coz Posted July 15, 2010 Share #21 Posted July 15, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I just bought a Coolscan 9000. In stock finally at B&H! I'm planning to scan 35mm for the time being but I may try MF down the road. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 15, 2010 Posted July 15, 2010 Hi coz, Take a look here Film Scanners.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Michael Hiles Posted July 15, 2010 Share #22 Posted July 15, 2010 Not necessarily. Definitely seems to have been the case in the past, but flatbed scanners seem to have gotten a whole lot better. Check out reviews on some of the latest Canon products at Digital Scanner Reviews. I have a Canon 8800F - and I am very satisfied. I have had scans from my local camera shop - they use a Coolscan - and I am happier with the Canon results. Maybe I am better at scanning than they are, but I have no complaints of any kind. I think blanket statements deriding modern flatbed scanners are wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauledell Posted July 15, 2010 Share #23 Posted July 15, 2010 If you are considering a Nikon Cool Scan V, good luck if you needs an upgrade for firmwear. I just had a computer crash and I was able to get download for my Epson flatbed but I don't think I will be able for the Nikon. Their website says there is no firmwear available. What a bummer. Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted July 15, 2010 Share #24 Posted July 15, 2010 Is that the V ED? If so check out the Vuescan site, or partition your drive and install XP or whatever you have drivers for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted July 15, 2010 Share #25 Posted July 15, 2010 Nikon drivers are all on the CD that came with the scanner Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted July 15, 2010 Share #26 Posted July 15, 2010 Andy there are sometimes compatibility issues moving from XP through Vista, twain related, as in no longer. I dont have Nikon so I dont know whether older drivers have been rewritten and updated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted July 15, 2010 Share #27 Posted July 15, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Understood Sorry, never had to worry about that sort of thing. As an aside, Nikon haven't updated the Mac version of Nikon Scan in years, but it still works. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndjambrose Posted July 15, 2010 Share #28 Posted July 15, 2010 Can't comment on the Coolscan V but from personal experience I've found the Coolscan 9000 to be the best scanner available for under £8k. It does batch scanning of 12 frames at a time, has adjustable focus and rock solid film carrier with geared transport. I used to think Epson flatbeds were quite good (I've owned a few) but I was wrong - there's a pronounced difference in quality with a dedicated film scanner. Not least due to focus accuracy: there can be several mm drift between focal plane and film plane when using a flatbed due to the imprecise carrier and method of adjustment. A flatbed scans everything at the same focal plane regardless, but the Coolscan can focus on each frame individually and adjust the focal plane for maximum precision. Plus there's one other very real benefit: scans are always clean and dust free. When I used a flatbed I spent more time cleaning the glass than I ever did scanning..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photoeclipse Posted July 15, 2010 Share #29 Posted July 15, 2010 I agree Neil, having owned an Epson V700, a Coolscan V ED and now a Coolscan 9000. The issues that the V ED had with the Nikon Scan software (I run it on under OSX 10.6.3) which kept it crashing are all gone on the 9000. Strange. The 9000 is a LOT better than the V in terms of convenience and features, but I don't find a huge difference in the quality of 35mm scans. For medium format and large format the Epson was pretty good only once you got the height issues resolved, which took a lot of googling and a fair bit of trial and error. The 9000 still scans MF considerably better though (probably not really so much that you'd notice on the screen though). On an A3+ print the difference is substantial. Then again the Coolscan 9000 is incredibly expensive so you'd be very disappointed if it didn't perform considerably better than the other two I mentioned. Cheers, Phil Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penzes Posted July 15, 2010 Share #30 Posted July 15, 2010 I'm using Coolscan 5000 and 9000 under OSX 10.6.6 without any problems. The quality I had with the Canoscan 8800F was good enough for flickr 900X900 jpg's, but not Ok for prints. Not even with MF! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndjambrose Posted July 15, 2010 Share #31 Posted July 15, 2010 The 9000 still scans MF considerably better though (probably not really so much that you'd notice on the screen though). On an A3+ print the difference is substantial... MF gets much better with the glass film holder. I didn't find the default holder very good - too easy for the film to be unflat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted July 15, 2010 Share #32 Posted July 15, 2010 I've had the Nikon glass MF film holder for just three days, and it makes a huge difference. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penzes Posted July 15, 2010 Share #33 Posted July 15, 2010 I'm using also the glass holder exclusively. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted July 15, 2010 Share #34 Posted July 15, 2010 I have a Canon 8800F - and I am very satisfied. I have had scans from my local camera shop - they use a Coolscan - and I am happier with the Canon results. Maybe I am better at scanning than they are, but I have no complaints of any kind. I think blanket statements deriding modern flatbed scanners are wrong. Good to hear. I am considering one. Yet another alternative: Has anybody had any experience with the Plustek 7400? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfage Posted July 15, 2010 Share #35 Posted July 15, 2010 Good to hear. I am considering one. Yet another alternative: Has anybody had any experience with the Plustek 7400? I have the 7600i and am quite happy with it. I have a 700 at home but this is for the road. The 7600 is great with Vuescan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coz Posted July 15, 2010 Share #36 Posted July 15, 2010 I'm using also the glass holder exclusively. even with 35mm? Is it worth it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted July 15, 2010 Share #37 Posted July 15, 2010 Now I was just thinking about that this morning - it would be easy to put a 35mm negative strip into the MF glass carrier and then just crop down to the frame desired. I don't know if it would be worth the effort as a 35mm neg holds fairly flat in the supplied carrier, being so much smaller than 120 film. I'll have to give it a try and find out. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted July 15, 2010 Share #38 Posted July 15, 2010 Back to the Plustek again, I understand only the 7600 works with Macs. Quite a few choices, and it's important! A slide holds packs about 20 megapixels worth of information into its 24 x 36mm frame but some scans can only extract a third of that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfage Posted July 15, 2010 Share #39 Posted July 15, 2010 Back to the Plustek again, I understand only the 7600 works with Macs. Quite a few choices, and it's important! A slide holds packs about 20 megapixels worth of information into its 24 x 36mm frame but some scans can only extract a third of that. Actually I heard it was the other way around. I heard that lots of mac people were having problems but it was fixed. I'm not having any issues. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photoeclipse Posted July 16, 2010 Share #40 Posted July 16, 2010 Just to add to what Neil, Chris and Istvan said, I'm using a glass holder for MF too - It's ridiculously expensive, but if you're going to go to the expense of getting a 9000, you're probably not making the most of it by using a glassless carrier for MF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.