass carrier.

I made a mask using some thin black plastic material I found in an art supply store. I cut out a strip as wide as a regular neg (a bit wider actually) and cut out two windows for 6x7. It's not an ideal material, though, as it's too slippery. I'll do another one with some simple thick black paper.

You can also use a single piece of ANR glass to hold the neg moderately flat. Just stick on the negs with scotch tape at each end and use an elastic band between the frames so that the neg doesn't arch away from the glass.

 

[Jamie123]

I think it also has to be taken in to consideration that the 9000ED was selling new for about $2500, whereas the Hasselblad Flextight X1 or X5 list for $12,995.00 and $19,995.00 respectively. For that amount of money the Flextight better blow the Nikon clear to kingdom come... ;-)

A new drum scanner makes either one of the Flextight look like a bargain.

I've been looking at used 646 or 949 units, but they still cost a small fortune. I've seen used 343 going for $3000-5000, but from what I have read the difference between it and the 9000ED is pretty much academic, so it doesn't seem like it would be worth it. When the time comes for an upgrade I want it to be a substantial one.

You can actually find smaller drum scanners (the table top type) for less than a Nikon 9000 sometimes. The problem is, though, that you'll have to wet mount everytime.

It's true, of course, that a Flextight is much more expensive than a Nikon but in most major cities there are places that rent out Flextights by the hour. You can get quite a lot of frames done in an hour. So instead of shelling out money on the Nikon one could just use a decent flatbed and then rent a Flextight every few months whenever one has enough ''good'' shots that require high-res.

That's actually the way I wanted to go but then I had the chance to buy a Nikon 9000 for a thousand bucks so I took it. Just today I saw a ''Wanted'' post on a local classifieds page from someone offering $4k for a Nikon 9000. I must admit I'm tempted to sell but I have a few upcoming projects that I want to make on film.

 

[Jamie123]

More importantly - where did you find the scanner?

There's one being sold here ($2300 used): http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/907341

 

[pevelg]

There's one being sold here ($2300 used): http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/907341

Good price considering what you see these go on eBay nowadays. It's amazing, they used to sell at around 1.9k new and with warrenty from B&H. Now used ones are fetching 2.4k and above. I just went for the 8000 instead which you can usually get for a little over 1k (last I checked).