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

Raphael Bustin wrote:
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 he

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.

On 29 Dec 2006 22:39:30 -0800, "Progressiveabsolution"
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

The reviews I have read that is why. Ever hear of Google?

ljc


"Raphael Bustin" wrote in message
...
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

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" wrote in message
...
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