Will there be a new Nikon Scanner lineup soon? (PMA)

[bedaberger]

The Coolscan V LS-50 is discontinued since August 2008.

I just searched some dealers on the web, most of them are also out of stock of the Coolscan 9000 (LS-9000) or they show "limited stock".

Is this an indicator that there comes a whole new lineup of Scanners as Nikon tries to sell off there "old" Scanners?

Introduction of some scanners:
2000 - Coolscan III
2002 - Coolscan IV
2003 - Coolscan V
2009 - ? :)

The quality of Scans is actually very good, but there would be some improvements possible:
* overall scanspeed - incl. autofocus, exp.metering,...
* batch scan capabilities - scan a whole film at once, not possible with Coolscan V for example...
* easier colormanagment - improved / included profiles for all current available neg.films, etc.

So, what do you think?
Does somebody know more?

Peter

[trix]

The coolscans are dead...face it !

[Nikon Bob]

I would be very surprised to see anymore new dedicated film scanners introduced in that class of scanners. I really don't think there is enough of demand for Nikon to warrant making them. OTH I could be wrong and pleasantly surprised if it does happen.

Bob

[md2008]

Nikon has surprised us before with the F6 when "film was dead". Maybe the trend will continue?

[anoldsock]

I just don't understand why Nikon prices their scanners at $1100...if only they made a sub $300-$400 scanner, they'd sell a lot more. I know, I know supple and demand, but I refuse to believe they can't make a more affordable scanner.

[jke]

As I understand from a couple people I have spoken with, the current line is it. Nikon will continue making the 5000 and the 9000 but only in batches, thus the seemingly eternal back-order status. I back-ordered my 9000 with B&H and got it the next time some came available. Seemed to take about two weeks. You mileage may vary depending on when the next batch is due.

[Erik L]

oh i hope theres something on the horizon

[johnwnyc]

... and that's a real shame. With no Minolta Dimage Multi-Pro and no Nikon 9000 there aren't many options left for affordable desktop film scanning. I own an Epson v700, and the quality on the latter doesn't nearly approach what I get with my Mutli-Pro. (I primarily scan 35mm, and occasionally medium format.)

Many years ago, I was on the trailing edge of scanning, holding onto my old SCSI Umax scanner with Mac OS 9 until it was totally impractical to do so. I imagine that sooner or later Firewire 400 will disappear. The Multi-Pro software will cease to work in the latest OS X release, and eventually it'll cease mechanically working altogether.

I think that it's unfortunately very possible that the mixed film/digital workflow for 35mm will die before 35mm film itself dies. It's a good thing that I still have my enlarger!

[bmattock]

I thought as long as there was demand, there would always be supply? Isn't that how it works?

[Tuolumne]

Does anyone know the sales volume of dedicated desktop film scanners?

/T

[Klick]

How about the Plustek scanners are they any good?

[JTK]

I suspect that few who worry about demise of scanners have yet experienced success with DSLR/inkjet.


I love rangefinder/SLR, stand-processed B&W film, and my Nikon V does beautiful B&W scans...but frankly, my Pentax K20D with prime lenses blows all that away in most situations (inkjet printing both: first with Epson 2200 and now with 3800 , both making excellent, neutral B&W with OEM ink).


Film still has niche advantages (eg certain portrait situations, I think, and Fuji Astia for big color prints), but not enough to draw me away from the superiority of digital in 95%. Certainly, the Pentax accomplishes higher detail resolution than 100iso films, and its 1600iso is more handsome than most of the TriX I see, no matter the skill. ++++++++

IMO to persist with film, some will soon start to return to wet darkrooms. I wish I had the space and could afford the paper (price will zoom upward) to do that occasionally. Making that fantasy tough, DSLR and 3800 are absolutely wonderful.

[bmattock]

How about the Plustek scanners are they any good?

They have received some good reviews, but they apparently are not quite as good as the Nikons - some compare them favorably to the older Konica Minolta Scan Dual IV. I wish they worked with Vuescan under Linux, but they don't, so that's a deal-killer for me.

