Picking a Nikon CoolScan

[PrebenJaeger]

So I've been looking for a 35mm scanner for a while now. I almost settled on the PrimeFilm XA / Reflecta RPS 10M because it can be bought from new which then means I get some warranty, etc. But seeing as I got thousands of negatives/positives to scan, I was skeptical of how well the Reflecta would perform both with colors and not to mention the batch scanning function. What I got to scan are loads of strips with 6 negatives, but also many full rolls and single positives.

Of course I've considered the CoolScan lineup and I have ended up with 3 different models with 3 different price points.

1. A CoolScan IV-ED with SA-21 for €420. I've no idea how much it has been used throughout the years but is good shape.
2. A CoolScan V-ED also with SA-21 for €675. The seller, says that it allegedly only have had two owners. The previous owner used it for ca. 300 scans, and himself for 10 rolls, before swapping it with a CoolScan 5000. Should be in pretty good shape.
3. A CoolScan 4000 ED with a SF-200 and a modded SA-21, for ca. €1000 and the seller lives 5 minutes away so I can easily pick it up and not worry about shipping. Seller says it has done around 15-20.000 scans.

The main gripe I have with these things are not compatibility with new OS'es or anything like that, but rather their age and how I've no idea when it will die.

Anyone got some recommendations?

 

[astrobuoy]

I would personally forget about the Coolscan IV-ED. I believe it's maximum resolution is 2900dpi, while the V and 4000 both have a much higher max of 4000dpi. Between the V and 4000, the 4000 scans at a full 48-bit (16 bits per channel), while the V scans 42-bits, meaning you lose 6 bits of image data. I don't really know how much of a difference you'd see in practice, but you can read a comparison here (https://www.filmscanner.info/en/NikonCoolscan5ED.html) between the V and the 5000 (successor to the 4000), where the writer compares image resolution between the two. The 4000 also has a wider density range than the V, which comes into play more (I believe) if you're scanning slides, though the V should still suffice.

The other major difference though is speed. I believe the 4000 is MUCH faster for batch scanning than the V. Not sure how many negatives/positives you have to scan, but that might be a consideration.

As far as repairability, there's a guy on eBay, nikoncoolscan, who offers repairs and servicing of these scanners, and I've heard good things. My Coolscan 8000 luckily hasn't needed servicing yet, but I wouldn't hesitate to send it to him when it does. At one time I also considered purchasing an XA (before I found my 8000), but heard such terrible things about its reliability: too many stories of the scanner's batch scanning essentially being useless and chewing up film. So I would stay away. The Nikon is rock solid and should give you a long life.

One other thing to note: it might be worth getting the FH-3 if you can find one, to keep the film flat. I have the 12-negative equivalent holder for the 8000 and I love it. Also, if you're scanning slide film, wouldn't you need the slide film holder?

 

[Shac]

I had a CoolScan 4000 ED - great scanner but as astroboy says it was slow even with a stack loader.
I changed to using a digital camera to "scan" my 35mm slides and negatives - using an A7R2 and then an A7R3 - I get the same resolution but way, way faster. I'd never go back to using a 35mm scanner.
For larger formats I use a flatbed scanner - Epson V700

 

[PrebenJaeger]

I had a CoolScan 4000 ED - great scanner but as astroboy says it was slow even with a stack loader.
I changed to using a digital camera to "scan" my 35mm slides and negatives - using an A7R2 and then an A7R3 - I get the same resolution but way, way faster. I'd never go back to using a 35mm scanner.
For larger formats I use a flatbed scanner - Epson V700

Isn't the 4000 one of the fastest ones?

DLSR scanning doesn't really appeal to me. Ideally I would like to avoid doing as much post processing as possible, considering the amount of slides I need to process.

I would personally forget about the Coolscan IV-ED. I believe it's maximum resolution is 2900dpi, while the V and 4000 both have a much higher max of 4000dpi. Between the V and 4000, the 4000 scans at a full 48-bit (16 bits per channel), while the V scans 42-bits, meaning you lose 6 bits of image data. I don't really know how much of a difference you'd see in practice, but you can read a comparison here (https://www.filmscanner.info/en/NikonCoolscan5ED.html) between the V and the 5000 (successor to the 4000), where the writer compares image resolution between the two. The 4000 also has a wider density range than the V, which comes into play more (I believe) if you're scanning slides, though the V should still suffice.

