«

I have researched this in every possible way but have not had hands on
experienced people give their thoughts on this. I.E. One person will
boast about the superiority of one device while one will boast about
another...but neither have used both or they did not optimize one or
the other to get the best out of them. I will be doing primarily
medium format 6X7 scanning, but will do 35mm scanning as well.

Questions:

1) Are the Epson printers on the same page as the Nikons for either
MF/35mm format or is the Nikon superior in the end?

2) How is the Epson V series compared to the 8000 specifically?

3) Howi s the Epson V series compared to the 9000 specifically?

4) What are the "primary" differences between the Nikon 8000 and Nikon
9000 scanners?


I don't care about figures, just the print (end result).

Thanks for any advice from users of these scanners.

"Progressiveabsolution" <> wrote:
> Questions:
>
> 1) Are the Epson scanners on the same page as the Nikons for either
> MF/35mm format or is the Nikon superior in the end?

Yep. That's the question. The consensus appears to be that the V700/V750 are
getting very close. See the comparison on this page.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

I'm not sure the Nikon is enough better to justify the money. But if it were
my money, I'd save my pennies and get the Nikon. But that's me. (I have the
impression that there's some amount of variability in the Epsons. Over the
last 5 years, I've seen some people being very happy with various Epson
scanners, and others being very unhappy.)

> 2) How is the Epson V series compared to the 8000 specifically?
>
> 3) Howi s the Epson V series compared to the 9000 specifically?
>
> 4) What are the "primary" differences between the Nikon 8000 and Nikon
> 9000 scanners?

The 8000 is only available used, and is getting to be a rather old machine.
The possibility of problems with an out-of-warranty machine is much higher
than I'd be willing to accept. But that's me.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Dec 28, 11:00 pm, "Progressiveabsolution"
<progressiveabsolut...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have researched this in every possible way but have not had hands on
> experienced people give their thoughts on this. I.E. One person will
> boast about the superiority of one device while one will boast about
> another...but neither have used both or they did not optimize one or
> the other to get the best out of them. I will be doing primarily
> medium format 6X7 scanning, but will do 35mm scanning as well.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1) Are the Epson printers on the same page as the Nikons for either
> MF/35mm format or is the Nikon superior in the end?
>
> 2) How is the Epson V series compared to the 8000 specifically?
>
> 3) Howi s the Epson V series compared to the 9000 specifically?
>
> 4) What are the "primary" differences between the Nikon 8000 and Nikon
> 9000 scanners?
>
> I don't care about figures, just the print (end result).
>
> Thanks for any advice from users of these scanners.

I would say that the Nikon LS9000 is the top of sub $5K desktop
scanners, at $2K it is almost a bargain. If you just have 35 & 2 1/4
film, the LS9000 should be your target. That said I have an Epson V700
and for $500 it is a very good buy. At comparable resolution it is as
sharp and has better dynamic range than my OLD Nikon LS2000, I have
some materials to test the scanner objectively, just need the time. I
understand there are some significant advances in 4000 ppi scanners
from the 2700ppi variety. If I had a choice and didn't have 4x5 film,
I'd go for the LS9000. But if money is a concern you won't be
disappointed with the V700 or V750.

Tom

Progressiveabsolution wrote:
> I have researched this in every possible way but have not had hands on
> experienced people give their thoughts on this. I.E. One person will
> boast about the superiority of one device while one will boast about
> another...but neither have used both or they did not optimize one or
> the other to get the best out of them. I will be doing primarily
> medium format 6X7 scanning, but will do 35mm scanning as well.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1) Are the Epson printers on the same page as the Nikons for either
> MF/35mm format or is the Nikon superior in the end?
>
> 2) How is the Epson V series compared to the 8000 specifically?
>
> 3) Howi s the Epson V series compared to the 9000 specifically?
>
> 4) What are the "primary" differences between the Nikon 8000 and Nikon
> 9000 scanners?
>
>
> I don't care about figures, just the print (end result).
>
> Thanks for any advice from users of these scanners.

Independant reviews are available for most scanners by Googling.

On 28 Dec 2006 20:00:47 -0800, "Progressiveabsolution"
<> wrote:

>I have researched this in every possible way but have not had hands on
>experienced people give their thoughts on this. I.E. One person will
>boast about the superiority of one device while one will boast about
>another...but neither have used both or they did not optimize one or
>the other to get the best out of them. I will be doing primarily
>medium format 6X7 scanning, but will do 35mm scanning as well.
>
>Questions:
>
>1) Are the Epson printers on the same page as the Nikons for either
>MF/35mm format or is the Nikon superior in the end?
>
>2) How is the Epson V series compared to the 8000 specifically?
>
>3) Howi s the Epson V series compared to the 9000 specifically?
>
>4) What are the "primary" differences between the Nikon 8000 and Nikon
>9000 scanners?
>
>
>I don't care about figures, just the print (end result).
>
>Thanks for any advice from users of these scanners.


If you take your scanning very seriously and can afford the
Nikon LS-9000, buy one. You won't regret it -- though lots
of folks have "startup pains" with the Nikon scanners.

If not, the newest Epsons are surely a great value, and will
probably deliver (rough guess) 2/3 the effective resolution of
the Nikon.

I have a very old Nikon LS-8000 that has served me well.
Alas, I've seen some evidence that the LS-9000 is even
better. <frown>



rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

"Raphael Bustin" <> wrote:
>
> I have a very old Nikon LS-8000 that has served me well.
> Alas, I've seen some evidence that the LS-9000 is even
> better. <frown>

My frown's bigger than your frown: The LS-9000's almost US$3000 over here.
Sigh.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

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.

ljc


"Progressiveabsolution" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
>I have researched this in every possible way but have not had hands on
> experienced people give their thoughts on this. I.E. One person will
> boast about the superiority of one device while one will boast about
> another...but neither have used both or they did not optimize one or
> the other to get the best out of them. I will be doing primarily
> medium format 6X7 scanning, but will do 35mm scanning as well.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1) Are the Epson printers on the same page as the Nikons for either
> MF/35mm format or is the Nikon superior in the end?
>
> 2) How is the Epson V series compared to the 8000 specifically?
>
> 3) Howi s the Epson V series compared to the 9000 specifically?
>
> 4) What are the "primary" differences between the Nikon 8000 and Nikon
> 9000 scanners?
>
>
> I don't care about figures, just the print (end result).
>
> Thanks for any advice from users of these scanners.
>

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:35:16 -0800, "Little Juice Coupe"
<> 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

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?

On 29 Dec 2006 14:08:31 -0800, "Progressiveabsolution"
<> 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