[bmattock]

I suspect that few who worry about demise of scanners have yet experienced success with DSLR/inkjet. I'm very competent with rangefinder/SLR, stand-processed B&W film, and my Nikon V...but frankly, my Pentax K20D with prime lenses blows that away in most situations. Film still has niche advantages, but not enough to keep me at it. Certainly, the Pentax accomplishes higher detail resolution than most films, and its 1600iso is more handsome than most of the TriX I see. ++++++++

To the contrary. And in addition to that, MF format film 'blows away' anything your K20D can produce. And I'm a dSLR fan too, although I only have an *ist DS.


I think dedication to film really does call for a wet darkroom. I wish I had the space.

I do just fine with my Scan Dual IV for 35mm and Epson flatbeds for medium format and B&W film that I process in the kitchen of my one-bedroom apartment. Before that, I processed it in the kitchen of a house where I rented a single 9x12 room. A wet darkroom is really only necessary for making optical enlargements. Scanners work great.

[vdonovan]

I thought as long as there was demand, there would always be supply? Isn't that how it works?

Not in basic economics. The real equation is that PRICE is the measure of supply and demand. If there is lots of demand and little supply, like for the Mamiya 6, then prices go up. If there is lots of supply and little demand, like for a Polaroid 600, then prices go down.

The demand for film scanners has decreased as film usage has decreased. With shrinking demand, Nikon must reduce the supply of scanners if they want to get a decent price for them.

[Gaspar]

I suspect that few who worry about demise of scanners have yet experienced success with DSLR/inkjet.


I love rangefinder/SLR, stand-processed B&W film, and my Nikon V does beautiful B&W scans...but frankly, my Pentax K20D with prime lenses blows all that away in most situations (inkjet printing both: first with Epson 2200 and now with 3800 , both making excellent, neutral B&W with OEM ink).


Film still has niche advantages (eg certain portrait situations, I think, and Fuji Astia for big color prints), but not enough to draw me away from the superiority of digital in 95%. Certainly, the Pentax accomplishes higher detail resolution than 100iso films, and its 1600iso is more handsome than most of the TriX I see, no matter the skill. ++++++++

IMO continuation with film will soon demand returns to wet darkrooms. I wish I had the space and could afford the paper (price will zoom upward).

I agree with you 100% since I own two good dslr. But In my opinion, for coulour rendition in portraiture I have seen no dslr get any close to Kodak Portra. The Canon 5D comes close but not quite as realistic. The other aspect of film is that you can get excellent quality on very small cameras (Konica C35 for example). With the exception of the Sigma DP1 I have not seen any digital compact I would be satisfied to buy.

[Svitantti]

Plusteks are nowhere near a Nikon or even Konica-Minolta. If you know any german, or can translate it, theres a test-site: www.filmscanner.info. They actually measured the resolutions of many scanners with test charts.

I'm not saying photography is about numbers, but most other scanner tests focus on mainstream properties that a demanding photographer doesn't really need compared to real quality.

The tests say, that if you use a Plustek 7200 with full 7200 dpi resolution chosen, you actually get about 2900. This means your files are humongous and the scanning takes a loooooong time. Also the dynamic range of Plustek scanners lacks a lot compared to these better ones (there is a comparison against Coolscan V).

Compared to this, Konica-Minolta Scan Dual IV approaches 3100 dpi out of 3200 and Coolscan V 3900/4000. This all said, I would rather buy a used Minolta or Nikon than any new Plustek. Part of this is just to boycot this kind of "7200 dpi" advertisigin ;).

[JTK]

I thought as long as there was demand, there would always be supply? Isn't that how it works?

No. Supply rarely rises to meet demand for anything. Supply is created to meet shareholder's requirements. Nikon could make a profit on scanners, but that would divert marketing budget and management from the shareholders' big game, which currently is D90/D700 (for the market that would otherwise buy a scanner).

