Epson V700 vs. Nikon Coolscan V vs. Coolscan 8000

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If anything, Leica should be the company co-developing or co-branding a scanner equipped with their lenses, with japanese electronics. A scan-focomat type. They have the niche customer base (from M2/M3 to MP)/M7) to use them.

Pricing would aim a medium-high target (anything in the 2000/5000 range). I could not justify the purchase of an Imacon for 13000 $,

but my 30 000 + negs would justify such a medium tag price.

 

I would love to see that happen, and I think many others would agree. It would doubtless be a success in Japan also.

 

Pity that Leica's business strategy is also heading in a different direction...

[JHAG]

I would love to see that happen, and I think many others would agree. It would doubtless be a success in Japan also.

 

Pity that Leica's business strategy is also heading in a different direction...

 

From now on, it's not because Andreasis listening to us and M. Spiller is monitoring this conversation.

Dave Bowman: Hello, HAL. Do you read me, HAL?

HAL: Affirmative, Dave. I read you.

Edited April 6, 2010 by JHAG

[Advertisement]

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

[nhabedi]

If anything, Leica should be the company co-developing or co-branding a scanner equipped with their lenses, with japanese electronics.

 

Why should they? Didn't we just learn that only a mere five percent of the cameras they're selling are film cameras?

 

Well, at least Leica will still develop and print your negatives. They're probably the only camera maker offering such a service...

[plasticman]

Why should they? Didn't we just learn that only a mere five percent of the cameras they're selling are film cameras?

 

Well, at least Leica will still develop and print your negatives. They're probably the only camera maker offering such a service...

 

Wow I didn't know Leica also developed film. I wonder if they add red-edges to wide shots?

 

Maybe film cameras would climb to 10% if they released a scanner? Incidentally, the percentage is surely rather misleading - the M9 sales are in a sense a massive blip in the statistics. It's quite understandable therefore that film cameras appear a smaller percentage of the current total - but I'd be more interested in stats that follow a longer-term sample.

[jplomley]

No doubt in my mind that they would sell a lot more scanners than they have the $15K Pradovit digital projector. IMHO, that was a waste of resource and research $$.

[nhabedi]

Wow I didn't know Leica also developed film. I wonder if they add red-edges to wide shots?

 

The service is for black-and-white only...

[nhabedi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No doubt in my mind that they would sell a lot more scanners than they have the $15K Pradovit digital projector. IMHO, that was a waste of resource and research $$.

 

Well, for every Leica product there are a couple of forum members who think the product is useless...

 

But I, for one, would certainly prefer a high-quality Leica 35mm film scanner below Hasselblad's price level over the Pradovit.

[plasticman]

Can someone explain something about the images that were very usefully linked to in an earlier post.

 

I took a side-by-side screenshot comparing the Coolscan V ED on the left, and the Coolscan 9000 ED on the right. As far as I know, these two scanners should have pretty much similar results on 35mm scans (the 9000 does medium format as well, of course), as they both scan at 4000dpi and while the 9000 has 16bit color depth to the V's 14bit, everyone seems to say that this should make little difference.

 

However, imo this comparison makes the V look terrible next to the 9000 (and the 8000 for that matter). Are these differences typical? Or was this simply a very poor scan on the V?

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!

[nhabedi]

Can someone explain something about the images that were very usefully linked to in an earlier post.

 

I took a side-by-side screenshot comparing the Coolscan V ED on the left, and the Coolscan 9000 ED on the right. As far as I know, these two scanners should have pretty much similar results on 35mm scans (the 9000 does medium format as well, of course), as they both scan at 4000dpi and while the 9000 has 16bit color depth to the V's 14bit, everyone seems to say that this should make little difference.

 

However, imo this comparison makes the V look terrible next to the 9000 (and the 8000 for that matter). Are these differences typical? Or was this simply a very poor scan on the V?

 

Two important differences (AFAIK) are that the DMax of the 9000 is much higher and that it has a different light source, so you shouldn't really expect the results to be similar. However, I would only expect this to effect the appearance of grain (light source) and the shadow areas (DMax). That there's such an obvious difference in resolution in the pictures you're showing here just demonstrates that one shouldn't trust Internet comparisons...

 

Edit: It could of course be sharpness instead of resolution and that could for example be due to the V ED scan not being in focus for whatever reason. Anyway, this doesn't look like a fair "test" to me.

[menos I M6]

Supposedly also the lens and AF system alignment of high end scanners are objective to misalignment or sample variation.

 

Thanks for reminding, as this is a fact, that can be easily forgotten, when on a frenzy over some highly overpriced second hand scanners!

[cocker]

Can someone explain something about the images that were very usefully linked to in an earlier post.

 

I took a side-by-side screenshot comparing the Coolscan V ED on the left, and the Coolscan 9000 ED on the right. As far as I know, these two scanners should have pretty much similar results on 35mm scans (the 9000 does medium format as well, of course), as they both scan at 4000dpi and while the 9000 has 16bit color depth to the V's 14bit, everyone seems to say that this should make little difference.

 

However, imo this comparison makes the V look terrible next to the 9000 (and the 8000 for that matter). Are these differences typical? Or was this simply a very poor scan on the V?

 

I'm not into "scientific" comparisons but I had the 5000ED and replaced it with a 9000ED. My 35mm scans are better with the 9000 so I'm happy.

[nhabedi]

However, I would only expect this to effect the appearance of grain (light source) and the shadow areas (DMax).

