Epson V700 vs. Nikon Coolscan V vs. Coolscan 8000

[drums1977]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everyone!

 

it feels good coming back to the forum...

 

Well, I'll explain my situation to see if someone could help me. I own a Epson V700 that I've using a lot in the last 4 years. I was quite content with the results with 35mm and fairly happy with MF. The problem came recently, when I saw some friend's scans of 35mm in a Nikon coolscan V. The difference with my 35mm scans was massive. So I decided to look for an used unit. But then I started seeing some Nikon coolscan 8000 not much more expensive than the V and, considering I scan quite a lot of 6x7, it could come handy (and also I could get rid of the epson). My questions are:

 

- Considering the 8000 belongs to an older generation than the V, will the 35mm scans quality be similar?

- And will I see much of a difference between the V700 and the 8000 in MF?

 

Thanks for your help!

 

J.

[JHAG]

I didn't compare thoroughly, but from what I saw in magazines with highs standards like Lenswork, photographers working even with older Epson scans got outstanding results with it.

The plastic frames of the 8000 and 9000 Nikon are notorious for their poor quality, and Nikon "offered" enhanced frames, a costly option.

I use the Minolta multi pro, also discontinued, with remarkable results, and very good quality standard frames, with or without glass, which allow scans in MF and LF too.

And technical support from Konica in Europe has been very good.

Hope it helps.

Edited March 12, 2010 by JHAG

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[drums1977]

Hi!

 

yes, the minolta multi pro was another option. Don't you miss the ICE feature in it? I use it a lot with the V700. I'm abit worried about the fact that the technology in the Coolscan 8000 and the Minolta scanners is now almost 10 years old...

[JHAG]

Never used ICE.

In that range price, I'm afraid there's no alternative to Minolta and Nikon.

I spoke a lot with him :

Official Scanhancer Site

and it's been useful.

[Guest maddoc2003jp]

I can't speak about the 8000 (or 9000) but have the V700 and 4000ED (I also had the V but sold). In 135 there is some visible difference, like between a 35mm Summicron pre-ASPH and ASPH version. The Nikon gives higher contrast and grain is more pronounced but the detail resolution is not that much better. The 8000 and 9000 have a different light source so that could make a difference.

[drums1977]

Then, would you say you are satisfied with the scanning quality of 35mm film? I shoot mostly triX. Do you use Mnolta software?

 

Tanks!

 

I didn't compare thoroughly, but from what I saw in magazines with highs standards like Lenswork, photographers working even with older Epson scans got outstanding results with it.

The plastic frames of the 8000 and 9000 Nikon are notorious for their poor quality, and Nikon "offered" enhanced frames, a costly option.

I use the Minolta multi pro, also discontinued, with remarkable results, and very good quality standard frames, with or without glass, which allow scans in MF and LF too.

And technical support from Konica in Europe has been very good.

Hope it helps.

[SteveYork]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Can someone post various examples?

[tgray]

From what I've seen, the Nikon V, 4000, 5000, 8000, and 9000 will give you basically the same image. The V is basically a rebadged 4000, without the ability to use the roll adapters. The 5000 is basically a slightly upgraded 4000, with 16 bit converters (makes very little difference), the ability to do multipass, and most importantly, twice as fast as the V. In my mind, the only real reason to get the 5000 instead of the V is the ability to use roll adapters, whose usefulness is somewhat over blown. Just don't scan every frame.

 

The 8000 and 9000 have more diffused light sources which will reduce the appearance of grain by some amount. More importantly they allow you to scan MF. The 9000 has an improved ICE function over the other scanners that is supposed to be better on Kodachrome. I recall something about banding sometimes on the 8000, which could be avoided if you went to 1-line capture mode on the CCD, which slows it down. I think the 9000 does not have this problem. I'm not sure on what the other differences are between the 8000 and the 9000. The 8000 and 9000 should scan up to 4000 dpi on MF, at the same level of detail that the V/5000 does 35mm, so you should see a significant increase in quality over the V700. Of course, if you are only making small prints, that increase of detail won't get you much, but it is there.

 

If you are shooting just 35mm, go with the V, the 5000, or the 4000. If the price differential isn't that much between the V and 5000, just get the 5000. I bought my V new for $600 or $650, while the 5000 was selling new for $1050-1100. Those prices would guide my decision if I was looking at them now.

 

If you shoot MF too and can afford it, get a 9000 or 8000. It will be fine with 35mm, just slower than the V or 5000.

[Photon42]

The 8K is much slower than the V and loading film is definitely easier with the Coolscsan V. The 8K's 35mm film drawer isn't really an engineering delight, but it works. And it does 12 in a row in two tiers side by side. Too bad if you've cut the film differently.

 

The 8K however eats everything 6x9cm or smaller with the right drawer, if that's of any importance. If you buy an 8K, make sure the proper drawers for your application are included or somehow accessible.

 

Regards

Ivo

[JHAG]

Then, would you say you are satisfied with the scanning quality of 35mm film? I shoot mostly triX. Do you use Mnolta software?

 

Tanks!

 

I use VueScan and Minolta soft. Vue Scan is easier, Minolta seems to give better results, especially more saturated colours.

I found my Multi Pro like new in Sweden. Paid 1300 €.

 

Can someone post various examples?

 

I moved recently, so I only have this one handy.

Shot with 180 Hassy. Scanned from Kodak Porta 160.

Original TIFF is 2 x larger.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited March 13, 2010 by JHAG

[roguewave]

You can find a number of threads that detail people's impressions. Here's my response in the "Which Scanner" thread in this forum section. There is no "best" solution, only one that works for you & your needs & budget.