[bmattock]

No. Supply rarely rises to meet demand for anything. Supply is created to meet shareholder's requirements. Nikon could make a profit on scanners, but that would divert marketing budget and management from the shareholders' big game, which currently is D90/D700 (for the market that would otherwise buy a scanner).

;) No fooling?

Sorry, I was speaking in jest. I agree with you. Old joke.

[JTK]

To the contrary. And in addition to that, MF format film 'blows away' anything your K20D can produce. And I'm a dSLR fan too, although I only have an *ist DS.

No need to quibble. K20D @ 1600iso B&W produces a long tonal scale, very little noise (does look like modest TriX grain @800). This is far better than *istDS, though that's a fine tool as well.

I've not seen much good MF, ever, among amateurs. I shot a lot of 6X7 and 6X9 and it's certainly capable of fine images of static subjects. None of the MF cameras have ever approached the ruggedness of K20D (or K10D), and that's a real issue for active photographers...explains why Mamiya/Fuji abandoned rangefinders.

Obviously, for a studio portrait photographer there's still an argument for MF, but not if he's doing good business because Mamiya's relatively inexpensive MF digital beats MF film.

:-) Would it be rude to say "D'oh! after the following quote?

" A wet darkroom is really only necessary for making optical enlargements."\Scanners work great.

I've processed film properly (ie Nikor/Kinderman stainless) in a bathroom or wherever, in the daylight, using a changing bag for thirty-plus years, using darkrooms for printing up until I got a Nikon V scanner. Perhaps happily, the total demise of good scanners (unless Plustek's smarter than they seem) will make return to optical printing necessary for the very few serious photographers who will continue to shoot film (and who by definition print their own and don't tolerate cheap photolab scans).

[dfoo]

You can find full resolution plustek and Nikon 5000 scans on flickr. Of course, without doing a side-by-side comparison on the same negative you cannot really tell. However, from a casual look the Nikon 5000 scans are clearly superior... but perhaps not $800-1000 superior :) The workflow of the 5000 is definitely far superior. The plustek, from what I understand, can only scan a single negative at a time. The Nikon can do a whole roll if you have the roll adapter, or have suitably hacked the film loader.

[bmattock]

...necessary for serious photographers (who by definition print their own and don't tolerate cheap photolab scans).

That's the end-game for my side of the discussion. If I don't agree with you, I'm not a 'serious' photographer. All I can say is I disagree, whether that makes me a 'serious' photographer or not. And I carry and use a Fujica G690 and two lenses, as well as my digital kit, so there.

[JTK]

[quote=bmattock;977720]To the contrary. And in addition to that, MF format film 'blows away' anything your K20D can produce. And I'm a dSLR fan too, although I only have an *ist DS.

No need to quibble. K20D @ 1600iso B&W produces a long tonal scale, very little noise (does look like modest TriX grain @800). This is far better than *istDS, though that's a fine tool as well.


I've not seen much good MF, ever, among amateurs. I shot a lot of 6X7 and 6X9 and it's certainly capable of fine images of static subjects. None of the MF cameras have ever approached the ruggedness of K20D (or K10D), and that's a real issue for active photographers...explains why Mamiya/Fuji rangefinders vanished.



I've processed film properly (ie Nikor/Kinderman stainless) in a bathroom or wherever, in the daylight, using a changing bag for thirty-plus years, using darkrooms for printing up until I got a Nikon V scanner. Perhaps happily, the total demise of good scanners (unless Plustek's smarter than they seem) will make return to optical printing necessary for serious photographers (who by definition print their own and don't tolerate cheap photolab scans).

[JTK]

[quote=bmattock;977720]To the contrary. And in addition to that, MF format film 'blows away' anything your K20D can produce. And I'm a dSLR fan too, although I only have an *ist DS.

No need to quibble. K20D @ 1600iso B&W produces a long tonal scale, very little noise (does look like modest TriX grain @800). This is more than 3X higher detail resolution than *istDS, though that's a fine tool as well. My impression is that K20D soundly beats 645 but doesn't rival 6X6 (I like square images). This is all irrelevant because nobody's making MF cameras anymore, and if someone was after maximum detail they'd be shooting LF anyway, or making elaborate 27frame mosaics digitally.