The other major difference though is speed. I believe the 4000 is MUCH faster for batch scanning than the V. Not sure how many negatives/positives you have to scan, but that might be a consideration.

As far as repairability, there's a guy on eBay, nikoncoolscan, who offers repairs and servicing of these scanners, and I've heard good things. My Coolscan 8000 luckily hasn't needed servicing yet, but I wouldn't hesitate to send it to him when it does. At one time I also considered purchasing an XA (before I found my 8000), but heard such terrible things about its reliability: too many stories of the scanner's batch scanning essentially being useless and chewing up film. So I would stay away. The Nikon is rock solid and should give you a long life.

One other thing to note: it might be worth getting the FH-3 if you can find one, to keep the film flat. I have the 12-negative equivalent holder for the 8000 and I love it. Also, if you're scanning slide film, wouldn't you need the slide film holder?

Is that this guy on eBay? It seems like you americans have all the specialists!

Is the FH-3 also recommended even when having the SA-21?

Of course the V appeals to me, being cheaper albeit slower, but also allegedly less used. I mean, one of these scanners having done over 20.000 scans... how much more life is to be expected of it?

I really can't decide.

 

[astrobuoy]

Isn't the 4000 one of the fastest ones?

I believe it is, yes. I wasn't suggesting that it's slow, but merely that the 4000 is supposed to be faster than the V by quite a bit.

Is that this guy on eBay?

That's the one! I wonder if there's someone EU-based, assuming that's where you are?

Is the FH-3 also recommended even when having the SA-21?

My understanding (and again, I only have the 8000, which works a bit differently) is that the FH-3 holder is used in conjunction with the SA-21, and that it can be fed into it to hold the film flat and offer some protection.

As far as your decision goes, what is your ultimate goal with the scans? What will you do with them? Do you need/want the extra resolution/bit depth? Will you be editing them afterwards, or no? How about printing them afterwards? And does the scanning speed matter to you?

20,000 scans IS a lot, and if it's not so easy for you to get a CLA (even a well-maintained Coolscan can build up dust on the mirror over time, which can affect the quality and colors of the scans), perhaps a less-used one might be better. Ultimately this seems like a personal decision, depending on what your specific needs are. I lucked out and found a little-used 8000 locally for less than the IV you're looking at, but if I hadn't and I was in your position, I don't know that I would find the benefits of the 4000 that much greater than the V, for my use. Plus, the V is a newer model than the 4000, if that's meaningful at all.

Also, if you have a lot of slides to scan, and you want to limit your post-processing, you could possibly take advantage of a feature in Vuescan software that allows you to do two scans of each slide at two different exposures, perhaps negating the difference in dynamic range sensitivity between the 4000 and V (at least I know this is an option for the 8000; don't know for certain it applies to the V).

Depending on your particular setup and workflow, you may also want to factor in the extra cost of purchasing VueScan and Negative Lab Pro. Don't know if that's the route you're going however.

 

[Glenn2]

An advantage of the scanners that hasn’t been mentioned is that fourth channel that uses IR to sense scratches and dust. I had occasion to use it on a negative with extremely bad reticulation and result was close to magic. The film had been used in humid tropical conditions and didn’t fare well.

Too bad it doesn’t work with films that contain silver after processing like most B&W.

I’ve got a CS-5000 and even it is not all that speedy. If it ever dies and can’t be repaired will explore the camera technique. Have already done some testing with D800E and 60mm micro.

Glenn

 

[PrebenJaeger]

That's the one! I wonder if there's someone EU-based, assuming that's where you are?

Yup. Located in Denmark. Typically things are more expensive here and likewise it's hard to find people specializing in things like repairing these old stuff.

My understanding (and again, I only have the 8000, which works a bit differently) is that the FH-3 holder is used in conjunction with the SA-21, and that it can be fed into it to hold the film flat and offer some protection.

Not sure. To me it seems like the SA-21 is to be used instead of the FH-3. In fact, the 4000 apparently also includes the FH-3.

As far as your decision goes, what is your ultimate goal with the scans? What will you do with them? Do you need/want the extra resolution/bit depth? Will you be editing them afterwards, or no? How about printing them afterwards? And does the scanning speed matter to you?

