Good morning;

One of my anticipated purchases is a Nikon CoolScan 9000 ED with the capability of going up to 6 cm by 6 cm Medium Format negatives.

My copy of the B & H catalog just came. The 9000 ED has gone from $ 1800 up to $ 2100.

It is still probably less than what it will be purchasing it from one of the shops out here in Latte Land, but a 16 per cent increase is still noticeable. If gr82bart will permit some whining in his forum, I wish my retirement check had an increase like that.

Hi Ralph,

I've been longing for a Nikon 9000 (or 8000) myself, and also noticed the price increase - the weak dollar over the summer and fall is to blame, I'd guess.

I've gotten scans from a Nikon 9000, and have done plenty of 120 film scans on Epson flatbeds (2450/4990). If you're looking for web quality scans, I think the flatbed does fine. When I was looking to print 8x10 or larger, I found much more detail in the Nikon scans to work with, no matter what the scanning resolution, Dmax, etc, might have suggested. There is a good bit out on the web about the scan quality differences between flatbed and dedicated film scanners. My experiences confirm the general opinion.

Perhaps you can find a pro lab using a Nikon 9000, scan a few negatives, then maybe even buy the Microtek and scan the same negatives. If you don't see a difference, you just saved a bundle of money

Whine away! We're here to be sounding boards for each other ...

Although I have to ask: Why such a high end scanner? What a Microtek http://www.microtekusa.com/ ? Or an Epson? Just curious.

Regards, Art.

Hi Ralph,

Well I was thinking more on the Microtek M1 or the Epson 750 - around the $600-700 range. Though a $100 scanner is interesting now that I've found a scanning rental place in NYC. Like any digital technology, scanning technology I think increases every year, so a $2000 scanner a couple years ago would have the same quality as a $500 scanner today - don't know for sure, just a hunch I have.

I can't even begin to rationalize pricing.

What is lacking, is extensive up-to-date scanner reviews like one would see of digital cameras on sites like DP Review. So far the only reviews I have seen are of older version scanners and people posting on forums their anecdotal evidence, many with suspect testing methodologies.

I use an Epson 4990 that I bought for $400 I think some 5-6 years ago. This csanner has given me decent enough scans for inkjet negs and chromogenic pints from a Lambda or Lightjet. But, I don't print anything larger than 10x10. Maybe if I needed to print larger, I would re-evaluate.

Anyway, my post is just farting out some thoughts.

Regards, Art.

Good morning, Art;

I have just looked at the Microtek s450. $ 100? How do they do that? The only thing I might need to find is a film holder for 120 film and for 4 by 5 film. That certainly is impressive. Again, how do they do that with that resolution?

If this really does work, why is Nikon raising their price? How much longer will Nikon be selling theirs if someone is able to do the same thing for only five percent (5%) of the Nikon price? What am I not seeing here?

Good morning, all;

It is time for an update: I have a Nikon Super CoolScan LS-9000ED(U) Film Scanner. Yes, it did cost more than the price of a new one before they discontinued it. That would have been something for people to invest in as a really serious hedge against inflation. As a point of information, I see that the Amazon.com people are listing one New In The Box for only $8,000.00 on their web site.

Anyway, yes, I do have one, but I do not yet have the 120 Roll Film Glass Film Holder I want to use with it to insure holding the film flat for good scanning in both the center of the negative and along the edges.

In looking through the accessory listings, there are film holders for a lot more than just the 35mm and 120 roll film sizes. There may be more to do there.

Then there is the difficulty in getting the software installed and working on a suitable computer. A necessary accessory printer is also something to be connected and working. So many things need to come together properly to make all of this really work. I am learning a lot.

All of this because I still like film, but in order to show any of the work to others, it is necessary to have a means for taking the film or print, and converting it into something that can go over the Internet and be displayed in places like APUG, flicker, Picassa, or other sites. Yes, I am slowly being dragged with vociferous complaints into the digital world. Still, it really seems to me to be truly weird to need to do something like this on APUG.

Enjoy;

Ralph, Latte Land, Washington

I has been my good fortune to have had an LS 9000 for the last seven years. Too bad they have been discontinued. I can recommend it for 35mm but you need a glass carrier for critical 120mm work and those are expensive and hard to find. You also have to do some research to get it running under Windows 7. I have seen used prices for the LS 9000 from $3000 to as much as $7000, it's not worth that much.

I also have an Epson V750 which is nearly as good as (almost indistinguishable from) the LS 9000 for about $800, new. The film carriers for the Epson are delicate but also accommodate 4x5 and 8x10 film. I would recommend this alternative.

Good morning, all;

The financial wonders continue. While the B&H people are still listing the FH-869GR ANR Glass 120 film holder for $323.44, I see that someone on e-Bay has the molded plastic 16mm film holder for only $586.00. Sort of like the people who were selling the NIB LS-9000ED for only $8,000.00 a year ago.

Well, it is still less than the little Hasselblad 4 by 5 drum scanner for I think about $16,000 now.

Enjoy; Ralph, Latte Land, Washington