I shot a lot of 6X7 and 6X9 and it's certainly capable of fine images of static subjects ...this kind of discussion can go on forever...8X10 film is infinitely beyond 4X5.

In more practical terms, none of the MF cameras have ever approached the ruggedness of K20D (or other medium-top tier DSLRs), and that's a real issue for active photographers... fragility is one of the reasons Mamiya rangefinders were terminated.

To the extent that we care about image quality, the current Mamiya MF DSLR and top Nikons/Canons do far exceed 645 film in every respect, not to mention my Pentax, and they're obviously afforadible to profitable pros.



I've processed film properly (ie Nikor/Kinderman stainless) in a bathroom or wherever, in the daylight, using a changing bag for thirty-plus years, using darkrooms for printing up until I got a Nikon V scanner. Perhaps happily, the total demise of good scanners (unless Plustek's smarter than they seem) will make a few heroic die-hards return to optical printing necessary for their serious goals( by definition they only print their own and don't tolerate $2 scans).

[Jonas]

Dunno about the 5000, but I heard that the 9000 is on its way out. Directly from a friend that works for Nikon... No words about replacement. Sad if its true. Didnt ask about the 5000. He told me this about 6 months ago.

[mh2000]

Wrong! B&W looks different from film than digital... even though I have made nice digital b&w images that hang happily next to my scanned and inkjet printed b&w film images.

>>I suspect that few who worry about demise of scanners have yet experienced success with DSLR/inkjet.

[kuzano]

Is Nikon making film cameras...particularly announcing new ones?
I don't know.... I'm just asking. (And anyone is welcome to invite me to do my research before posting.)
If their not, why would they pursue another avenue of film that is very likely not profitable....scanning film?

[bcostin]

Disappointing. Maybe I should buy a 9000 while they're still available new. My Coolscan V won't last forever, and three generations of slides and negatives aren't going to scan themselves.

I suppose that's what would bother me most if decent mid-range film scanners do disappear from the market. It'll raise the cost of archiving and sharing our old photos. A few hundred dollars for a Coolscan V wasn't too much to swallow, particularly since I'm shooting film myself, but I doubt that I could afford to send my "collection" of family slides and negatives off to be professionally scanned.

[Faintandfuzzy]

The coolscans are dead...face it !

And your source?

[Harry Lime]

Disappointing. Maybe I should buy a 9000 while they're still available new. My Coolscan V won't last forever, and three generations of slides and negatives aren't going to scan themselves.


I have both the 5000ED and 9000ED. Both are at the top of their class. The 9000ED is the closest thing to a IMACON 343 you're going to find this side of $5000 or more...

If the 9000ED is really gone, then that's a pretty serious blow to anyone still shooting film. Who can afford an Imacon these days? Hasselblad/Imacon discontinued the base model (about $4000). The most affordable model is now around $6000-8000.

Ouch.

[kievman]

I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon Discontinued its scanner line altogether. which is sad, but unfortunately it comes down to simple economics in the name of EPSON- Epson's v750 scanner can make scans compariable to the Nikon 9000 and costs only about half as much. Som might argue the 9000 is better but most would say only marginal better. and not 600-800.00 better. And epson keep on coming out with new models of their scanners every month it seems, especially their cheaper models. BTW I own 2 nikon scanners- a coolscan 4 and 5 and 1 epson scanner, a 4190 photo, which I use for MF, It does a OK job on the MF and makes decent if not great 35mm scans. the nikons certainly do a better job. but for the 200.00 NIB price, it was well worth it -` Michael

[jke]

Whether or not Nikon makes scanners, the problem will eventually be software and/or connectivity. Once the operating systems change enough to require new drivers or the computer manufacturers decide to go with a faster, differently shaped/operated interface, owners of scanners & other peripherals will be at the mercy of the gods (Hamrick?) But I guess this shouldn't be too shocking. Digital cameras also face the same sort of obsolescence potential, unless manufacturers decide that legacy support is an important part of their business model.