Ultimate goal is to get great results for archiving all of my familys old negatives and positives. Dad claims there's about 5000-10000. Like mentioned, many negatives cut into strips of 6 but also many uncut rolls and single slides (where I think the SF-200 would be great). Not too sure about the extra resolution and bit depth and how much it matters. I'm hoping to avoid editing afterwards, and basically getting the best position result straight from the scanner. Maybe this is silly, and I should rather scan RAW and use some tool like Negative Lab Pro, as you mentioned. Not sure! Read good about Nikon Scan.

20,000 scans IS a lot, and if it's not so easy for you to get a CLA (even a well-maintained Coolscan can build up dust on the mirror over time, which can affect the quality and colors of the scans), perhaps a less-used one might be better. Ultimately this seems like a personal decision, depending on what your specific needs are. I lucked out and found a little-used 8000 locally for less than the IV you're looking at, but if I hadn't and I was in your position, I don't know that I would find the benefits of the 4000 that much greater than the V, for my use. Plus, the V is a newer model than the 4000, if that's meaningful at all.

Seller of the 4000 says it has been cleaned and "checked" recently but I think it juts means the mirror was cleaned, so that's something. Of course I haven't been too patient in looking for better offers, but it doesn't seem like these things are getting cheaper and locally is tough because danes are cheap and usually don't buy the good stuff.

Also, if you have a lot of slides to scan, and you want to limit your post-processing, you could possibly take advantage of a feature in Vuescan software that allows you to do two scans of each slide at two different exposures, perhaps negating the difference in dynamic range sensitivity between the 4000 and V (at least I know this is an option for the 8000; don't know for certain it applies to the V).

Would like to limit post-processing, yeah. However I'm planning to use Nikon Scan instead, seeing as it's made for the scanners. Any experience with it?

 

[PRJ]

I've been beating on a 4000 for 15 or so years now. Tens of thousands of scans. Dents in the case. It will hold up.

I'd recommend the 4000 over the others. IIRC the V is basically the same scanner but doesn't do bulk scanning (more than 6 frames at a time).

You can get Vuescan to run it and it will become really easy to scan what you have. Just set it up, then have it scan automatically when you insert film and eject when the last frame is scanned. Couldn't be simpler really.

You could still run Nikon Scan on a windows machine I believe, but I haven't tried that. Nikon Scan is best for color. Vuescan is best for black and white.

Biggest thing to check is that the mirror is clean. Easy to clean it though as long as you aren't a complete klutz. You can get parts too from the above mentioned Nikonscanguy. I bought a new lens from him a year or so ago when mine got cloudy. There is a company who sells new mirrors too but I don't remember the name off hand.

There are a few better scanners out there in one way or another than the Nikons, but all around the 4000 and the 5000 are the best.

 

[RObert Budding]

I run Nikon Scan on a Windows 10 machine. The directions for Win 7 worked well.

http://www.shtengel.com/gleb/getting_nikon_coolscan_scanners_work_under_Win7.htm

 

[astrobuoy]

Seller of the 4000 says it has been cleaned and "checked" recently but I think it juts means the mirror was cleaned, so that's something. Of course I haven't been too patient in looking for better offers, but it doesn't seem like these things are getting cheaper and locally is tough because danes are cheap and usually don't buy the good stuff.

The prices you listed aren't bad I don't think. I've been seeing the prices for these go up as more and more people become interested in scanning at home, especially with the coronavirus keeping people inside.

Would like to limit post-processing, yeah. However I'm planning to use Nikon Scan instead, seeing as it's made for the scanners. Any experience with it?

I'm running a MacBook, so I wouldn't be able to use Nikon Scan I don't think. In any case, I don't believe Nikon Scan is still being updated, while VueScan has the latest drivers for Nikon scanners and is still being updated. It's not a perfect program, but once you figure out the right settings (and I'd be happy to share mine), it works. My preferred workflow is VueScan to output RAW DNG files which I import into Adobe Lightroom and invert using Negative Lab Pro. It's not that much of a hassle, and as Negative Lab Pro gets more powerful the workflow gets faster. To be honest I'm not sure any workflow you choose will allow you to get perfect scans right out of the box––no matter what you choose to do, some tweaking is necessary.

Given how many negatives you're looking to scan, maybe get the 4000 for the boost in speed, and also invest in an LED light pad (these can be had for cheap), and an artist's pen so that you can identify which negatives are actually worth scanning and cut down on your time. I use an iPhone app called FilmLab to take a rough shot of my negatives on a cheap light pad. This essentially creates a contact sheet so that I can see which images I actually want to scan.

