Dennis Fassett 
, Jun 18, 2007; 11:03 p.m.
I am considering the purchase of either a Coolscan 5k or 9k. Asided from the
9k's medium format capability, are there other advantages for the additional
money. I understand that the 5k, unlike the 9k, has a capability for the use
of a 250 slide bulk loader. And will either handle glass mounted 35mm?
Petrana Batik , Jun 19, 2007; 01:33 a.m.
If you are not going to scan medium format, then go for the 5000. There is no benefit of using the 9000 for 35mm film. I know this is simple answer, but it's a very simple question...
Edward Ingold 
, Jun 19, 2007; 01:35 a.m.
The LS-5000 is much more effective with 35mm film, roll, strips or mounted, than the LS-9000, at least if you have the bulk feeders (roll or slide). The LS-9000 will hold two strips of 6 frames or 5 mounted slides at once, and scan them in a batch.
The light source of the LS-8000/9000 is a little softer than in the LS-4000/5000. I have the 8000, and find that Digital ICE is almost 100% effective, whereas it is common to need further work in Photoshop to touch up scratches and dust left by the LS-4000/5000 (I have the 4000).
I think the capacity of the SF-210 slide feeder is 50, not 250 slides. If the glass-mounted slides will work in a slide projector, they should work in the SF-210. It depends on the thickness. There would be no problem whatsoever with the single feeder in the 5000 or holder in the 9000. Focusing should not be a problem (it is not a problem with the glass holder in the MF scanners).
With the current quality of small-format DSLRs, medium format film is your most affordable recourse for superior results. That gap is closing fast (my Hasselblad doesn't see much light any more).
Craig Cooper , Jun 19, 2007; 03:55 a.m.
I have both the 4000 and the 9000. I would use the 4000 everytime for scanning 35mm film; just much easier to work with.
Ilkka Nissila , Jun 20, 2007; 03:13 p.m.
I prefer the 9000 to a 5000 even for 35 mm film, at least for slides. It doesn't bring out the grain as sharply and this is a good thing. Also works beautifully with Kodachrome.
The 5000 is faster, of course. I'll connect it if I have need for speed.
Dennis Fassett , Jun 20, 2007; 06:47 p.m.
Thanks for your input. I have arrainged with my local pro photo shop to provide me with a demo of the 5k including its handling of glass mounted slides. I have copied your comments and will be taking them along. Thanks again for photo.net.
Ilkka Nissila , Jul 15, 2007; 11:54 a.m.
Notice that when you scan with a sharp film scanner you should not use typical anti-newton glass slides - the texture on them is very obvious in the scans. You need either glass-free, clear glass, or antinewton glass specifically designed for scanning.
The 5000 is sharper than the 9000 and the DOF is easier to manage when making really big blow-ups.