Still, I think if you have a couple thousand dollars or more tied up in Leica film equipment and you don't intend to buy an M8.x, spending $1500 or so on an excellent film scanner is perhaps a decently smart investment in film technology. Or move to NYC where film lives. :)

[gdi]

unfortunately it comes down to simple economics in the name of EPSON- Epson's v750 scanner can make scans compariable to the Nikon 9000 and costs only about half as much. Som might argue the 9000 is better but most would say only marginal better. and not 600-800.00 better. Michael


If only that were true I don't think there would be so much angst about Nikon abandoning the market. But unfortunately, the Epson's simply aren't in the same league as the Coolscans - if you want the quality of the 5000/9000 you have to bite the bullet and ante up. ;)

[fbf]

If the 9000ED is really gone, then that's a pretty serious blow to anyone still shooting film. Who can afford an Imacon these days? Hasselblad/Imacon discontinued the base model (about $4000). The most affordable model is now around $6000-8000.

Ouch.


Apparent you haven't searched the imacon on ebay. The used flextight I and II are both under 2000$ range and sometimes much less (saw one complete 343 package sold for 750$ on ebay not long ago).
I wouldn't buy the 9000ed new if I am in market for a scanner. the used 8000ed is just as good and is much cheaper.

[wintoid]

I wish they worked with Vuescan under Linux, but they don't, so that's a deal-killer for me.

Ulp! I thought everything worked with Vuescan under Linux. What's the problem with the Plustek Bill?

Also, what about those slide copier type devices that let you photograph your negatives with a DSLR. Why are these not used more? Are they inherently poor quality, or is it just that noone has done it well yet? (e.g. really even light source).

[bmattock]

Ulp! I thought everything worked with Vuescan under Linux. What's the problem with the Plustek Bill?


No, there are a few that are obstinate. Even my own Epson 4490, works with vuescan if your version of Linux is not 64-bit (mine is) and you have to download and install a custom driver from 'Avaya' (epkowa driver). I have since set up my home webcam/web/email/etc server to be my scanning platform, which is fine, not 64-bit.

The Plusteks apparently only work under Windows with Vuescan:

http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/vuescan.htm#plustek

Plustek
These scanners are supported only on Windows, and you first need to install the Plustek software before running VueScan.

* OpticFilm 7200
* OpticFilm 7200i
* OpticPro ST24
* OpticPro ST28
* OpticPro ST48


Also, what about those slide copier type devices that let you photograph your negatives with a DSLR. Why are these not used more? Are they inherently poor quality, or is it just that noone has done it well yet? (e.g. really even light source).

I haven't used one yet, but my gut feeling is that they're just not that good. Consider that a 'scanner' is moving a sensor over the film in rather close proximity to it, I think of that like a contact print. Then the new 'take a photo of the negative' device attachments, which place the sensor some distance from the film, and pass it through at least one set of lenses along the way - that seems more like optical enlargement. Which is sharper, a contact print or an optical enlargement? Perhaps a bad analogy, but that's how it seems to my way of thinking. I am prepared to be corrected by someone with some really cracking shots reproduced using the adapter.

[Harry Lime]

I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon Discontinued its scanner line altogether. which is sad, but unfortunately it comes down to simple economics in the name of EPSON- Epson's v750 scanner can make scans compariable to the Nikon 9000 and costs only about half as much. Som might argue the 9000 is better but most would say only marginal better. and not 600-800.00 better. And epson keep on coming out with new models of their scanners everyl

I would really have to see a side by side comparison, because I find that difficult to believe. The 9000ED is as good as the Imacon 343. I can't see how the v750 can compete in terms of resolution or dynamic range.

[Harry Lime]

Apparent you haven't searched the imacon on ebay. The used flextight I and II are both under 2000$ range and sometimes much less (saw one complete 343 package sold for 750$ on ebay not long ago).
I wouldn't buy the 9000ed new if I am in market for a scanner. the used 8000ed is just as good and is much cheaper.

