Why won't Nikon re-release the Nikon Supercoolscan 9000

[V-12]

The world has changed, it doesn't mean that scanners and film won't be available, but they will be niche products made by smaller companies. And it doesn't mean a continued decline in film use, already we are seeing a slight bounce in the market, but you can count Nikon out from now on, too much reinvestment for not enough profit.

 

[gustavoAvila]

This is a very similar reason to why no real R&D has gone into production of a true digital back that would work with the F4, F5, F6, F100 and N90s. Some diehard fans would love to use the F4 as a full frame digital camera (I'm one of them.) The problem is that Nikon would be competing with itself and its fantastic used gear. Re-releasing a scanner only forces them to compete with their own older cameras as well as the film bodies of other manufacturers.

I don't follow this logic.

Digital backs were never a shipping product to begin with.

Nikon scanners, on the other hand, are a product line in wide spread use even today.

There are literally untold billions of film images that did not cease to be relevant with the advent of the digital camera!

I suspect the termination of Coolscan production was a "bean counter" decision that did not consider any other factors other than cash flow.

 

[furcafe]

Perhaps Nikon decided it could never overcome the lameness of the name "Super Coolscan."

 

[bwcolor]

Nikon was not seeing the volume needed to keep the 9000ED production line open. The reason for the waiting list is that they would run a batch and then shut the production line. So, I'm afraid that there was not enough demand to keep the product in production. Perhaps, a smaller specialty company would have acted otherwise.

 

[Lachie C]

Plustek have a 120 Scanner coming that should surpass the 9000ED and will cost significantly less. Due any day now.

 

[Matus]

Let's just hope that the Plustek 120 that is to start shipping next week will be able to take the place of the 9000. Otherwise labs will run out of the Coolscans within few years and if there is no replacement, than the reasonably cheap, but good quality scans will be history.

Imacon scans are a bit better, but cost 5-10 times as much ...

 

[kuzano]

That's a very interesting point.. They could do it...

That's a very interesting point.. They could do it...

Nikon still has to answer to share holders who, if they pay any attention to the film market and film production (ie: Kodak's breakup, Fuji discontinuing a few lines last year alone, Efke going away completely) would be inclined to invest less if Nikon produced a dedicated product that served a rapidly declining market. They already have their hands full with servicing the existing scanners and few recent film cameras they have offered. Even if Nikon themselves don't want to turn their backs on film, their share holders want more to make money.

This is a very similar reason to why no real R&D has gone into production of a true digital back that would work with the F4, F5, F6, F100 and N90s. Some diehard fans would love to use the F4 as a full frame digital camera (I'm one of them.) The problem is that Nikon would be competing with itself and its fantastic used gear. Re-releasing a scanner only forces them to compete with their own older cameras as well as the film bodies of other manufacturers.

Phil Forrest

As I recall, one of the first Kodak sensor Pro level cameras was a Kodak product, but the sensor was partnered with a Nikon body???

I do know that when Fujifilm engineered and produced the S series Pro DSLR's....
S1, S2, S3 and S5 Pro, all those bodies were Nikon bodies, the first two film bodied. I had an S5 Pro that was built on the Nikon D200. It had 284,000 clicks on the shutter count when I sold it.

Interesting point you make about all the people who would love to have their film SLR's converted to Nikon DSLR's.

Frankly, Sony should consider tapping that market since they seem to be providing a huge share of the sensors installed in many cameras already.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Yeah, the very first Kodak digitals were just backs put onto F3s. Then came the Fujix, then later Kodak digitals on F5s. These digital modules were huge though and had tiny sensors.

The Kodak DCS Pro 14n and SLRn were excellent sensors stuffed into what was basically an N80 body with a bigger battery grip. That SLRn is still hard to beat at native ISO, even today. This is where Kodak discovered the "Italian flag" aberration found in superwides then invented firmware to fix it.

Leica noticed the same thing with their wide angles in the M8 and especially the M9 just a few years later.

As for the old cameras and hypothetical digital backs, the F5 is a perfect platform. It already has an unused serial port built in to the body to interface with some kind of data or 250 exposure back. The camera can talk to the back and serial is definitely enough data to control it.

Leica did it with the DMR but that was a few years ago and film was still much more prevalent.

The real problem is that if Nikon somehow managed to stick a full frame sensor into a back that was the same form factor as one of their thick data/intervalometer backs, you would have the F5 adherents clamoring to use the thing on their favorite camera (or almost favorite, you know what I mean.)

Nikon can't make money off of an F film camera any more aside from the small existing stock of the F6. Selling a product that is backwards compatible with deprecated technology is simply bad for the money making business. This is why they built lens incompatibility into the D40, D60, D70, D90, D200 and D300 bodies (these are the ones I personally have experience with, I'm sure there are newer bodies that have similar or greater incompatibilities.)

