Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 ED

Being a photographer who still likes to shoot film, this scanner is one of those things that you dont like, but cant live without. I am unaware of any other scanners that can do all 3 film formats and be a designated film scanner. I have a an Epson Pro 4870 flatbed, and truthfully, I prefere scans off of that. I use the Nikon just because I spent the 2 grand on a pro piece of equipment, so I might as well use the d*mn thing. It does a good enough job that I can deal with it. Ultimately, its slow, its bulky and I dont know how many times I have had to rescan negatives so that the scanner can recognize one negative from the next. The software is dificult to use. Certain things that you would expect to happen, dont. Its hard to explain, but if you have used the software, certain things just dont seem right. Epson's software is amazing, though. Easy to use and everything. I am a bit pissed at the film carriers. You would think that with amount of comlaining that people do about them, that nikon would do something. But no... its still an extra $250 for glass carriers. Something tells me that Nikon could probably afford to add in those carriers, because something else tells me that it does not cost Nikon $250 for 2 pieces of glass, 2 springs, and a long piece of black plastic. Ultimately, with the glass 120 carrier, the scans are nice. Nothing amazing, but nice. I can get 200mb file sizes from my 6x7 film and blow ups do look really good. They are sharp, and shadow detail is pretty good.

4000dpi. OK shadow detail sharp enough scans fairly color acurate... doesnt seem to like UC films though

HOLDERS!!!!!!! SOFTWARE!!!! I hate to Nikon Bash, but this scanner is a testiment to why I shoot with canon cameras. Canon just seems to be more professional with better built products and easier to use software. Sorry nikon. Images are not "amazing" for a 2 grand scanner. Acceptable though. Why didnt nikon widen the scanner by one inch and make the thing able to scan in 4x5's tack on like 2-300 bucks for the price. Come on Nikon. Stop lagging

na

You will always hear about bad Nikon customer service. Well let me tell you, it is REALLY BAD. I called about buying a glass holder, and the representative had no clue what I was talking about or the difference between the 2 or 3 different holders that the had. The wait was long, and the guy was kind of rude. Again, you would never see that with Canon.

Having owned a Coolscan 4000 for about 1.5 years before getting the 9000ED, I was already familiar with the Nikon coolscan familly. Installation was very easy and I was able to carry out my first scan less than 10 minutes after having taken the scanner out of the box. The overall impression is very positive. I would be totally happy if I were able to scan my 4*5 slides with this scanner also. My feeling is that Nikon released with the 9000ED the best scanner in its class for all the formats it can scan. I can only give it 4 stars quality wise and overall because only a drum scanner or an Imacon could IMHO really get more than this, but these 4 stars are more than I would give to any other scanner under 3000 US$.

The scanning quality is good, probably best in this price range from what I have seen. One should however not expect to be able to extract 100% of definition and dynamic range. The ICE4 function works very well, but can significantly slow down the scanning even on a fast box. The speed of operation is nonetheless overall good. The Nikon software is very powerful, but beginners might find it a bit difficult to approach. The possibility to control the analog gain is a major plus. Colorwise, I found the ICC profiles provided by nikon to be very good. The sRGB profile provides saturated colors and don't suffer from many posterization problems. It might be best to experience with the other color spaces also depending in the type of images scanned.

I have experienced some problems with Newton rings when scanning 6*45 Velvia 100F with the Glass holder. It seems that this is related to how clean the glass holder/neg is, but it is difficult to predict when problems will show up. Repositionning the neg inside the glass holder often helps getting rid of the problem. The size of scanner is pretty significant, although very reasonnable compared to an Imacon for instance. Amateurs used to small format scanners might find this to be a problem.

Nikon Coolscan 4000ED Epson F-3200

Never had to use it so far.

A very capable scanner let down by quality problems and poor film carriers. After experiencing problems with three of these scanners I am now using a Minolta Multi Pro. 1) First 9000 ED arrived. Had dents in the casing. Made a very loud whining sound and reported a hardware error. 2) Replacement 9000 ED received. Developed a buzzing in the mains transformer. This got progressivley worse over a period of several weeks. Unit returned to Nikon for repair. On its return and switching it on for the first time the transformer buzz was still present and it emitted a very loud whining sound and reported a hardware error. 3) Third 9000 ED delivered to replace second unit. On first switching on it emitted a very loud whining sound and reported a hardware error. A replacement was offered but a delivery date could not be provided. After 3 1/2 months of ownership I only experienced a few weeks of trouble free scanning. During that period the scans produced by the 9000 ED were hard to fault. The ICE 4, GEM, and DEE software is superb. DEE made it possible to retrieve even the most hidden shadow detail. After some work in photoshop my images had a colour vibrancy I have not seen before. It is therefore pitiful that such a capable scanner is let down by the quality problems I experienced. Perhaps I was unlucky but three faulty scanners, two of which did not work from new, does raise some questions.I envy others who have perfect working versions of this scanner. Although the 9000 ED does produce superb scans I would also criticise the film holders. These are way too flimsy. The supplied medium format holder is a waste of time, producing mainly soft scans. Purchasing the glass holder is essential. I am now using the Minolta Multi Pro without any problems. This unit is capable of producing results on a par with the 9000 ED. However I do miss DEE. Nikon should take note of the film holders supplied with the Multi Pro. They are high quality and the medium format holder has no problems holding the film flat. Consequently meduim format scans are very sharp. I've used Nikon equipment for years without a single hitch and feel let down by my recent experiences with the 9000 ED. I would give the 9000 ED 5 stars if I had a working unit and the film holders were of better quality.

Superb quality scans.

Poor build quality. Flimsy film holders. Supplied medium format holder not up to the job. Buy the glass holder (£300+ !!!!)

Nikon LS 30 Canon FS 4000

A mixed bag. Initially good. Nikon managed to repair(?) my scanner in under a week. However since then they have neglected to answer any questions concerning the problems encountered. The service centre does not provide information of faults found and fixed.

The big question a lot of people have been asking....Has Nikon sorted out all the problems on the 9000 that the 8000 had? The answer is yes.....almost! I had the 8000 and although it was capable of producing some great scans the scanner had...issues. The two main problems being the badly designed negative carriers (in particular the 120 glassless carrier)and the (in)famous banding problem, which was a major cause of frustration to 8000 users. The bad news is that the 9000 uses and is supplied with the same film carriers as the 8000. Shame on you Nikon! Haven't you listened to what people have been saying?! The good news is that after scanning over 500 images, there has not been one case of banding, even on negs/slides that you would expect it to happen. Hooobleedin'ray! Not once have I had to use the Superfine mode. This speeds up the whole process no end! There is a noticeable improvement in image quality, and the 9000 is much better in recording detail in shadow areas. The scan time is also noticeably faster. It will preview a 35mm slide @16bit using ICE in less than 14 secs and scan it with the same settings in less than 50 secs (8 bit is @ 40 secs). So far I am very impressed. I would certainly say that the 9000 is worth buying.

Good qualiity scans with no hassle!

Badly designed fiddly, cheap & nasty film carriers. Don't consider the medium format glass film carrier as an option - consider it essential for good quality scans. Beware though, its at an extortionate price of around £300.00!!And yes, ICE works with the glass carrier. ICE4 is good, but ICE3 seemed to do a better job on the 8000. But don't worry, its still well within the realms of acceptability.

Coolscan 8000ED

N/A

I have used the Canoscan 4000, the Minolta 5400 and the Nikon 8000 before getting the 9000. Without a doubt, the best scanner for 35mm as well as Medium Format that I have used. The colors are just about perfect. I use the Nikon software as well as Vuescan. It is a lot faster than the Minolata 5400 and I don't think that going beyond 4000 dpi resloves any more detail. That is just my personal opinion. The GEM and ICE are also just about perfect. It is expensive but in my view, worth it.

Nikon 8000 Minolta 5400 Canoscan 4000

Very very good, when I needed them. I have not needed any customer service on this product.