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

[Phil_F_NM]

If you really want to see how Nikon "supports" film; look no further than their recent "photo competition" which only allowed entry from digital cameras - no film, no scans regardless if they were shot with Nikon gear.

Cheers,
Dave

Ha! I remember that. Completely ridiculous.
It would have been awesome to shoot a few Velvia slides for the contest with a Nikon SP, scan them on a Nikon scanner then rewrite the EXIF with a copied file from a D3. After people oohh and aahh, then come clean.

Phil Forrest

 

[Rayt]

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

Shintaro is going to apply the black paint so expect the orders to be filled by 2024.

 

[jsrockit]

It would have been awesome to shoot a few Velvia slides for the contest with a Nikon SP, scan them on a Nikon scanner then rewrite the EXIF with a copied file from a D3. After people oohh and aahh, then come clean.

People are going to oohh and aahh because it is a film photo or because it is a great photo?

 

[jonmanjiro]

Right, that's my point. There is no real support for film going forward. It's all legacy based.

Hard for a for-profit-company to rationalise support for film, such as by releasing a new film camera, when used camera stores are selling F6s for $700. I doubt Nikon could even manufacture an F6 for that amount.

 

[jsrockit]

Hard for a for-profit-company to rationalise support for film, such as by releasing a new film camera, when used camera stores are selling F6s for $700. I doubt Nikon could even manufacture an F6 for that amount.

Ok, so I'm not sure how I was wrong initially when I stated:

"Nikon has moved on from film."

 

[bwcolor]

BTW.. Samples from the Plustek Optifilm 120 are beginning to show-up on Flickr. Within the next few months we should know if Plustek has thrown those that use the hybrid analog/digital workflow a bone. My 9000ED broke and it made me realize that without a good scanner, I'm shooting 100% digital.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Ok, you got me... so they have one lagacy camera and that is supposed to show a company's support of film? :bang:

Well, I didn't say that, did I?

You said that Nikon had moved on from film, and I simply mentioned, (politely) that with the F6 still being made, your comment wasn't strictly correct. No more or less.
Regards,
Brett

 

[Phil_F_NM]

People are going to oohh and aahh because it is a film photo or because it is a great photo?

It's just snarky commentary on how people will project greatness into the new stuff (I should have said D4 instead of D3 I guess) while what they are looking at will be probably just as good image-quality wise, for the most part. The fact that Nikon ruled the contest that way was just crappy on their part and it was blatant self-aggrandizement on their part.

Like a bunch of folks I know on another list who have so much money invested into Leica that nothing ever could match it. Yet, one of these people actually shoots a D700 and a D40, both with kit lenses. I'm just saying there is a lot of mental masturbation going on about not much in the film vs. digital argument. Both media are perfectly capable of producing fantastic results.
...But these days, there is a lot more likelihood that fantastic results are coming from a digital camera, if only for the availability of film and excellent process QC. Not many places that do good E-6 left, for example.

The only reason I still have a Nikon scanner (in storage in Philly) is for black and white process that I do myself. That's an image making hobby and i won't BS anyone saying that it's anymore than that. I like hand processing black and white film and then scanning it because i don't have access to a darkroom nor do I really want to do wet printing anymore.

Phil Forrest

 

[jsrockit]

It's just snarky commentary on how people will project greatness into the new stuff (I should have said D4 instead of D3 I guess) while what they are looking at will be probably just as good image-quality wise, for the most part.

Conversely, people project greatness into film while having a clear bias against digital. Neither are magical without proper framing and interesting content.

The fact that Nikon ruled the contest that way was just crappy on their part and it was blatant self-aggrandizement on their part.

Could there have been another reason for its decision? perhaps easier to control manipulation? the fact that film is a niche? I'm not sure. They are a seller of digital cameras though, so...

Like a bunch of folks I know on another list who have so much money invested into Leica that nothing ever could match it. Yet, one of these people actually shoots a D700 and a D40, both with kit lenses. I'm just saying there is a lot of mental masturbation going on about not much in the film vs. digital argument. Both media are perfectly capable of producing fantastic results.

Well, we know from experience that Leica stuff is nice, but the premium paid does not match the quality gained. That's for luxury stuff in general though. I truly don't care if photos were made with film or digital. Most of the photo books I own were made with film. However, that doesn't make me feel like I should use that too in order to belong. Eventually, one realizes that great photos can be made with a $100 lens, a $1000 lens, and a $10,000 lens, film or digital, SLR or Rangefinder, bokeh or no bokeh, etc.... it's all up to you to deliver.

...But these days, there is a lot more likelihood that fantastic results are coming from a digital camera, if only for the availability of film and excellent process QC. Not many places that do good E-6 left, for example.