I don't follow this logic.
Digital backs were never a shipping product to begin with.
Nikon scanners, on the other hand, are a product line in wide spread use even today.
There are literally untold billions of film images that did not cease to be relevant with the advent of the digital camera!
I suspect the termination of Coolscan production was a "bean counter" decision that did not consider any other factors other than cash flow.

Cash flow. Exactly the point. Just because you think that a Coolscan 9000 is perfectly relevant, doesn't mean that Nikon and it's share holders do. Personally, I think a 75mm meniscus lens is relevant and I want Leica, Zeiss or Cosina to make one, but it's not going to happen.

It's all because they can't make any money off old technology and that is why they discontinued their scanners. Offering a scanner is simply telling a customer to buy one scanner to use for 10 years with their old F2 (or whatever other film body they have) and to NOT buy 3 or 4 new digital cameras within that 10 years.

Phil Forrest

 

[dogberryjr]

A bit off topic, but what is the best option for dedicated 35mm scanning now, sticking to stuff that's currently in production.

 

[icebear]

...

I suspect the termination of Coolscan production was a "bean counter" decision that did not consider any other factors other than cash flow.

Welcome to economy 101 !

 

[RObert Budding]

Who cares? If you're making digital prints, use a digital camera.

Digital photos of my film archive? Not nearly as good as what a decent scanner can produce,

 

[tjh]

Nikon has asked to borrow my Coolscan 9000. They need it to back-engineer a 2014 Limited Edition 9000 in black paint.

I wanted one in chrome to go with my sterling silver slide mounts but they declined.

 

[gustavoAvila]

Offering a scanner is simply telling a customer to buy one scanner to use for 10 years with their old F2 (or whatever other film body they have) and to NOT buy 3 or 4 new digital cameras within that 10 years.
Phil Forrest

Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with this point.

Film scanners have never impacted, much less cannibalized digital camera sales.

The issue is not about supporting "old technology", it is recognizing that billions of images were created before the digital era!

These images need to be digitized and the Nikon scanners were arguably the best, most cost effective way to do so.

By dropping the entire Coolscan line (rather then continue a limited production run); Nikon implied that they are simply not concerned with images created prior to the digital era.

(Contrast this attitude with Leica's recent introduction of M model type 240, where they went out of their way to associate themselves with the images created by their cameras over the past decades!)

It is understood that film scanners are not, and will never be a cash cow for any company.

It is also understood that Nikon can run their business in any way they see fit.

However, in my opinion (FWIW), dropping the Coolscan line was a huge faux-pas for a company so irrevocably associated with image creation as Nikon!

 

[Harry Lime]

A bit off topic, but what is the best option for dedicated 35mm scanning now, sticking to stuff that's currently in production.

If price is no object the Hasselblad X1 and X5.
After than you are looking at something like a drum scanners.

For civilians there is Plustek, Pacific Image and a few similar units I've seen in Europe. The 5000ED still is a little better than any of these, but they are hardly junk (and the only option short of a flatbed).

Plustek REALLY needs to ship that 120 scanner.

 

[icebear]

... it is recognizing that billions of images were created before the digital era! These images need to be digitized ...

Obviously the owners of these billions of images have other priorities and did not put in enough orders for Nikon to continue their scanner production.
That ship has sailed, get over it.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Obviously the owners of these billions of images have other priorities and did not put in enough orders for Nikon to continue their scanner production.
That ship has sailed, get over it.

What he said.

Phil Forrest

 

[mani]

What he said.

Phil Forrest

Hi Phil - you obviously never read any of my posts above, about the long queues and price-hiking for the scanner BEFORE it was even discontinued? And that was by authorized Nikon dealers who chose to withdraw whatever stock they could get from Nikon from their 'real' stores, and place them on their ebay stores at a 50-100% premium. As I said a couple times, demand was definitely not a problem.

btw I guess the few hundred slides you saw in the trash today were Vivian Meier's undiscovered slide output.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I wasn't the one who said anything about seeing slides in the trash.
And I have read all the posts in the thread but my point is that Nikon chose to discontinue the scanners based upon whatever research they did on the failing film market and because scanners do, in fact cut into digital camera sales. If I didn't have to use a digital camera for working, I wouldn't at all. I'd use my film bodies and my Nikon LS-4000. Maybe I'd pick up a 9000 from a few folks I know who have them and don't use them as much as they'd like.
I never discounted your claim of high demand when the scanners were being discontinued and beforehand. I was talking about now and why they don't do more runs now.

Phil Forrest

 

[mani]

I wasn't the one who said anything about seeing slides in the trash.

Sorry - reading the forum on the phone wasn't such a good idea. 😱

Anyway, my point about demand is that Nikon weren't making a profit/loss decision on the CS9000, they made a corporate brand decision.

 

[Fraser]

I think as previously said Nikon probably think if you shoot film wet print, film scanners in a way were a stop gap between darkrooms and digital cameras. When newspapers switched to digital cameras that must have added to the slump in scanner sales.
Do Nikon still make enlarger lenses?