Epson v700 vs Nikon 9000ED
Old 06-15-2007   #1
srtiwari
Daktari
 
srtiwari's Avatar
 
srtiwari is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vero Beach, Florida
Posts: 940
Red face Epson v700 vs Nikon 9000ED

Hi, have an 'oppotunity' to buy a Nikon 9000ED scanner for almost three times what my epson v700 cost. Just bought a Rolleiflex 3.5F to try and do B&W work, and print upto 11x14, probably using Vuescan.

Now, I know there are too many other variables involved, but still, everything ELSE being equal-

will I see a significant difference ?

and

Is it worth the difference in price ?

Just a quick attempt to feed or dissipate my sudden GAS...
HELP !


Subhash
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2007   #2
furcafe
Registered User
 
furcafe's Avatar
 
furcafe is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Age: 46
Posts: 3,846
I haven't used your model of the Epson & don't have experience w/the 9000 (I use the Konica Minolta Dimage Multiscan Pro for medium format, but it has similar specs to the Nikon), but I would say that even making only 11x14 prints, you will see a significant difference using the film scanner.

However, if you're not planning on making a lot of digital prints (another significant outlay of money for printer & inks + additional learning curve) or doing other digital stuff w/your scans, then it might not be worth it for you to get the 9000.

Quote:
Originally Posted by srtiwari
Hi, have an 'oppotunity' to buy a Nikon 9000ED scanner for almost three times what my epson v700 cost. Just bought a Rolleiflex 3.5F to try and do B&W work, and print upto 11x14, probably using Vuescan.

Now, I know there are too many other variables involved, but still, everything ELSE being equal-

will I see a significant difference ?

and

Is it worth the difference in price ?

Just a quick attempt to feed or dissipate my sudden GAS...
HELP !


Subhash
__________________
Five a Second. Chicago's Bell & Howell Co. (cameras) announced that it would put on sale this fall the world's most expensive still camera. Its "Foton" will take five 35-mm. pictures a second, sell for $700. Bell & Howell, which has found that "families of both low and high incomes now spend over $550" for movie equipment, hopes to sell 20,000 Fotons a year.

--Facts And Figures, Time magazine, Monday, October 4, 1948
My Photoblog

My Flickr stream

My RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-15-2007   #3
Finder
-
 
Finder is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,077
The review I saw between the Epson and a film scanner (Nikon?) concluded while there was a difference, it was very subtle. The Nikon scanner is old technology and flatbeds have been able to catch up. Since you are only making 11x14 prints, I would go for either as both would give similar results. Naturally, the Epson can scan prints.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon F100 Deal - US behind UK ch1 Rangefinder Photography Discussion 4 06-01-2009 10:09
Whatcha Got? sfaust Rangefinder Photography Discussion 218 06-08-2007 09:18
CANOSCAN 9950F OR Epson V700? Brad Bireley Scanners / Scanner Software 6 02-16-2007 11:38
Was I dreaming? Nikon Booth in Rockefeller Center Plasmat Nikon RF 8 02-06-2007 20:33
Disappointed with Epson V700 Roma Scanners / Scanner Software 18 12-18-2006 21:20



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 20:45.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.