I agree completely. Very sad the state of economical processing and scanning by supposed "pro" labs these days. The only way I'd use film is if I was working in a wet darkroom. Too many roadblocks otherwise.

 

[BenJT]

You guys make it sound so bad, but it really isn't. Film is still widely available, you can still process c-41/e-6 and scan it at home if you want, a lab isn't needed. I don't see the road blocks, but hey, I know nothing.

As far as the decisions Nikon makes, as someone else said, they are a digital imaging company now, like all the other players in the big market, anything film related isn't really in their best interest.

 

[jsrockit]

You guys make it sound so bad, but it really isn't. Film is still widely available, you can still process c-41/e-6 and scan it at home if you want, a lab isn't needed. I don't see the road blocks, but hey, I know nothing.

Roadblocks compared to wet printing color. Film isn't the issue. Some of today's films are some of the best ever. However, home scanning (espeically 35mm) just never seems to come close to what I can get out of today's modern cameras. The various pro lab's (in NYC) scans suck badly unless you shell out major cash. I guess I got spolied by doing my own color printing in the 90s and by now really actually preferring the look of digital for color.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I actually loved the M9 for the great DNG files that have a ton of flexibility for black and white conversion. In that sense, the digital was much better than film. The only few advantages my scanner has is that I can squeeze detail out of severe highlights which the M9 or my current D2x would just blow out. It's all good though. At least I use that as a mantra...

Phil Forrest

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

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

Ooooh! Ask for a sample missing a letter in "Made in Japan"; don't take it out of its shrink wrap. Doesn't matter if it works, collectors won't be using it --it's a party thing 😉

 

[willie_901]

You guys make it sound so bad, but it really isn't. Film is still widely available, you can still process c-41/e-6 and scan it at home if you want, a lab isn't needed. I don't see the road blocks, but hey, I know nothing.

Abosolutely true. All you need is space, decent temperature control and a safe place to store the chemicals. I have heard of people using cheap fish aquariums with thermostated heaters. Chemical disposal is not an issue if you live in a community with a diposal program. Our county has one every spring.

 

[jonmanjiro]

Ok, so I'm not sure how I was wrong initially when I stated:

"Nikon has moved on from film."

Well you're not wrong, but I think you're putting the cart before the horse.

Camera buyers moved on from buying film cameras so Nikon responded. Not the other way around. Nikon made a worldwide announcement about film camera discontinuations in January 2006, but the market had already spoken and the writing was on the wall well before then.

People buy digital cameras. Heck, even you're 100% digital now if I remember correctly 😉

 

[x-ray]

The simple problem was that Nikon were no longer interested in the film market, nor in durable product lines. They just didn't want to sell items that you buy once and use for 10-15 (or more) years.

What motivation did Nikon have to do a limited edition of the S3 with 50 f1.4 and SP with the 35 f1.8? I know that was a few years ago but Nikon was mostly digital at that time.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

What motivation did Nikon have to do a limited edition of the S3 with 50 f1.4 and SP with the 35 f1.8? I know that was a few years ago but Nikon was mostly digital at that time.

Nostalgia. Bragging rights. I think it was a bit of a snub in the face of Leica and Zeiss Ikon with Nikon saying "yeah, we've still got skills." Then released a few thousand examples of two of the finest implementations in 35mm photography ever made. One faithful copy of a truly landmark lens and another lens that was an updated version of the original from half a century prior.

Phil Forrest

 

[jsrockit]

Well you're not wrong, but I think you're putting the cart before the horse.

Camera buyers moved on from buying film cameras so Nikon responded. Not the other way around. Nikon made a worldwide announcement about film camera discontinuations in January 2006, but the market had already spoken and the writing was on the wall well before then.

People buy digital cameras. Heck, even you're 100% digital now if I remember correctly 😉

But if Nikon didn't release digital cameras, then camera buyers couldn't buy them. There's no doubt Nikon had to follow the money though. Still, they have moved on from film and I'm not wrong in saying that.

Yes, i'm 100% digital. I actually prefer the look, but I'm mostly into color photography, so it works for my work. If I was doing a large amount of B&W, I would have to truly consider film again.

 

[jonmanjiro]

Still, they have moved on from film and I'm not wrong in saying that.

Just for the record, I never said you were wrong in saying that.

I'm also not wrong in saying that camera buyers have moved on from film.

Which came first?

Well, if Nikon could still sell film cameras they would, so I think its much more the latter. That distinction is important in my opinion.

 

[mikebell48]

Well, if Nikon could still sell film cameras they would, so I think its much more the latter. That distinction is important in my opinion.

I don't disagree but I think that's only part of the story. The move to digital cameras also gives the likes of Nikon the opportunity to market cameras like other electronic consumer goods with their short upgrade cycle. That leads, of course, to greater sales volume.