dfoo
Well-known
You can find full resolution plustek and Nikon 5000 scans on flickr. Of course, without doing a side-by-side comparison on the same negative you cannot really tell. However, from a casual look the Nikon 5000 scans are clearly superior... but perhaps not $800-1000 superior 
The workflow of the 5000 is definitely far superior. The plustek, from what I understand, can only scan a single negative at a time. The Nikon can do a whole roll if you have the roll adapter, or have suitably hacked the film loader.
The workflow of the 5000 is definitely far superior. The plustek, from what I understand, can only scan a single negative at a time. The Nikon can do a whole roll if you have the roll adapter, or have suitably hacked the film loader.
bmattock
Veteran
JTK
Established
Last edited:
JTK
Established
Last edited:
Jonas
Established
Dunno about the 5000, but I heard that the 9000 is on its way out. Directly from a friend that works for Nikon... No words about replacement. Sad if its true. Didnt ask about the 5000. He told me this about 6 months ago.
mh2000
Well-known
Wrong! B&W looks different from film than digital... even though I have made nice digital b&w images that hang happily next to my scanned and inkjet printed b&w film images.
>>I suspect that few who worry about demise of scanners have yet experienced success with DSLR/inkjet.
>>I suspect that few who worry about demise of scanners have yet experienced success with DSLR/inkjet.
kuzano
Veteran
Why would they do that....
Why would they do that....
Is Nikon making film cameras...particularly announcing new ones?
I don't know.... I'm just asking. (And anyone is welcome to invite me to do my research before posting.)
If their not, why would they pursue another avenue of film that is very likely not profitable....scanning film?
Why would they do that....
Is Nikon making film cameras...particularly announcing new ones?
I don't know.... I'm just asking. (And anyone is welcome to invite me to do my research before posting.)
If their not, why would they pursue another avenue of film that is very likely not profitable....scanning film?
bcostin
Well-known
Disappointing. Maybe I should buy a 9000 while they're still available new. My Coolscan V won't last forever, and three generations of slides and negatives aren't going to scan themselves.
I suppose that's what would bother me most if decent mid-range film scanners do disappear from the market. It'll raise the cost of archiving and sharing our old photos. A few hundred dollars for a Coolscan V wasn't too much to swallow, particularly since I'm shooting film myself, but I doubt that I could afford to send my "collection" of family slides and negatives off to be professionally scanned.
I suppose that's what would bother me most if decent mid-range film scanners do disappear from the market. It'll raise the cost of archiving and sharing our old photos. A few hundred dollars for a Coolscan V wasn't too much to swallow, particularly since I'm shooting film myself, but I doubt that I could afford to send my "collection" of family slides and negatives off to be professionally scanned.
Last edited:
Faintandfuzzy
Well-known
And your source?
Harry Lime
Practitioner
I have both the 5000ED and 9000ED. Both are at the top of their class. The 9000ED is the closest thing to a IMACON 343 you're going to find this side of $5000 or more...
If the 9000ED is really gone, then that's a pretty serious blow to anyone still shooting film. Who can afford an Imacon these days? Hasselblad/Imacon discontinued the base model (about $4000). The most affordable model is now around $6000-8000.
Ouch.
kievman
Kievman
I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon Discontinued its scanner line altogether. which is sad, but unfortunately it comes down to simple economics in the name of EPSON- Epson's v750 scanner can make scans compariable to the Nikon 9000 and costs only about half as much. Som might argue the 9000 is better but most would say only marginal better. and not 600-800.00 better. And epson keep on coming out with new models of their scanners every month it seems, especially their cheaper models. BTW I own 2 nikon scanners- a coolscan 4 and 5 and 1 epson scanner, a 4190 photo, which I use for MF, It does a OK job on the MF and makes decent if not great 35mm scans. the nikons certainly do a better job. but for the 200.00 NIB price, it was well worth it -` Michael
Last edited:
jke
Well-known
Whether or not Nikon makes scanners, the problem will eventually be software and/or connectivity. Once the operating systems change enough to require new drivers or the computer manufacturers decide to go with a faster, differently shaped/operated interface, owners of scanners & other peripherals will be at the mercy of the gods (Hamrick?) But I guess this shouldn't be too shocking. Digital cameras also face the same sort of obsolescence potential, unless manufacturers decide that legacy support is an important part of their business model.
Still, I think if you have a couple thousand dollars or more tied up in Leica film equipment and you don't intend to buy an M8.x, spending $1500 or so on an excellent film scanner is perhaps a decently smart investment in film technology. Or move to NYC where film lives.
Still, I think if you have a couple thousand dollars or more tied up in Leica film equipment and you don't intend to buy an M8.x, spending $1500 or so on an excellent film scanner is perhaps a decently smart investment in film technology. Or move to NYC where film lives.
gdi
Veteran
If only that were true I don't think there would be so much angst about Nikon abandoning the market. But unfortunately, the Epson's simply aren't in the same league as the Coolscans - if you want the quality of the 5000/9000 you have to bite the bullet and ante up.
fbf
Well-known
Apparent you haven't searched the imacon on ebay. The used flextight I and II are both under 2000$ range and sometimes much less (saw one complete 343 package sold for 750$ on ebay not long ago).
I wouldn't buy the 9000ed new if I am in market for a scanner. the used 8000ed is just as good and is much cheaper.
wintoid
Back to film
Ulp! I thought everything worked with Vuescan under Linux. What's the problem with the Plustek Bill?
Also, what about those slide copier type devices that let you photograph your negatives with a DSLR. Why are these not used more? Are they inherently poor quality, or is it just that noone has done it well yet? (e.g. really even light source).
bmattock
Veteran
No, there are a few that are obstinate. Even my own Epson 4490, works with vuescan if your version of Linux is not 64-bit (mine is) and you have to download and install a custom driver from 'Avaya' (epkowa driver). I have since set up my home webcam/web/email/etc server to be my scanning platform, which is fine, not 64-bit.
The Plusteks apparently only work under Windows with Vuescan:
http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/vuescan.htm#plustek
I haven't used one yet, but my gut feeling is that they're just not that good. Consider that a 'scanner' is moving a sensor over the film in rather close proximity to it, I think of that like a contact print. Then the new 'take a photo of the negative' device attachments, which place the sensor some distance from the film, and pass it through at least one set of lenses along the way - that seems more like optical enlargement. Which is sharper, a contact print or an optical enlargement? Perhaps a bad analogy, but that's how it seems to my way of thinking. I am prepared to be corrected by someone with some really cracking shots reproduced using the adapter.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
I would really have to see a side by side comparison, because I find that difficult to believe. The 9000ED is as good as the Imacon 343. I can't see how the v750 can compete in terms of resolution or dynamic range.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I guess it's what you ultimately plan to do with the images, whether a Nikon 9000ED is worth the extra money. Absolutes get bandied about a lot on the web.
I have a friend that is routinely published in flower and garden magazines (has been for 30 years) and she scans all her slides with an Epson 4490. These are run 1/2 and full page routinely in the magazines, and look great. Magazines never ask what scanner was used, as long as the files match their guidelines.
I'm not sure the differences between the low end and high end are that great in the real world.
I have a friend that is routinely published in flower and garden magazines (has been for 30 years) and she scans all her slides with an Epson 4490. These are run 1/2 and full page routinely in the magazines, and look great. Magazines never ask what scanner was used, as long as the files match their guidelines.
I'm not sure the differences between the low end and high end are that great in the real world.