Coolscan 5000 or Epson V 700/750

[Don'tknowmuch]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Coolscan 5000 or Epson V 700/750

 

Sorry everyone - I know we've been here before. I have tried to look at old threads but can't seem to find quite the right thing.

My question is the obvious one.

I will propose, for the purposes of asking straightforward objective opinions, that the cost of the two options is not an issue.

I want the best quality of image. Secondly I would be interested in hearing about reliability issues, ease of use etc.

I always print (Epson 2400) so am not just scanning for the sake of it. I'd like to go to A3 if the 35mm-derived image stands it, but I want the neg to be the limiting factor, not the scan.

Just today I went in to a shop with knowledgable staff prepared to be told the Coolscan would suit me best, but the guy was quite persuasive in favour of the Epson, cost aside...

Again - sorry to ask any kind souls who might have the patience to go through this again but I can't find answers in old threads. I'm sure it's there, but I just can't find it in so many words!

Brief answers would be fine, though any further insight welcome.

Both items are in stock in the shop and tomorrow I expect to be buying one or the other! i won't eBay this as the 5000 seems to be up near the price of new anyway, with none of the warranty advantages.

Yours with thanks as always,

Jim.

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest Bernd Banken]

Jim,

all my analog pics are scanned with the little brother, the Cool V.

 

Both scanners are not comparable in terms of handling 24x36 material. The Nikon is a dedicated filmscanner, the Epson a multiformat scanner.

 

If you plan to expand your negative size, f.e. to medium format, the Epson comes into discussion due to a lower buying price compare to a Nikon 9000. The lower cost will correspond to the lower outputquality of 24x36 or smaller, but the medium format size will forgive this.

 

So it's easy for you to decide.......

Cheers Bernd

[Marquinius]

I bought the V750 and am happy with it. Scanning 120 film is done by a thingy in which you can clamp cut down slices of about 6 to 8 pics ( I shoot film with a Bronica 645).

 

pro: multi purpose, good scanner

anti: fidling with film in holders

overall: very happy

 

Marco

[richam]

I don't have the Epson V 700/750, rather the Epson 4490 and Nikon 9000. Based on this, the dedicated film Nikon has a distinct edge in quality and productivity. I believe you would be much happier with the Nikon. I offer the following comparison. The V 700/750 would have to offer an order of magnitude better quality than the 4490 to compare with the Nikon:

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!

 

Of course, you could process the Epson image in photoshop to bring out better detail, but isn't it better to capture the detail during the scan?

[leica dream]

I purchased a V700 just after Christmas and have been scanning many quite old 35mm transparancies with great success. True one has to "tweek" the images sometimes but they print delightfully.

Richard

[Tim B]

I got an Epson 750 to scan my medium format film and also have a Minolta Elite Scan 5400 for 35mm. I couldn't stretch to £2k for the NIkon 9000!

 

I'm quite sure that for critical 35mm work the Minolta is better than the Epson 750, but not by such a huge margin that up to say 10x8 you can't get a good print. In fact I've started using the Epson for 35mm low res. batch scans to make contact sheets for filing - it is so much quicker this way. Then when I choose shots I want to print I do a high res. scan in the Minolta.

 

I have to say that I haven't managed to produce a scan by the Epson as poor in quality as the example shown above by Michael. It is also improved if you obtain the Anti-Newton glasses from Betterscan - these certainly make a huge difference for MF. You also have to take care with the film holder positioning on the Epson.

 

So, I think that the Epson is pretty good (especially used with Vuescan) unless you need really big enlargements. And it is a lot cheaper than the Nikon. And did I hear that there is some doubt about the future of Nikon continuing to produce their scanners?

 

Good luck,

 

Tim

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Nikon scanners do one thing, very well. The Epsons do more than one thing. 'Nuff said.

 

IMHO, of course.

[Fernmelder]

I use an Epson V500 and the filmholder is not very forgiving with slightly bend filmstrips. Also the lights are overglowing sometimes. Sharpness is also an issue with it. It surely does prints better than negatives as far as my experiences were.

[xrogers]

I've used the Nikon V and the Epson 700 a fair bit.

 

The Nikon wins for quality without question. If your films are uncut, the 5000 has a roll film adapter that looks really nice.

 

The Epson wins for format versatility. I also prefer it for 35mm when doing moderate resolution bulk scanning of cut negatives---I can load four strips of four color negs (it would handle six, but I have many hundreds of rolls cut into fours at the lab), hit preview (it quickly makes thumbnails), rotate a few, and hit scan.

 

But for quality, the Nikon.

 

Later,

 

Clyde

[NZDavid]

Haven't got one but I'd lean towards the Nikon. I have seen massive variations in scans from different scanners. I'd also be skeptical about dealer recommendations -- unless they are truly independent. Ask to see examples of both side by side. After all, it's your hard-earned cash!