 

[PrebenJaeger]

Thanks for the input, guys. I'll probably go with the 4000, despite how much it has been used. If all goes south, I guess I can ship it over to Frank (nikon_coolscan) in the states.

I'm running a MacBook, so I wouldn't be able to use Nikon Scan I don't think. In any case, I don't believe Nikon Scan is still being updated, while VueScan has the latest drivers for Nikon scanners and is still being updated. It's not a perfect program, but once you figure out the right settings (and I'd be happy to share mine), it works. My preferred workflow is VueScan to output RAW DNG files which I import into Adobe Lightroom and invert using Negative Lab Pro. It's not that much of a hassle, and as Negative Lab Pro gets more powerful the workflow gets faster. To be honest I'm not sure any workflow you choose will allow you to get perfect scans right out of the box––no matter what you choose to do, some tweaking is necessary.

Given how many negatives you're looking to scan, maybe get the 4000 for the boost in speed, and also invest in an LED light pad (these can be had for cheap), and an artist's pen so that you can identify which negatives are actually worth scanning and cut down on your time. I use an iPhone app called FilmLab to take a rough shot of my negatives on a cheap light pad. This essentially creates a contact sheet so that I can see which images I actually want to scan.

During my countless hours of researching, it seems like Nikon Scan despite its age typically still gets the job done better than Vuescan (like PRJ also writes). But I'm gonna need a flatbed and vuescan for scanning medium format anyway, so I guess I can experiment. Is Digital ICE also being used when doing the scanning to raw -> negative lab pro in lightroom workflow?

Also, I'd be happy if you could share your settings 🙂

 

[Shac]

Isn't the 4000 one of the fastest ones?

DLSR scanning doesn't really appeal to me. Ideally I would like to avoid doing as much post processing as possible, considering the amount of slides I need to process.

I really can't decide.

Preben - it might be the fastest but it's nowhere near as fast as camera scanning. The only advantage for me of the coolscan was that it created positives from colour negs. I never used digital ice for scrathes/dust.

Good luck - the 4000/5000 are the ones to get

 

[Rangefinder 35]

So you're set your sights on Nikon Coolscan. Read reviews about Minolta Multipro scanner.
Ken Rockwell is especially good.

 

[arseniii]

I have both IV and V versions. There is no difference in speed or image quality between the two. Version V has 4000dpi resolution and I think IV has 2900. I'd say the max you can print from version IV is 13x19 (and you still loose a little bit of sharpness). If you're interested PM me and I will possible be able to sell version IV to you.

 

[mackigator]

I own a Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED and have used it for thousands of scans. I've had it serviced once to bring it back up to spec and clean all the mirrors. It still works well.

IMO there is only one killer feature when compared with a carefully adjusted DSLR setup, and that's the Digital ICE dust removal. Works great and on a dirty or scratched image it still feels like magic.

That aside, scanning with even the 5000 is a slow process, and the magic of Digital ICE does not entirely make up for having to spend 1-3 minutes per scan, tweak settings, and then usually still tweak a little in other photo software. If you are doing an archival project, like a large set of family photos, I'd urge you to (1) Grade them first and number them based on likelihood to be scan-worthy, both saving work and creating a spreadsheet of content that you can use later to look stuff up (2) Setup a dedicated DSLR with macro lens as type of digital copy stand. Instead of minutes, you would spend seconds per image. You'd still end up tweaking some in post. A careful setup can give you results that are good. At the very least, take a hard look at these good-camera-as-scanner setups before you commit to the used Coolscan. Relevant thread: https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=161028

 

[pomozwi]

Another Coolscan 5000 user here, over 10 years use and thousands of scans.

The FH-3 holder is very useful in two situations:
i) Short strips of negatives, say two or 3 frames, cannot be fed into the motorised SA-21 film holder.

ii) Some films which are not perfectly flat cannot be focussed and scanned properly in the SA-21 holder. When reviewing some frames in PS at Actual size it appears that about 20% of one edge is out of focus. I didn't pay attention when scanning these films so i don't know if it the first or last frame in a strip.

These out of focus frames will have to be rescanned using the FH-3 holder which is manually fed into the slide holder, (MA-20?).

I don't think that support for the Coolscan units is very strong in Australia and I'm about to get brave and inspect the condition of the mirror in mine. As a check before I dismantle the scanner I will rescan a few of my 'reference' negs and slides and compare the TIF's against earlier scans. If the results are good I will not attempt disassembly / cleaning.