New, not used. Everything is cheaper used.

Well, almost.

And the 8000 is not as good as the 9000. The 8000 is very slow and may show banding due to internal electronic noise. But the main problem is that it is very slow.

[Pickett Wilson]

I guess it's what you ultimately plan to do with the images, whether a Nikon 9000ED is worth the extra money. Absolutes get bandied about a lot on the web.

I have a friend that is routinely published in flower and garden magazines (has been for 30 years) and she scans all her slides with an Epson 4490. These are run 1/2 and full page routinely in the magazines, and look great. Magazines never ask what scanner was used, as long as the files match their guidelines.

I'm not sure the differences between the low end and high end are that great in the real world.

[clayne]

No need to quibble. K20D @ 1600iso B&W produces a long tonal scale, very little noise (does look like modest TriX grain @800). This is far better than *istDS, though that's a fine tool as well.


So 30 years later you find digital to offer 95% of the quality of film? You do look at photographs right?

[Florian1234]

I'm not sure about how that one will perform, but Plustek announced a new OpticFilm 7600 scanner to be put on the market in about June or so.
That one will have a LED light source than, which will be different from their earlier models which use cathode light.
Does that change much in the results (LED vs. cathode I mean) ?

And another question is how that one will perform. It's also said that it will do better with Kodachrome.

[Harry Lime]

Well, this blows. Apparently this is for real. With the Minolta Dimage Multi-Pro gone and now the Nikon lineup we are screwed. Flatbeds are no competition for a decent dedicated negative scanner, unless we are talking about units that start at over $10,000. The next stop is the IMACON/Hasselblad line up, but they start at $8,000. Imacon killed the entry level 343 a while back, which ran about $4000-5000.

I hope that Nikon continues to produce these units in batches.

Luckily I have a 5000ED and 9000ED, but maybe it's time to start looking around for a few clean, used units or sell everything and find a second hand Imacon/Hasselblad.

[Florian1234]

Well, this blows. Apparently this is for real. With the Minolta Dimage Multi-Pro gone and now the Nikon lineup we are screwed. Flatbeds are no competition for a decent dedicated negative scanner, unless we are talking about units that start at over $10,000. The next stop is the IMACON/Hasselblad line up, but they start at $8,000. Imacon killed the entry level 343 a while back, which ran about $4000-5000.

I hope that Nikon continues to produce these units in batches.

Luckily I have a 5000ED and 9000ED, but maybe it's time to start looking around for a few clean, used units or sell everything and find a second hand Imacon/Hasselblad.

Did you read my posting above at all? Or do you think Plustek's aren't worth considering? [edito: I know this is about Nikon's...]

[joachim]

Well, this blows. Apparently this is for real. With the Minolta Dimage Multi-Pro gone and now the Nikon lineup we are screwed. Flatbeds are no competition for a decent dedicated negative scanner, unless we are talking about units that start at over $10,000. The next stop is the IMACON/Hasselblad line up, but they start at $8,000. Imacon killed the entry level 343 a while back, which ran about $4000-5000.

I hope that Nikon continues to produce these units in batches.

Luckily I have a 5000ED and 9000ED, but maybe it's time to start looking around for a few clean, used units or sell everything and find a second hand Imacon/Hasselblad.

According to Robert White, the Nikon 5000 is now also discontinued: http://robertwhite.co.uk/product.asp?P_ID=1264&PT_ID=337 and they seem to have sold their last one recently.

[navilluspm]

Nikon has introduced a new scanner just a few months ago. . . . the Dx3. You just need to purchase the bellows and macro attachement for it seperately ;-)

[jonmanjiro]

According to Robert White, the Nikon 5000 is now also discontinued: http://robertwhite.co.uk/product.asp?P_ID=1264&PT_ID=337 and they seem to have sold their last one recently.

