Nikon Super Coolscan 8000 ED Film Scanner

When Nikon discontinued the 9000 scanner, the price shot into the stratosphere. So what's serious film photographer supposed to do now? At less than half the price of the 9000, the 8000 does almost the same job, though a little slower. Let's face it--there is simply nothing besides the 8000 between the Epsons at around $700 and the 9000 at $4000 used or $6000 new (if you can even find one...).Yes, the 8000 is a little long in the tooth, and most units are at least 10 years old. It's a little slow, a little noisy, and has a few quirks that need to be worked around. But if you shoot MF film and want the highest possible resolution and can't afford $40 for a single drum scan, the 8000 will do it. Sharpness compared to an Epson flatbed (I own the V500) is noticeably better, and the 8000 is resolving grain that the Epson cannot. What else is better compared to an Epson? For one thing, the Nikon, supposedly due to its light source, picks up far less dust and scratches on the film. And Digital ICE is more effective. Color in general is better--sometimes it seems the Epson only guesses at what colors my negative are. If you need to print big, the Epsons simply aren't suitable. And there's no point in using fine lenses (I have a Mamiya 6 system) unless you can get a good scan. I had no idea my lenses were so sharp until I started using the 8000. Surface detail on objects suddenly appears, and other fine details invisible to the Epson.The 8000 does have its quirks, however, and they are well-known and discussed on the internet. The first is that while the holders are generally excellent and heavy-duty (they put the Epson film holders to shame), the standard MF may not get the best sharpness from 120 film due to the difficulty of holding the film flat. Many users opt for the glass holder, which holds the film flat between two sheets of glass, but at over $250 (used), it's not a cheap option. There's a cheaper one: the glass from my betterscanning.com film holder fits perfectly, and can be had for only $29.99. My scans are now consistently grain-sharp. The second quirk of the Nikon is its tendency to create banding patterns. This only happens in fast mode, and can be eliminated by always opting for "fine" mode. I've only seen it so far in 120, but not in the last set of 35mm scans I did. It's not a big deal, but does slow down the scans considerably.Software may be an issue for some users, depending on the computer/operating system used. Some report success with Nikon Scan software (free from Nikons' website), and some don't. I worked great for a while on my Mac running 10.5.8, but then it refused. Fortunately, Vuescan has come to the rescue with it's ridiculously cheap ($39.99) scanning software. It does just about everything the Nikon software does, including batch scanning (many have claimed it won't batch scan on the 8000, but that's nonsense--you just have to configure it correctly. One advantage of Vuescan is that it'll run any other scanner you have. The same can't be said of Silverfast, which is scanner-specific. Although Silverfast is probably better, it's also over $400.In summary, the NIkon 8000 ED does have its shortcomings, but there is currently nothing that gets close to its native resolution for what it costs (I never have to sharpen scans). If you're committed to film and can't afford the 9000, then get an 8000--it's the next best thing. The price will no doubt drift upwards with that of the 9000 (all the other recent Nikon scanners are now multiples of their original price), so if you can find one, buy it.

Excellent scanner. Excellent seller!

I paid a lot less than current prices for this...I think my cost was around $2K. At today's priceI would not buy it new. I'd spend the money on a great Nikon digital cam or Canon, etc.I've scanned dozens of rolls of 120 film with it. I had problems in the past with scan quality becauseI lacked computing power. Recently, using 120 film, Silverfast AI8 Studio and a new Mac Prothis scanner (and the silverfast sw) produces mind blowing quality when printed ( i use an Epson 4900and Canson High gloss paper). Silverfast is very good,I especially like its ability to manage colors well and amazingly good at cleaning dust spotsfrom the image. Also, Thank god Apple provides a firewire 400 to thunderbolt adapter :-)The scans are easily saved as PSD files. I can honestly say that for me, the Coolscan 8000produces digital color and black/white images with Silverfast AI8 that are as good as the native digital files I producewith my 50 megapixel Hasselblad camera. With Fuji 50, I'd say the film and scan results in better colorsthan the 50MP Hasselblad CFV-50. Don't get me wrong though, I believe the CFV-50 is fantastic, but harder towork with than film, because its resolution is so fine, far better than the human eye, that its not asforgiving of any vibration, whereas film seems more forgiving. I simply never hand hold a shot with thedigital back, but I still can do so with a film back in place.Its common to be able to use the Coolscan 8000 to produce files that can be printed at 8 x 10 and 450dpi.These are RAZOR sharp images, which I like...i do use PS CS6 to finalize images...Its so good, I am continuing to use film as well as digital. 1 big reason is that I also use theglass film holder which helps keep the negatives flat. IF they are not held flat the scannerhas great difficulty and can often produce garbled banding in the image (thereby ruining it).Its noisy, and slow, but very effective. Another tip worth considering: I have the scanner sittingon the floor to minimize possible vibration from tables and desks. I added additional rubber feet too.These steps seem to have a positive impact on quality.Its easy as cake to scan 5 35mm slides at a time. Just be sure to walk away and do somethingelse while it works..not long ago I scanned a few 50 year old Kodachrome slides. The results areamazing. The digital pics look like the day the pics were shot. If you have a lot of old slides and negatives,its a great scanner at the used price.