The disappearing scanner
Filed in Scanning - March 4, 2008My Nikon CoolScan 8000 is wearing out mechanically. And as scanning relies on the fine control of moving parts it won’t be long before it becomes unreliable. I’ve been dithering about what to do about it for months.
Whilst I’ve been dithering, the Coolscan 9000 has tripped over from being ‘out of stock’ to ‘unavailable’ at the more reputable retailers. It is still listed by most of the mega shopping sites, but the chances that anybody actually has one are slim.
I’ve been disappointed by my experiences of using flatbed scanners for film. Generally they don’t come anywhere near solving the problems of focus and flatness. The glass platen also makes the dust problem worse (I don’t use digital ICE because it doesn’t work with traditional monochrome films). The Microtek ArtixScan F1 (or M1 depending on market) appeared to be an attempt to overcome some of the problems of flatbed scanners for film, but the limited reviews that are out there on the internet are wholly unconvincing.
So I’ve just bought a CoolScan 5000 ED. The only other scanner that caught my attention was one of the Flextight models, but as it is a minimum of 15 times more expensive my attention wasn’t caught for very long. Using a 5000 means no more medium format. I’d probably concluded that anyway (but those Rollei TLR cameras are real cheap right now), but only having a 35mm scanner seals the deal.
If the 5000 works out good, I might get a second one. I’m happy using 35mm film and want to go on doing so. Scanner options are disappearing fast.
I too have been thinking about stockpiling scanners; my Scan Dual IV can’t last forever. At least in the States, all the Nikon models regularly go out of stock, and then come back and then go out again. The 5000 seems to be more reliably in stock, although that could be due to its relative expense.
March 4, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
Colin, you might think about adding the optional FH-3 strip film holder if you haven’t already. At least in my 5000, the standard motorized holder tends to yield flarey scans from frames at the end of a strip, it can’t handle stray individual frames, and it’s a little more aggressive in shoving my precious negatives in and out than I’m comfortable with.
March 4, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
I’ve wondered in the Epson V500 will be good enough for most of my purposes. Yes, it’s flatbed, but it’s low cost seems to make it low risk. I’m more interested in medium format, so the compromises of a flatbed may not be as great for me.
March 4, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
Oren,
The FH-3 is on backorder just about everywhere. B&H aren’t even listing it.
March 4, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
Chris,
If it is medium format you want, then, practically speaking, your only option is a flatbed.
March 4, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
I got mine from Adorama, where the listing vanishes and reappears irregularly. Apart from searching for out-of-the-way dealers who might have one in a corner, it’s also worth checking eBay.
March 4, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
it’s also worth checking….
Oh, I’ve checked…and checked. I’ve found a German dealer who claims to have some in stock and I’ve got, at least in theory, an ‘open box’ example in the post right now from an Amazon reseller.
March 4, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
Here’s hoping. Do open with care – it’s a dainty little thing.
March 4, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
An Epson V700 will do a pretty decent job of scanning MF film (especially B+W). A friend and I did some printed output comparisons of scans done on a Nikon 8000, Canon 9950F and V700. The Nikon and V700 were pretty much indistinguishable up to around 16×20″ from a 6×7 neg. This was using standard holders. Using anti-newton or anti-reflective glass to help keep the negative dead flat improves things, and from what I’ve seen, fluid mounting can help even more.
Your other option, especially since you don’t use ICE, is the Microtek 120TF. It is still available, and somewhat cheaper than the mythical Nikon 9000.
I’d say your Coolscan and a V700 would make an ideal combo. For those ocassional larger prints, you can afford to get them scanned professionally.
March 4, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
Epson have been advertsing locally for a couple of months now an update to their GT-X900 (a V750 pro in your neck of the woods). May be worth a look in if it ever gets released outside of Japan – don’t see an equivalent model listed on epson’s UK website. I’ve got on well with my Rolleicord and Epson flatbed (GT-X900) combination.
Details (in Japanese) of the new scanner is here: http://www.epson.jp/products/colorio/scanner/gtx970/index.htm
I’m off for the day tomorrow and have to run a couple of errands close to the big camera stores in town so I’ll pop in and see if they have any FH-3s lying around…
March 4, 2008 @ 10:44 pm
Paul H,
I have a V750. It has not been a happy ownership experience. But even leaving that aside, it doesn’t focus on the film plane. Using the adjustable holders from betterscanning.com is a help, but it is still fiddly and those holders are also fragile (but not nearly so fragile as the Epson ones – Epson had to send me three sets of holders before I assembled one complete set of undamaged ones).
Using glass helps. Using fluid helps more. But both those come at a tremendous cost in time. The fluid is also nasty stuff.
Of course you can get good scans from a V700 or 750. People do. But that doesn’t stop those scanners being flawed and disappointing devices.
I don’t know much about the Microtek 120TF. It isn’t readily available here that I can see.
March 4, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
akikana,
I see Epson are still engaging in the equivalent of the megapixel race – 6400 dpi indeed!
As for errands close to big city camera stores…well, what can I say, other than I’ll trade an FH-3 for beer. I’ll mail you.
March 4, 2008 @ 10:59 pm
I really hope Nikon doesn’t phase out the 9000 altogether. I shoot medium format and am currently scanning with an Epson 4990. I have a betterscanning variable-height holder and wet mount my negatives when I’m working on something important. Even then, my best prints are 12×12—beyond that, I start to notice the deterioration in quality.
I was really to keep most of my process in-house by eventually getting a Coolscan 9000 and an Epson R4800. The dream of a perfect 16×16 print at home continues to elude me.
March 5, 2008 @ 2:24 am
I’d be surprised and disappointed if Nikon discontinued the 9000; would dropping their flagship scanner really save them that much money? Medium format photography is not what it once was, but there are still plenty of people shooting with it. I’m a fairly recent convert myself, and the ease of a digital workflow is what did it for me. And surely there are lots of longtime photographers who’ve switched to digital but who still have archives of MF negatives and transparencies.
I use a Coolscan V for 35mm and an Epson 4990 for medium format and larger. While this combo is fine for what I do, I’d buy a 9000 in a second if I actually made money from my photography.
March 5, 2008 @ 6:23 pm
Bryan,
The word on the forums is that the 9000 has been out of production for some time. Whether this is true or not I don’t know.
Such products are usually batch made. The question is whether Nikon will make another batch (whether called the 9000 or the 9000b etc).
March 5, 2008 @ 6:47 pm