The Coolscan V was listed on Nikon Japan's website as discontinued before the last stock at B&H, Adorama etc. and on Ebay had sold out. But the Coolscan 5000 and Coolscan 9000 are still not yet listed as discontinued (link to discontinued digital items here (http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/discontinue/digital/index.htm)). In fact they're still listed on Nikon Japan's website (link here (http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/scanner/index.htm)).

Perhaps it'll be like with the AF Micro Nikkor 70-180mm zoom which was dropped from the product range in the US and Europe but was available for several more years in Japan before it was finally discontinued?

[navilluspm]

My local shop guy said that the 5000 and 9000 are not discontinued, but just made in smaller batches of 100 - or something like that. When they get a large enough order they produce them, and then shut down production until there is a great enough demand to run production again.

[goo0h]

I'm not sure about how that one will perform, but Plustek announced a new OpticFilm 7600 scanner to be put on the market in about June or so.
That one will have a LED light source than, which will be different from their earlier models which use cathode light.
Does that change much in the results (LED vs. cathode I mean) ?

And another question is how that one will perform. It's also said that it will do better with Kodachrome.

Hmmm.... this is all I've found out about it so far....

http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-home&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwerbefotograf.wordpress.com%2F2 009%2F03%2F10%2Fdiascanner-fur-gehobene-anspruche%2F&lp=de_en&btnTrUrl=Translate

[vincentbenoit]

fragility is one of the reasons Mamiya rangefinders were terminated.Has the Mamiya 7 II been "terminated"?

Vincent

[rogue_designer]

Or do you think Plustek's aren't worth considering? [

I've yet to see a plustek scanner perform well enough to make me thinking it's a viable replacement for the coolscans. They just don't resolve the kind of detail with the kind of consistency the nikon's did. (absolute pixel size not withstanding, their lens/system was just not as sharp - maybe they'll fix that in the new models, but without competition, what's their incentive to improve the product?).

unfortunately, it may be the ONLY option in the dedicated film scanner market without spending Imacon prices.

The LED vs. cathode lightsource is fine. Consistency and short warmup speeds, as long as it has the power to get through dense film, and not color shift, we're fine.

[Harry Lime]

Did you read my posting above at all? Or do you think Plustek's aren't worth considering? [edito: I know this is about Nikon's...]

I don't think the Plustek are very good.

The Microtek that was based on the Polaroid scanner was one hell of a bargain.

The last two Minolta units were outstanding.

Even the small Canon (forgot the name) was very nice.

[Harry Lime]

I just spoke to my dealer about this. According to him Nikon is killing the scanners, because they don't want to update the NikonScan software. Seems like there is some problem with an upcoming or current version of Mac OS X. Or at least that is what they told him on the phone. Personally I think that has to be a mistake, because Mac OS X is highly backwards compatible. My guess is that like everyone else Nikon is tightning their belt due to the economy. Since the scanners are not huge money makers and probably don't have any one defending them within the company they got cut from the budget.

He also said that this may be one of the dumber things Nikon has done in recent years, although Nikon is only second to Leica when it comes to shooting themself in the foot. Apparently these units are backordered from now until doomsday. Every time he gets a few units in they are sold in a heartbeat. He was pretty ticked off about the whole thing and even pleaded with them to bundle Vuescan or Silverfast with the units, if NikonScan was DOA.

So, if that REALLY is the reason why they are killing the lineup, then it is a decision of mind boggling stupidity.

[kid_a]

I haven't read the thread, so excuse me if it's been posted already.. But the Nikon rep told me months ago that the Nikon scanners were as good as discontinued. They will no longer build any more of the current line up, and there will be no new additions to the line up.

[Jason Sprenger]

With their digital SLR line-ups, it doesn't seem a good fit for Nikon, Canon or Sony to make film scanners.

However, it makes perfect sense for Kodak. They still make a lot of money from film and they already make scanner components. Unfortunately, Kodak hasn't yet had enough sense to "synergize" their film and digital divisions. Like most short-sighted American companies, they'd sooner acquire existing boutique outfits than develop their own capabilities in-house even with all pieces effectively lying on the floor in front of them.

