Will there be a new Nikon Scanner lineup soon? (PMA)

B

bedaberger

Guest
The Coolscan V LS-50 is discontinued since August 2008.

I just searched some dealers on the web, most of them are also out of stock of the Coolscan 9000 (LS-9000) or they show "limited stock".

Is this an indicator that there comes a whole new lineup of Scanners as Nikon tries to sell off there "old" Scanners?

Introduction of some scanners:
2000 - Coolscan III
2002 - Coolscan IV
2003 - Coolscan V
2009 - ? :)

The quality of Scans is actually very good, but there would be some improvements possible:
* overall scanspeed - incl. autofocus, exp.metering,...
* batch scan capabilities - scan a whole film at once, not possible with Coolscan V for example...
* easier colormanagment - improved / included profiles for all current available neg.films, etc.

So, what do you think?
Does somebody know more?

Peter
 
I would be very surprised to see anymore new dedicated film scanners introduced in that class of scanners. I really don't think there is enough of demand for Nikon to warrant making them. OTH I could be wrong and pleasantly surprised if it does happen.

Bob
 
I just don't understand why Nikon prices their scanners at $1100...if only they made a sub $300-$400 scanner, they'd sell a lot more. I know, I know supple and demand, but I refuse to believe they can't make a more affordable scanner.
 
As I understand from a couple people I have spoken with, the current line is it. Nikon will continue making the 5000 and the 9000 but only in batches, thus the seemingly eternal back-order status. I back-ordered my 9000 with B&H and got it the next time some came available. Seemed to take about two weeks. You mileage may vary depending on when the next batch is due.
 
... and that's a real shame. With no Minolta Dimage Multi-Pro and no Nikon 9000 there aren't many options left for affordable desktop film scanning. I own an Epson v700, and the quality on the latter doesn't nearly approach what I get with my Mutli-Pro. (I primarily scan 35mm, and occasionally medium format.)

Many years ago, I was on the trailing edge of scanning, holding onto my old SCSI Umax scanner with Mac OS 9 until it was totally impractical to do so. I imagine that sooner or later Firewire 400 will disappear. The Multi-Pro software will cease to work in the latest OS X release, and eventually it'll cease mechanically working altogether.

I think that it's unfortunately very possible that the mixed film/digital workflow for 35mm will die before 35mm film itself dies. It's a good thing that I still have my enlarger!
 
I suspect that few who worry about demise of scanners have yet experienced success with DSLR/inkjet.


I love rangefinder/SLR, stand-processed B&W film, and my Nikon V does beautiful B&W scans...but frankly, my Pentax K20D with prime lenses blows all that away in most situations (inkjet printing both: first with Epson 2200 and now with 3800 , both making excellent, neutral B&W with OEM ink).


Film still has niche advantages (eg certain portrait situations, I think, and Fuji Astia for big color prints), but not enough to draw me away from the superiority of digital in 95%. Certainly, the Pentax accomplishes higher detail resolution than 100iso films, and its 1600iso is more handsome than most of the TriX I see, no matter the skill. ++++++++

IMO to persist with film, some will soon start to return to wet darkrooms. I wish I had the space and could afford the paper (price will zoom upward) to do that occasionally. Making that fantasy tough, DSLR and 3800 are absolutely wonderful.
 
Last edited:
Klick said:
How about the Plustek scanners are they any good?
Click to expand...

They have received some good reviews, but they apparently are not quite as good as the Nikons - some compare them favorably to the older Konica Minolta Scan Dual IV. I wish they worked with Vuescan under Linux, but they don't, so that's a deal-killer for me.
 
JTK said:
I suspect that few who worry about demise of scanners have yet experienced success with DSLR/inkjet. I'm very competent with rangefinder/SLR, stand-processed B&W film, and my Nikon V...but frankly, my Pentax K20D with prime lenses blows that away in most situations. Film still has niche advantages, but not enough to keep me at it. Certainly, the Pentax accomplishes higher detail resolution than most films, and its 1600iso is more handsome than most of the TriX I see. ++++++++
Click to expand...

To the contrary. And in addition to that, MF format film 'blows away' anything your K20D can produce. And I'm a dSLR fan too, although I only have an *ist DS.

I think dedication to film really does call for a wet darkroom. I wish I had the space.
Click to expand...

I do just fine with my Scan Dual IV for 35mm and Epson flatbeds for medium format and B&W film that I process in the kitchen of my one-bedroom apartment. Before that, I processed it in the kitchen of a house where I rented a single 9x12 room. A wet darkroom is really only necessary for making optical enlargements. Scanners work great.
 
bmattock said:
I thought as long as there was demand, there would always be supply? Isn't that how it works?
Click to expand...

