Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Scanners: Epson V700/V750 vs. Nikon 8000/9000

Reply
Thread Tools

Scanners: Epson V700/V750 vs. Nikon 8000/9000

 
 
Progressiveabsolution
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2006

Raphael Bustin wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2006 14:08:31 -0800, "Progressiveabsolution"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >Rafe,
> >
> >Just how much better is the 9000 version than the 8000? The difference
> >between a used 8000 and new 9000 can be as significant as $1000 right
> >now. I have seen 8000's go for $800 and you can get a squaretrade
> >warranty for $60 that gives you 2 years of warranty for it. You can
> >get a 9000 for $1500 (if lucky) on auction. This is quite a
> >significant difference in one sense BUT in another sense, if one is
> >"clearly" better than the other, money should not be an option. It
> >goes for digital cameras. I can clearly see a difference in the level
> >of "authority/presentation" of the Canon 5D over the smaller sensored
> >cameras (maybe it is just my eyes???), so if I can see this clear
> >difference between the 9000 and 8000, it makes no sense having the 8000
> >(instead of 9000) just like it makes no sense having the
> >300D/20D/30D/etc. when I can have the 5D. NOW...if we are talking
> >cars, audio, houses, etc. where we are talking thousands of dollars of
> >difference, then I can see a point of diminishing returns OR a settling
> >for something we cannot have since we cannot afford it. But I mean,
> >spending $800 on the V750, then the proper holder for it is no
> >different than spending $800 for a used Nikon 8000 and buying for a bit
> >more, the glass holder...and likewise, making no sense that one would
> >get the 8000 knowing the 9000 is "that much better" and only $800
> >more...etc...Now if we are talking "that much better" $5000-$15,000
> >scanner, I wouldn't even bother...it would be a similar ratio of
> >getting a $30K car vs. a $100K one...Would make no sense when I can
> >drive the WRX STI instead of the Porche 911...Both will go about the
> >same speed and do the same thing, but one will look
> >classier/sophisticated.
> >
> >Sooooooo.....
> >
> >Just how much better is the Nikon 9000 than the 8000 for both MF and
> >35mm film?

>
>
> I can't say for sure, since I don't own the 9000. All I have is
> a hunch based on the following:
>
> a) The sharpest scan samples on my site (at least, from a
> CCD scanner) are from Max Perl's LS-9000
>
> b) The word of Dane Kosaka, moderator of the LS-8000/9000
> yahoo listserv. (Dane owns both, I've known him for a long
> time, and I take him at his word.)
>
> c) The fact that the very sharpest scanner in Jim Hutchison's
> 2005 "scanner bake-off" was an LS-9000. Jim's results are
> tabulated here:
>
> http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2005/numbers.html
>
> .. which shows the LS-9000 with about 20% better MTF than
> the closest LS-8000s.
>
>
> rafe b
> www.terrapinphoto.com


This obviously demonstrates a need to make a choice one way or another
because a used 9000 on a usual day is about $1500 WITHOUT the glass
carrier. So figure at least $1750 after shipping and all for that
alone. Then spend $750 more for a Pentax camera w/wide lens and we're
talking $2500. I know I have priced the Canon 5D after Canon rebate
for $2K and I know you can put a few nice pieces of glass on there from
Zeiss/Rollei/etc. for the extra $500. Really comes down to does one
want to get at least good quality from an $800-$1000 scan with the 8000
or...

Film people are in such a tough position with the choice of scanners
per price, not to say all the disadvantages that already come along
with it all...the main one having to send film in!!! If it were 35mm,
that would be a totally different story...cheaper, if exposed fine,
will look great off a Fuji Frontier with a good person behind the desk,
etc. But you get into MF (not LF) and that's where the fun can begin
and end. If only the 4X5 format was in a nice package at such a small
price it would be the obvious choice for me since a flatbed can handle
it darn well.

Thanks for the posts...one thing that surprises me about that bakeoff
is how many of the scanners that came out on top are also ones people
would never consider to come out ahead of the others. It's so
surprising seeing an LS40 almost at the 9000 level and ahead of
scanners like the Konica 5400II, your 8000 (which I've seen some say is
better than the LS40 for 35mm). Very odd, but I have to go now to the
8000/9000 forum because that will really help enlighten me about these
machines. I've already read countless hours and sources on all this
stuff, but it's very good to finally hear from you more about the 8000
and 9000 differences because speed is one thing that can be dealt with,
but final product is an entirely different thing. In other words, I
would take the 8000 over the 9000 even if it cost more, was slower,
etc. if it had a better outcome. Given the 9000's speed...makes it a
difficult choice at its pricepoint, though as others have said, it is
likely still a steal at its pricepoint.

Thanks again Rafe and others that have responded. Just so everyone
knows what I'm kinda looking for in my images, that I have not seen
else where, please see this person's images...he uses ZOOMS for
basically 99% of his images...but I have not seen anything near this
level in terms of landscapes w/exception of this one guy's work with
4X5 on flickr that shows some really crazy detail/resolution.

http://www.pbase.com/image/66794395

Click the rest of his stuff called Transient Light. I dunno what it
is, but this is what provoked me to try out a Pentax in spite I haven't
even shot a roll due to such horrendous weather on the Oregon coast.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Raphael Bustin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2006
On 29 Dec 2006 22:39:30 -0800, "Progressiveabsolution"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>This obviously demonstrates a need to make a choice one way or another
>because a used 9000 on a usual day is about $1500 WITHOUT the glass
>carrier. So figure at least $1750 after shipping and all for that
>alone. Then spend $750 more for a Pentax camera w/wide lens and we're
>talking $2500. I know I have priced the Canon 5D after Canon rebate
>for $2K and I know you can put a few nice pieces of glass on there from
>Zeiss/Rollei/etc. for the extra $500. Really comes down to does one
>want to get at least good quality from an $800-$1000 scan with the 8000
>or...
>
>Film people are in such a tough position with the choice of scanners
>per price, not to say all the disadvantages that already come along
>with it all...the main one having to send film in!!! If it were 35mm,
>that would be a totally different story...cheaper, if exposed fine,
>will look great off a Fuji Frontier with a good person behind the desk,
>etc. But you get into MF (not LF) and that's where the fun can begin
>and end. If only the 4X5 format was in a nice package at such a small
>price it would be the obvious choice for me since a flatbed can handle
>it darn well.



