Well, I am thinking about getting one of these in the used market if I can find something really cheap. But what are the real differences between these two scanners? I can't seem to find any, so I thought users may have better ideas.
Thanks.
Posted by Svein-Frode on August 17, 2007 at 3:29 AM
The 9000 has better dynamic range and can pull a little more detail out of the shadows.
There are few of these in circulation and I bet you can get the Epson V750 for at least the same price as used Coolscan 9000. I've heard that the Epson is arguably just as good as the Nikons.
Prashant, I've never seen nor used an MF camera. My idea was to get the 9000 if possible just in case a few years down the line I start shooting MF. I have a few slides lying around that look really amazing (IMO), but the scan job I got done from a lab leaves much to be desired (price including), the pictures don't come anywhere closer to what the slide shows. So I was wondering about getting a cheap used scanner so that I could scan them myself.
If it is 'few' slides I will suggest a good drum scan. Why not shoot an email to Danny burk ?
If it is lot of slides then go for the latest Coolscan for 35mm. I've used 8000 and it is fantastic, 9000 should be better but it is an overkill for 35mm, imo. All the best!!
Discussion
4 repliesThanks.
There are few of these in circulation and I bet you can get the Epson V750 for at least the same price as used Coolscan 9000. I've heard that the Epson is arguably just as good as the Nikons.
If it is lot of slides then go for the latest Coolscan for 35mm. I've used 8000 and it is fantastic, 9000 should be better but it is an overkill for 35mm, imo. All the best!!