Not in basic economics. The real equation is that PRICE is the measure of supply and demand. If there is lots of demand and little supply, like for the Mamiya 6, then prices go up. If there is lots of supply and little demand, like for a Polaroid 600, then prices go down.

The demand for film scanners has decreased as film usage has decreased. With shrinking demand, Nikon must reduce the supply of scanners if they want to get a decent price for them.
 
Yes and no

Yes and no

JTK said:
I suspect that few who worry about demise of scanners have yet experienced success with DSLR/inkjet.


I love rangefinder/SLR, stand-processed B&W film, and my Nikon V does beautiful B&W scans...but frankly, my Pentax K20D with prime lenses blows all that away in most situations (inkjet printing both: first with Epson 2200 and now with 3800 , both making excellent, neutral B&W with OEM ink).


Film still has niche advantages (eg certain portrait situations, I think, and Fuji Astia for big color prints), but not enough to draw me away from the superiority of digital in 95%. Certainly, the Pentax accomplishes higher detail resolution than 100iso films, and its 1600iso is more handsome than most of the TriX I see, no matter the skill. ++++++++

IMO continuation with film will soon demand returns to wet darkrooms. I wish I had the space and could afford the paper (price will zoom upward).
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100% since I own two good dslr. But In my opinion, for coulour rendition in portraiture I have seen no dslr get any close to Kodak Portra. The Canon 5D comes close but not quite as realistic. The other aspect of film is that you can get excellent quality on very small cameras (Konica C35 for example). With the exception of the Sigma DP1 I have not seen any digital compact I would be satisfied to buy.
 
Plusteks are nowhere near a Nikon or even Konica-Minolta. If you know any german, or can translate it, theres a test-site: www.filmscanner.info. They actually measured the resolutions of many scanners with test charts.

I'm not saying photography is about numbers, but most other scanner tests focus on mainstream properties that a demanding photographer doesn't really need compared to real quality.

The tests say, that if you use a Plustek 7200 with full 7200 dpi resolution chosen, you actually get about 2900. This means your files are humongous and the scanning takes a loooooong time. Also the dynamic range of Plustek scanners lacks a lot compared to these better ones (there is a comparison against Coolscan V).

Compared to this, Konica-Minolta Scan Dual IV approaches 3100 dpi out of 3200 and Coolscan V 3900/4000. This all said, I would rather buy a used Minolta or Nikon than any new Plustek. Part of this is just to boycot this kind of "7200 dpi" advertisigin ;).
 
bmattock said:
I thought as long as there was demand, there would always be supply? Isn't that how it works?
Click to expand...

No. Supply rarely rises to meet demand for anything. Supply is created to meet shareholder's requirements. Nikon could make a profit on scanners, but that would divert marketing budget and management from the shareholders' big game, which currently is D90/D700 (for the market that would otherwise buy a scanner).
 
JTK said:
No. Supply rarely rises to meet demand for anything. Supply is created to meet shareholder's requirements. Nikon could make a profit on scanners, but that would divert marketing budget and management from the shareholders' big game, which currently is D90/D700 (for the market that would otherwise buy a scanner).
Click to expand...

;) No fooling?

Sorry, I was speaking in jest. I agree with you. Old joke.
 
bmattock said:
To the contrary. And in addition to that, MF format film 'blows away' anything your K20D can produce. And I'm a dSLR fan too, although I only have an *ist DS.

No need to quibble. K20D @ 1600iso B&W produces a long tonal scale, very little noise (does look like modest TriX grain @800). This is far better than *istDS, though that's a fine tool as well.

I've not seen much good MF, ever, among amateurs. I shot a lot of 6X7 and 6X9 and it's certainly capable of fine images of static subjects. None of the MF cameras have ever approached the ruggedness of K20D (or K10D), and that's a real issue for active photographers...explains why Mamiya/Fuji abandoned rangefinders.

Obviously, for a studio portrait photographer there's still an argument for MF, but not if he's doing good business because Mamiya's relatively inexpensive MF digital beats MF film.

:) Would it be rude to say "D'oh! after the following quote?

" A wet darkroom is really only necessary for making optical enlargements."\Scanners work great.
Click to expand...

I've processed film properly (ie Nikor/Kinderman stainless) in a bathroom or wherever, in the daylight, using a changing bag for thirty-plus years, using darkrooms for printing up until I got a Nikon V scanner. Perhaps happily, the total demise of good scanners (unless Plustek's smarter than they seem) will make return to optical printing necessary for the very few serious photographers who will continue to shoot film (and who by definition print their own and don't tolerate cheap photolab scans).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom