Nikon 9000 or new Epson V750-M Pro for Xpan?

Every year Epson releases a flatbed scanner that Internet pundits proclam is as good as a dedicated film scanner. Last year it was the Epson 4990, which I own. It's great for the money, but I would prefer the Nikon 9000 if it fit my budget as it is higher resolution (ignore the bogus marketing claims - I mean real resolution) and can dig more detail from shadows.

See the following link for many scanners other than the ones you are interested in:

http://shutterflower.com/scanner%20comparison.htm

I did the Epson 4990 scans in the link and I would expect the newer Epsons would be similar.

I'm with robert on this one. I bought into the epson scanner procession earlier, with a 3200. It's fine for medium format but disappointing for 35mm, so I have an additional 35mm scanner. Every scanner I have seen from Epson since is slightly better than mine, but none of them equal a dedicated film scanner. The V700 and V750 are clearly good value for money, though.

If I was shooting Xpan or a swing-lens 35mm panoramic I'd need to use my flatbed, and I'm not sure I'd be happy about that at all. If the 9000 can do what you want, you can afford it and justify the difference in price, get it. If not, get the V750 (or the cheaper and to my eyes not substantially less performant V700), and learn how to squeeze out the available detail with USM and the film height adjusters.

If the Nikon 9000 is within your budget (along with Nikon's optional glass holder), go for it. If you decide to go for the Epson, the 700 is looking like the better value considering how close the performance is between it and the 750 (see the examples at www.photo-i).

Doug

New film holder designs for Epson, Agfa and Microtek

The Epson 4990, predecessor to the V700/750, has a practical resolution of about 1500 ppi, despite the marketing claims. The Nikon LS-9000 achieves about 3700 ppi, compared to the advertised 4000 ppi, and is essentially grain-sharp. Besides resolution, flatbed scanners suffer form blooming and lack of contrast. It takes a generous dose of Photoshop to obtain even modestly satisfactory results. Flatbed scanners are completely inadequate for 35mm, and marginal for medium format, even 4x5, unless you are satisfied with prints no larger than 11x14. At that size, a Nikon scan of 35mm will look better than an Epson scan of medium format. I would not expect the V700 be be a revolutionary improvement over previous models.

Barry, I have owned (and actually used) the Epson 4870(?) and then the 4990 for medium format and 35mm. I have also used extensively a Canon fs4000 for 35mm. For the last year or so I have been scanning with a Nikon 9000 and printing to an Epson 2400. I can say that the Nikon with the glass holder is a vastly superior beast in every respect. If you have easy negs/chromes to scan, you may be perfectly satisfied with the flatbeds. I have made some nice images from brightly lit chromes with little contrast. But when you get into shots with deep shadows, the flatbeds I used, and even the fs4000 could not compare to the Nikon. It just pulls extraordinary detail out. For example, I have this chrome of a farmhouse window. The bottom glass panel shows a brightly lit distorted reflection of a shed behind me. The top panel is virtually black because it is transparent and shows no reflection. But on closed inspection there was some faint detail in the panel. In PS I brightened the panel. To my amazement, the entire interior of the barn was revealed. The image is one of my favorites and I think one of the best examples of he Nikon's ability to retain shadow detail that you can not even see unless you pull it out. I also have had a couple of my favorite chromes drum scanned by A&I. I am no photo tech, but I have a decent eye. And to my eye, the Nikon and the drum look a bit different but not one clearly superior to the other. Maybe the drum could be pushed a bit more - say to 40-50" or more. But how many of those are you going to do? In short, the Nikon is a great tool. I could not be more impressed or satisfied. It does cost more than the flatbeds but is far superior for those images that are challenging. And those are always the best ones. Hope this helps.

Not so sure the V700 is better value than the V750. With the more expensive model, you get the full Silverfast Ai instead of the crippled SE and the SE -> Ai update alone costs the price difference. Moreover, with the V750 you get IT8 calibration tarrget, one 4x5" Ekta and one 5x7" opaque and the Monaco calibraton software. Those IT8 targets are not cheap and all in all, I think the V750 is a better value than the V700.

Having done some additional research since my posting, as well as your comments, perhaps I should be asking 'Which is better: the Nikon 9000 or the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro?'

I believe the Dimage can still be found on the used market and performs better than the Nikon???

Anyone with experiences using both these beasts?

I have owned and used both the Nikon 9000 and the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro (earlier model) and without doubt prefer the results from the Nikon scanner. I bought 9000 with the FH-869GR glass holder specifically for my XPan chromes. I've even had the same chromes scanned with an Imacon for comparison and there's very little diference IMHO.

Paul

Also the MicroTek scanners appear to be well developed...but the low-end Imacon would be the high-end for a home lab.

The Epson v750 scanner is interesting. Someone might take a view that ICE and GEM are crude and want wet scanning. And both the 700 and the 750 match lens to scan resolution. Is that significant ? In other words rather than say that flatbed scanners are not very good identify what is wrong with them...