Well, this is why the LS-8000 will most likely be my last film
scanner, unless it dies or something vastly better comes up,
within my budget -- which I kind of doubt.

The newest full-frame DSLRs have pretty much caught up
to well-scanned 645 film ("small" MF format) and shooting
digital is a whole lot less bother than shooting & scanning
film. So rather than go for the LS-9000, I'll most likely just
retire my MF gear and get a 5D, if it comes to that.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Little Juice Coupe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2006
The reviews I have read that is why. Ever hear of Google?

ljc


"Raphael Bustin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:35:16 -0800, "Little Juice Coupe"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>The Epson is 99% as good and unlike the Nikon it isn't a one trick pony.
>>Unless you plan to shoot film for another 5 or 10 years the Nikon is a
>>waste
>>of money. Once you have all of your film scanned it will be a dead one
>>trick
>>pony. The Epson on the other hand can do things other than film so it is a
>>two trick pony that will have use long after your done with film. Unless
>>like I said you plan to shoot film for the next 5 or 10 years. Myself even
>>I
>>was to do that I still wouldn't put out $2000 for a scanner that was less
>>than 1% better than what I could get for $700 or less.

>
>
> What is your basis for this claim, that that "Epson is 99% as good"
> as the LS-8000 or LS-9000?
>
> I've seen no such evidence, and some counter-evidence. But if
> you or anyone else would like to submit a worthy scan snippet
> from the V750, I'd love to see it.
>
> See further info here (info for sample submissions and many scan
> samples...)
>
> www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis
>
>
> rafe b
> www.terrapinphoto.com



 
Reply With Quote
 
Progressiveabsolution
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-31-2006
Ever hear about the Nikon 8000/9000 group or the review that says the
V750 is better than the Nikon 9000 with 35mm and the same with medium
format film? Do I run circles around the google net to find that all I
have found is that the 9000 is better than the 8000 when it comes to
time...but nothing about it being a superior scanner based on
performance. Likewise, I have read results on a 4990 where they did a
tiny little section of what would be a massive blowup...and I know I
would not tell a difference between it and the Nikon 8000 it was
compared to. The author stated the same thing...that unless you did a
40X50" or some massive blowup, you would not see these "very fine"
differences between the flatbed and 8000. But others will
disagree...Since it has been a while and ALL of these reviews have
featured a "mixed" generalization on the subject, I felt it necessary
to ask a question again now that many have gotten their hands on the
V750 during google searches where the only one that showed up was the
person from UK showing the V750 to be as good as the Nikon 9000. Rafe
says the Nikon 9000 is better than the 8000 based on the other people
he knows that have a reputeable/respectable view. This means that UK
guy feels the V750 is "better" than the 8000 based on this.

Can you see why googeling is helpful but also confusing with all the
questions I have asked you? Why do you not have an answer like Rafe or
others who have spoken on the subject? Rafe may be right or wrong, but
he has a legitamate answer to the question, and raised a point that I
have "never" seen in any froogled thread..well, two points=1) 9000 is
better by 20% and confirmed better by a few very
reputeable/discriminating photographers and 2) There is an 8000/9000
group for yahoo.

Happy New Years!!!


Little Juice Coupe wrote:
> The reviews I have read that is why. Ever hear of Google?
>
> ljc
>
>
> "Raphael Bustin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:35:16 -0800, "Little Juice Coupe"
> > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >>The Epson is 99% as good and unlike the Nikon it isn't a one trick pony.
> >>Unless you plan to shoot film for another 5 or 10 years the Nikon is a
> >>waste
> >>of money. Once you have all of your film scanned it will be a dead one
> >>trick
> >>pony. The Epson on the other hand can do things other than film so it is a
> >>two trick pony that will have use long after your done with film. Unless
> >>like I said you plan to shoot film for the next 5 or 10 years. Myself even
> >>I
> >>was to do that I still wouldn't put out $2000 for a scanner that was less
> >>than 1% better than what I could get for $700 or less.

> >
> >
> > What is your basis for this claim, that that "Epson is 99% as good"
> > as the LS-8000 or LS-9000?
> >
> > I've seen no such evidence, and some counter-evidence. But if
> > you or anyone else would like to submit a worthy scan snippet
> > from the V750, I'd love to see it.
> >
> > See further info here (info for sample submissions and many scan
> > samples...)
> >
> > www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis
> >
> >
> > rafe b
> > www.terrapinphoto.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
looking for epson 2200 profiles with MIS ink on epson stock Ken Digital Photography 0 02-10-2005 04:13 PM
Epson 2200 vs. Epson 4000 Grady R. Thompson Digital Photography 12 12-05-2003 12:34 AM
Need CD for Epson Stylus 1280 with Epson Apps. Paul Resch Digital Photography 1 09-21-2003 04:34 PM
Epson c62 and Epson Photo 900 chalk & cheese? Maze Digital Photography 0 09-03-2003 08:14 PM
Re: Epson printer 2200 - Epson semi-gloss paper nobody nowhere Digital Photography 1 07-13-2003 02:45 PM



Advertisments