[Tuolumne]

Seems like a good time for Fuji to come out with a film scanner, too. They seem quite committed to film, plus their newly introduced MF folder shoots film. Perhaps Diana could jump into the fray as well. They make film cameras, although of deliberately low quality. Still, people need high quality scanners to faithfully reproduce their low quality Diana negs. :angel:

/T

[noimmunity]

Seems like a good time for Fuji to come out with a film scanner, too.
/T

Fuji have come out with a scanner, just not one for consumer use. They are committed to their network of developing studios.

But wouldn't it be great to see a consumer model of their Frontier series?!

(Geez I'm glad I got a Coolscan 5000).

[momus1]

I think that's the end of the line, which actually has nothing to do w/ film being dead (again). I sold my 8000 ED because wonderful though it was, I prefer wet prints from a darkroom. Most people who shoot LF work out of a darkroom, and I suspect a fair amount of people who shoot MF will migrate there as the quality MF scanners go away. A few will move up to the Imacons. In B&W, film is alive and kicking. Even if they devise a digital camera that is as good as MF or LF B&W film, which I do not see happening, it still doesn't affect the folks in darkrooms.

[Tuolumne]

I disagree. The remaining consumer users of film are not going back to wet dark room printing. If scanners die, I'll be pitching all of my film cameras. I have zero interest in going back to a wet dark room. I don't think film manufactures will let this happen. They know people who use film have a hybrid work flow. Someone will produce a decent consumer-priced film scanner.

/T

[dfoo]

I'm very glad I already bought a Coolscan 5000. Although I hope the damn thing doesn't break! I do darkroom printing, but compared the amount of film I shoot, and the amount of time to produce a wet print, scanning is a no-brainer!

[lns]

I just spoke to my dealer about this. According to him Nikon is killing the scanners, because they don't want to update the NikonScan software. Seems like there is some problem with an upcoming or current version of Mac OS X. Or at least that is what they told him on the phone. Personally I think that has to be a mistake, because Mac OS X is highly backwards compatible....

I am sure this is true. It took Nikon forever to update the NikonScan software for Leopard (if they ever did). There is a new Mac O/S coming soon, as well as a new Windows, and there probably will be newer ones yet in 18 months or so. So it's a never-ending cycle for Nikon, not of their own choosing, and not for their own profit. So they're going to cut it off. I think it stinks, but I think the writing has been on the wall since Leopard came out.

-Laura

[Mackinaw]

.....It took Nikon forever to update the NikonScan software for Safari (if they ever did).......

I guess I'm confused. Safari is Apple's web browser. Do you mean Tiger or Leopard, which are the Apple working titles on OSX? BTW, Nikon Scan works OK with Tiger and on the Intel processor, which is what I'm using.

Jim B.

[sanmich]

I'm not sure I get it,
the 5000 appears in stock in several known places on line....

[lns]

I guess I'm confused. Safari is Apple's web browser. Do you mean Tiger or Leopard, which are the Apple working titles on OSX? BTW, Nikon Scan works OK with Tiger and on the Intel processor, which is what I'm using.

Jim B.

Yes, thanks. Total brain cramp. :) I meant Leopard. When Leopard first came out, Nikon took forever to update NikonScan.

-Laura

[Ronald_H]

I disagree. The remaining consumer users of film are not going back to wet dark room printing. If scanners die, I'll be pitching all of my film cameras. I have zero interest in going back to a wet dark room. I don't think film manufactures will let this happen. They know people who use film have a hybrid work flow. Someone will produce a decent consumer-priced film scanner.

/T

For color, yes. For black and white I know I will go to wet work some day. In any case, I worked a Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II to the death and my Nikon Coolscan V sees more use than even that. And recently I bought an Epson V500 for MF. They will wear out long before my film cameras do. And then? I hope new scanners will be available in X years time.

[Harry Lime]

If software is the problem they should bundle Silverfast or Vuescan...