 

"Stefan, I went through the same process. It is very important to have a true understanding of the kind of scan you want & what role the post processing plays. In the past year I have experimented with 4 scanners, The Nikon 5000 & 9000, the Minolta & the Epson 700 & 750.

 

Here's my take; the Minolta is fine, but very average. The Nikons are superior if you want a very high contrast scan. It "looks good" right from the scanner, if you don't want to make individual interventions.

 

The Epson was my final choice. Here's why, I can control the scan to get all the details I want. I tend to want lower contrast & more details. That way, I craft each image in Photoshop by building the scene as I desire, not the scanner's. As Ansel Adams said, "The Negative is the score, The Print is the performance." Ansel tries to promote the individual expression of what he is feeling, not just a replication of the object through the lens. The Epson along with Vuescan as the front end allows you to set up profiles which you can use as first previews & starting points & allow you to experiment with your scans & the freedom to fashion your own vision of what the final image will be.

 

In any case, good luck & keep experimenting. Scanning is a true art & every bit as important as any of the crucial steps in image making."

 

Good luck in your quest. It's a lofty goal.

[drums1977]

Hi!

 

Thanks to all of you for your answers. This is so annoying. At the end of the day, it seems that, basically, the more you spend the better scanner you get. I'm starting to think about just keeping my V700 for medium format and finding a Coolscan V for 35mm. It's just difficult deciding to spend almost 1000 euros in a USED piece of equipment that use to cost less than a half NEW. Let's see, maybe getting a nice film holder like the ones at betterscanning.com can sort me out with MF. My problem with the V700 right now is that the results vary very much fron one roll to another. I develop BW myself, and sometimes film comes out quite bent. Even if the photographs are properly focused, getting a sharp scan in those cases is impossible (the Epson has no autofocus). Epson holders are an embarrassement.

 

And this takes me to one more question, does the Coolscan V's film strip feeder work fine with not-completely-flat film?

 

Thanks again!

[tgray]

Yes but it works better with flat film. After your film dries, cut it up and sleeve it like you normally do. Then lay them out on a table, and put a two foot tall stack of heavy books on them. Leave them for a day or two. They will be noticeably flatter afterwards.

[Don'tknowmuch]

Not about scanning (though I did manage to buy a new Coolscan 5000 last year - what a lucky chap I am; it's great and it's increasing in value!) but about flat film.

I have taken (particularly with Tri-X which is a curler) to taking the film when it's just about dry, and winding it onto a developing reel with the emulsion side out. I leave it in this to get thoroughly dry, then cut it into strips to scan as I work through the film. The film stays flat not only for that scanning session, but seems to hold its shape ok indefinitely.

Jim.

[Adrian Lord]

Coolscan V I think is excellent if you can find one, I love mine.

[pes084k1]

Hi!

 

yes, the minolta multi pro was another option. Don't you miss the ICE feature in it? I use it a lot with the V700. I'm abit worried about the fact that the technology in the Coolscan 8000 and the Minolta scanners is now almost 10 years old...

 

The scanner is a stupid machine, really only sheer resolution (color and luminance), focusing, multi-sampling, 16 bit and IR channel for cleaning are important for film capture. Even Dmax around 3 is more than adequate for prints and HDTV monitors. Technical improvement is on software, especially color matching, deblur (or pre-sharpening) and denoising. My Minolta 5400 II is really capable of exciting aliasing at 103 lp/mm with really good lenses and film on any colour, the modern software will make however a clear difference on final result. The Reflecta RPS 7200 in good hands (sotware/technique) can also be awesome.

 

Cheers

[pes084k1]

I can't speak about the 8000 (or 9000) but have the V700 and 4000ED (I also had the V but sold). In 135 there is some visible difference, like between a 35mm Summicron pre-ASPH and ASPH version. The Nikon gives higher contrast and grain is more pronounced but the detail resolution is not that much better. The 8000 and 9000 have a different light source so that could make a difference.

 

The detail problem in my opinion depends on the quality of capture: high acutance films (Velvia 50, 100 and Provia 400X) and lens optimized for resolution, rather than microcontrast at medium frequencies, must be preferred. Some of modern Leica glass (Elmar-M 18, 24, Summilux 35, Summicron 50 around f/5.6 and 75 ASPH, some Summarits) is optimized in such a way, but not other classical one. In particular, for great detail on scans, the point spread function (the spot diagram) should have tight kernel and coma halo, even not very brilliant, and at least the sagittal 40 lp/mm MTF curve should be close to the 20 lp/mm one and around 70-80% up to 15-18 mm from centre. It comes from physics.

 

Cheers

[Julian Thompson]

This scanning question is driving me nuts to be honest.

 

I'm looking at Epson V750, Nikon Coolscan 9000ED and Hasselblad Flextight X1. The three machines vary in price terrifically, and I'm struggling to understand how I can see the reasoning for the price differences, given that I can't see an example scan of the same negative for the three products! I don't mind at all paying for quality but I need to be convinced.

 

Has anyone seen any comparisons that might be useful to me?

[mod2001]

Hi Julian,

 

look here, it's german, but very easy to navigate and compare. The images were part of a multiuserprojekt, they took the image analog and then send the negativ "around the world" to different users whith different scanners. You also can compare it to the digital file from a Canon 5dMK2 and other Digicams. Of course, it's not a test under perfect conditions but it will give you a better overwiew.

 

DFN Scannervergleich

 

Yogi

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Julian Thompson]

Thats VERY useful - but potentially expensive :-)

 

The Howtek drum scanner simply blows everything into the dust - and I strongly suspect the Flextight will be on a par with it ?