 

I meant to say affect, of course.

 

@menos: Yes, misalignment could be a reason, but it could also simply be out of focus because the user performing the "test" tried manual focus. Or because the negative/slide wasn't flat and/or different holders were used. Or whatever...

[menos I M6]

I meant to say affect, of course.

 

@menos: Yes, misalignment could be a reason, but it could also simply be out of focus because the user performing the "test" tried manual focus. Or because the negative/slide wasn't flat and/or different holders were used. Or whatever...

 

[plasticman]

No doubt in my mind that they would sell a lot more scanners than they have the $15K Pradovit digital projector. IMHO, that was a waste of resource and research $$.

 

Reflecting again on the supposed 5% level of new film-camera sales for Leica in the past year (which I consider rather high, when you think of the statistical 'blip' of M9 sales) , and also the very buoyant used Leica film-camera market, I personally think that Leica would have been well-advised to produce a film-scanner for this massive market, rather than the projector.

 

I see quite good HD projectors are selling for around one-fifteenth of the Pradovit price. Anyone with any insight into how many have been sold?

 

I can only imagine the sharpness of scans coming from a Leica-designed lens. Teamed with a Japanese partner for electronics, we could have a truly great scanner that would probably feed back into Leica camera sales also. A win-win situation for everyone.

 

Okay I'm done with my armchair Leica business plan for today. (Better than putting video on the M10 anyway)

[drums1977]

Well, I finally had the time to test my new Nikon Coolscan V against the Epson V700. I have to say that I am quite disappointed, although I hope some of you could help me change that.

 

For my fisrt scans with the Coolscan I used TriX400, EI 400, developped in Xtol 1:1. First impression: Dirty, very grainy negatives. I am very anal when it comes to hadling negs, so I found it shocking to find so much dust. I disabled all USM, ROC, GEM, ICE, etc, of course. I tried then turning the grain reduction tool on (just to level 2), but it didnt change much. Same with the image enhancing tool. I scanned at 3200 dpi then, since I read that scanning at maximun resolution accetuates grain. It was a bit better, but not much. Then, since my begatives were fairly flat, I decided scanning them with the old V700. Well, I was upset then. The image were a tiny bit less sharp, almost unoticebly, but the images were much less grainy and very clean (after all the handling, I expected them to be dirtier, not cleaner!) The Epson images were so much easier to work with. I applied a tiny bit of USM in PS (50, 1, 0 settings) and then it was almost sharper than the nikon.

 

These are the two files right out of the scanner (reduced):

 

Imageshack - comparison1.jpg

 

And 100% crops:

 

Imageshack - testepsonnikon.jpg

 

I plan to scan a lot of trix, and I'd like to use my new Coolscan, can anyone provide me with some tips?

 

Thanks!

[adan]

drums1977 - you could contact Scanhancer and see if they have gotten any further with developing this: Official Scanhancer Site

 

Basically a diffuser for the light source to make the illumination of the film more like that created by flatbeds.

 

The 9000 ED apparently has a rod diffuser for the LEDs to be less harsh than the 5000/V scanners (but not as soft as the fluorescent tube or panel lighting in most flatbeds).

[Guido]

Well, I finally had the time to test my new Nikon Coolscan V against the Epson V700. I have to say that I am quite disappointed, although I hope some of you could help me change that.

You might not like the grain (although I doubt that you would see any of it in the final print; after all, a 100% crop on the monitor corresponds to a mural-size print several feet wide).

 

However, I would like to draw your attention to other qualities of the image: (1) as you can see in the tree and pavement, the Coolscan clearly resolves more detail than the V700; (2) the Coolscan is able to pull out more detail in the shadows in the upper right.

 

Therefore, no need to be too disappointed

[JHAG]

drums1977 - you could contact Scanhancer and see if they have gotten any further with developing this: Official Scanhancer Site

 

Basically a diffuser for the light source to make the illumination of the film more like that created by flatbeds.

 

The 9000 ED apparently has a rod diffuser for the LEDs to be less harsh than the 5000/V scanners (but not as soft as the fluorescent tube or panel lighting in most flatbeds).

 

 

Andy,

I discussed many times with the promoter of Scanhancer. He never completed his project to develop the same filter for the 9000. I use his with the Minolta with great results.

[j. borger]

I plan to scan a lot of trix, and I'd like to use my new Coolscan, can anyone provide me with some tips?

 

You are facing the fact that the difference between the Coolscan and V700 is not as large as expected. Just use the v700 and sell the Nikon

 

The v700 has a very mixed reputation on the forums but it actually is a very good scanner, even for 35mm if:

- film is dried/kept flat (glassholders!!)

- heighth of filmholders is carefully optimized

- capture and output sharpening are carefully applied and accepted as part of the workflow

 

V700 scans simply need more sharpening than Nikon scans. Nothing wrong with that.

Just like an image fron a Canon DSLR needs more sharpening than an image from a Leica M8 or M9.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[drums1977]

Thanks for the support!!

 

Anyway, the fact is that I've seen scans of silver based BW film with the Coolscan V and they looked less grainy and cleaner than mine, so maybe it's got something to do with the scanning options.

 

Yesterday I used Vuescan and Nikon Scan, and I liked the Nikon Scan better. So, a question to the ones among you using this scanner to scan triX, Tmax, Neopan, etc, how do you do it?!!

 

Thanks!

 

J.