[woody]

I have both of these scanners. For 35mm film, there is no comparison. The samples posted by Michael above are exactly my experiences. If you plan to scan mostly 35mm film, get the Nikon and maybe a cheaper flatbed.

 

Got both at B&H.

[antistatic]

I am ashamed to say I have both. The Coolscan for 35mm (no regrets) then I bought a V700 for MF. Both togethr are still way cheaper than the Coolscan 9000. I justifed the V700 as the cost of scanning MF professionally where I live would equal the cost of the V700 after about 7 rolls.

 

If you have no interest in MF then I think the LS 5000 is the winner, if you want to both, it gets more difficult.

 

FWIT anything square on my flickr page is MF scanned on V700 and anything rectangle is 35mm scanned on LS 5000.

[stealthman_1]

I have both as well. The Coolscan does have a better scan quality, but I get much better quality from the V700 than shown above. I now scan all my b&w with the V700 as I find its non ICE dust removal, pretty decent. I can also state that MF Velvia slides scanned with the V700 make my D3 NEFs look sick on a 30 inch ACD.

[Guest Bernd Banken]

I am ashamed to say I have both. The Coolscan for 35mm (no regrets) then I bought a V700 for MF. Both togethr are still way cheaper than the Coolscan 9000. I justifed the V700 as the cost of scanning MF professionally where I live would equal the cost of the V700 after about 7 rolls.

 

If you have no interest in MF then I think the LS 5000 is the winner, if you want to both, it gets more difficult.

 

FWIT anything square on my flickr page is MF scanned on V700 and anything rectangle is 35mm scanned on LS 5000.

 

David,

 

this is exactly the way I want to go. After restarting photography I didn't even thought about MF but after two years I bought a Mamiya 7II beside my MP. The first frames of a Fujichrome scanned by a shop was a very negative experience in terms of quality and dustspots.

My second hand Nikon V increased in value within one year, very exciting to see this trend with an electronical device....a result of growing analog photography?

So a strategy going with two different scanners is the cheapest solution when top end quality or professional goals are not necessary. But it's a shame to queeze down the results of the wonderful Mamiya lenses which will happen (but not so visible compare to 35mm I hope).

 

Cheers

Bernd

[Guest maddoc2003jp]

[ATTACH]130122[/ATTACH]

 

Of course, you could process the Epson image in photoshop to bring out better detail, but isn't it better to capture the detail during the scan?

 

I have just done that (processing your Epson image in Photoshop, my apologies for editing your photo in advance !) and find the results obtained with the Epson not to bad. I use a Epson V700 myself (since I scan both, 135 and 120) but had the Nikon Coolscan V ED before. The Epson V700 needs a) ANR glass inserts to hold the film flat and a steeper contrast setting either in the Epson (or other scan software) or photo-edit software to get good results.

 

Here is a comparison I made, using both the Epson V700 and Nikon Coolscan (V ED):

 

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!

[Don'tknowmuch]

Thanks again, all, for your responses. As I said, I’m sorry to have asked this question as I feel sure it’s been done somewhat to death already… But the reason I’m thinking of this now is that I’m slightly concerned that if Nikon pull out of film-scanning altogether now may be my last opportunity to get one!

I already have an Epson Photo 2450 flatbed, which scans at a true 2400dpi, albeit with elderly technology and software behind it. I believe the new 700 series flatbed’s true resolution is 2400dpi as well, though obviously with better interpolated performance at that resolution. I may be wrong in this, but think I’ve read that the quoted high dpi for the 700/750 is misleading. No doubt it’s better than my 2450 in many other ways though… But, numbers aside, it’s the visible results that count, and I think my 2450 will be enough for my infrequent forays into medium-format photography. I certainly can’t go to a Coolscan 9000 so I don’t even have to think about that. In time, who knows, a V700 or something for my Yashica Mat?

I’m happy, therefore, to regard this potential scanner purchase purely as a way to improve what I get from 35mm negs as this is the format I use more or less exclusively.

I instinctively agree with you, Michael, that to capture detail during the scan is likely to be better, but I guess that, by then, one is in the digital realm anyway and, convenience aside, perhaps it doesn’t matter when in the process one deals with particular aspects of the image? However, I do like the idea of perceiving the scanner as the equivalent of an enlarger, and feel that maybe then one can work more intuitively with a more complete scan rather than indulge in any more Photoshopping than is strictly necessary. After all, like all of us, I take a lot of care in producing negatives of a certain character, and it does go against the grain (ho ho) to then “re-expose” it too much in Photoshop. If the Nikon is truer straight off the scan then I think I’d like this better than having to work harder on Epson scans in order to get to where the Nikon was in the first place. I would feel purer in an impure world. And the Nikon sounds like it's the one to go for anyway.

Based on what you have told me and what I glean from the wider net, I think it will be a matter of swallowing hard, walking past the Epsons and grabbing a 5000. Maybe while I can! I’d rather regret spending too much money than not enough.

Thanks again.

Jim.