Don't forget that you can only use Digital-ICE with C-41 and non-Kodachrome films. For scanning B&W films you must turn Digital-ICE off. In the recent lockdown I have been revisiting loads of old B&W films scanned years ago. I have never seen a lot of these negs as I usually only wet printed about half the roll after producing a contact sheet. Needless to say, some of the 40 yo negs were in a fairly poor condition and took a lot of tie to clean up in PS with the spot healing and clone stamp tools. Polaroid Scratch and dust removal program can help a lot if used judiciously.

If / when my Coolscan dies I have an Epson V700 to fall back on or I may go the DSLR route. Must make sure the negs are clean as poss.

 

[Fraser]

I have the V, which I think is faster than the 4000 but you can't just leave it to scan a whole roll in one go. I've had it from new I had to fix it once bought a broken IV £50 and used the parts. I like my coolscan as I process my film quickly dry it and scan, but if I had a large archive to scan I don't think I would like using it just too slow another problem with scanning is the more you do it the better you get I reckon a few thousand scans in I would want to start again. I would go for a Pakon if you can get one much faster (I should of bought one when the could be had for a couple of hundred) or DSLR/mirrorless scanning with the negative pro so much faster you can probably have a film scanned in less time it takes you to do one frame with coolscan!

 

[agi]

There's a really good Nikon Coolscan group on FB that I recommend. Someone already mentioned nikonscan (Frank - http://nikonscanners.com/) on Ebay and he's in that group along with Gleb who repaired my 8000 as the firewire chips failed.

These guys recommend the 5000 wholeheartedly for 35mm.

For myself, I recommend the Minolta Dimage 5400 as it beats my 8000 for 35mm. I use Vuescan on it.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

CoolScan V, I run NikonScan on an older Mac laptop. Works great.

If you get a CoolScan these days, the mirror needs cleaning if not cleaned recently.

 

[Bob Michaels]

PrebenJaeger: my 2 cents worth. You and most respondents seem to miss a critical point and focus on insignificant ones.

Most critical: you are talking about digitizing 5,000-10,000 negatives to archive them. What are you or the next generation going to do with that many unedited and unindexed files? Your gems will be like a needle buried in a haystack.

Lay the negs out on a light table and make a simple quick edit of which to scan. Even if you err most conservatively on the side of preservation, you should easily get it down to 500-1,000 files. It is easy to edit negatives as you can determine content, density, focus, and everything but color balance (which can be fixed in post). The only people cannot edit negs are those who are already convinced they cannot before they ever try. That easy edit will reduce your number of scans by at least 90%. More importantly, that will enable someone later to actually find the good photos.

The unimportant things that will distract you include:

All those technical scanner specs which are useful only for internet chatter and scanner marketing purposes. Do you know that a 48 bit file is so you can have 281 Trillion different colors? A 24 bit file gives you only 16 Million different colors which is still more than the human eye can distinguish. 4,000 vs 2,700 dpi files? Both far exceed anything you will get from an old neg and an old lens, no matter what you do with the file.

Post processing? Simply do not worry about doing it. You can address the need for post processing when and if you decide to do anything with all those files. Simply invert negatives to positives when you output them from the scanner software. Do you understand that scanner software, other than Vuescan, makes behind the scenes but irreversible post processing adjustments? Those automatic adjustments will get you closer but cannot be undone as they are in the outputted file.

Have you figured out what the actual scanner does and what the scanner software does? Actually, all the scanner does is shine a light through the neg or slide, determine on the sensor which millions of different positions are illuminated R, G, B or K and send that unprocessed info back to the CPU where the scanner software uses your computer's CPU to make all that info into a usable file. Too many believe this is all black box wizardry when it is not.

Nikonscan software is used by many. Its advantage is those irreversible behind the scene file adjustments or post processing. But it was never a Nikon product, just something bundled in that needed to be good enough so Nikon could sell film scanners. Vuescan is a stand alone product that needs to be good enough that people would pay extra to use it. That is the only scanner software I have used for some 18 years now.

Nikon makes good scanners. But do not blindly exclude all the other manufacturers like Minolta who also make good (in my mind better) products.

Chris Crawford has an excellent free scanning tutorial on his website. https://crawfordphotoschool.com/digital/film-scanning-intro.php Not all applies to you but it is worthwhile reading before you start off scanning that many negs. Nothing worse than to learn something at the end of a major project that you wished you had known before you started.