Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED now discontinued also in the US

Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED is now listed as discontinued at B&H as well. The scanner has already been listed as discontinued in Europe. I expect the prices to go up on eBay.

This entry was posted in Other Nikon stuff and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Ken

    I’ve rented one a few times. Nice results.
    Vistek in Canada still has it listed for sale.

    • Great! $2799. Let’s see, at a Canadian to US dollar exchange rate of something like .99 to 1, it’s still about $2795.

  • just another nail…

    they were nice scanners.

  • Erik

    This is really bad for the future of medium format film. Maybe it is a good thing that I never invested in a Hasselblad system after all…

  • Sad Sam

    Had plans to get one no later than March, cr card maxed out now, bummer!
    Any recommendations for a good substitute, Nikon or other brands? Price point?

    • Check out whatever the latest Epson is and use a glass holder. Save you lots of money to get the same or better quality. I have the old 4800 and it meets or exceeds whatever film I’ve thrown at it, including 4×5 sheet film, which I don’t believe any of the Nikons do.

  • Banned

    The end of an era…

    Folks around the world still have so much film to scan, how are all the Internet scan shops going to replace their failed hardware now?

    If Nikon decides to discontinue the 5000 as well, a lot of people are going to be screwed.

    • Sad Sam

      That’s exactly what Nikon is doing nowadays, right?
      Think about their gear, pricing and availability, customer service, repairs service, pro “services”, you name it!
      The only thing they didn’t try (yet) is to offer Japanese-only menus and manuals.
      I wonder if it’s just negligence or willful screw-everybody company policy?

  • Fabio27

    It was time for the departure. Bellows and a decent camera give better results. Even my Sigma macro 50 is quite good in reproducing transapencies of any format.

    • asdasd

      so turn your MF slides to output with dynamics of sigma? thanks but no thanks.
      you obviously know nothing

    • E.

      I agree with Fabio27. There will always be other ways to digitize images from film. I have been working on a conversion project involving about 5,000 B&W 35mm negatives. The negatives have images with limited artistic or technical value. However, they are part of an archive with significant historical value.

      When the project started, I examined all the possibilities that existed and concluded that investing in an unsupported Nikon scanner was not a defensible solution since the project was expected to go on for several years. A Nikon scanner is for all intent and purposes too fragile technologically to consider it a viable, long-term solution. And I must add that when the project started there were funds available for the purchase of a scanner. The news about the best Nikon scanner being phased out should not come as a surprise. It was expected.

      For anyone interested in this kind of work, I can offer a few observations, but please note that they will be limited to those with interest in historical work.

      a) When one begins to closely examine an archival collection of negatives, one quickly discovers that advances in photographic technology have raised expectations on technical quality, e.g., resolution, exposure. In the case of the project I am working on only a small portion of the negatives deserve special consideration (e.g., archival level, high-quality scanning). Many are slightly out of focus, blurred, under- or over-exposed.

      b) Nikon bellows, e.g., PB-4 or PB-5 can be used in combination with the slide/negative holders PS-4 or PS-5. However, the original built-in geometry of the combination of the two will have an impact on the coverage of the image. For example, when using the standard and easily available 55mm Micro-Nikkor f/2.8 AIS manual focus lens in combination with the PB-4 and PS-4, the choice of camera body (DX or FX) needs to be considered. A cropped sensor body cannot be used to capture the entire negative with a single frame. Stitching software can be used to merge four overlapping images taken with the PS-4 to capture the original frame edge-to-edge (the PS-4 has the ability to move the negative up/down, or sideways, while the PS-5 does not). However, this adds another step to the work flow.

      c) For negatives with historical significance, limiting the conversion to the center portion of the negative can ultimately prove to be a mistake. Sometimes details in the corners go on to develop significant important thirty or forty years later, for example, objects or faces.

      d) The conversion of negative collections is really a multi-step process and the first step is usually aimed at getting a sense of what is available in the collection. This step is more about “cataloging” the collection. In this context, the superior quality offered by scanners is not of the greatest importance and the speed provided by a “manual” procedure (e.g., using bellows) should not be dismissed. Scanning is very slow and operators need to be trained. Bellows, on the other hand, provide almost immediate results. Once the configuration of the bellows and negative holder is established one can process negatives very quickly.

      e) Since Nikon bellows are slowly dying and not always available from reliable sources, there are other possibilities. One of the ones I experimented with and implemented because of its portability has the added benefit of allowing the use of a DX cropped sensor body to capture the entire frame of a 35mm negative in a single image. This eliminates the need of having to acquire a full-frame (FX) body. The solution involves using a Nikon ES-1 slide holder, which is still available brand new, in combination with extension tubes (pre-AI K series or PK-, PN- tubes) to position the ES-1 holder at the correct distance in front of the Nikkor 55mm lens. Since the ES-1 was originally intended to be used with film cameras when it is used directly in front of a 55mm Micro lens the images will be cropped unless one uses an FX body. However, a series of tubes can solve this problem. For anyone working on a project with a limited budget, the ES-1 with the most appropriate K-, PK, or PN- tubes can provide a very workable and low-cost solution. The ES-1 holder was originally designed for mounted slides and while some believe that the slide holding spring strips can damage negatives they do not if they are handled carefully.

      f) Two related points have to do with the circumstances of a digitization project and the availability of work space. For projects in difficult locations (e.g., field work in remote locations) or when access to negatives is restricted, scanners will not do. Scanners imply access to a reliable power grid and at least a laptop. In contrast, bellows and the ES-1 option do not. For situations where limited work space is available or when travel is involved, the bellows are not the best option. The PB-4 bellows are relatively heavy and bulky and they are at their best when mounted on a solid tripod. The ES-1 and tubes provide the most portable, self-contained solution. For example, one could easily combine a small, high-density sensor body (e.g., a D3100) with an ES-1/tubes and have something that takes up very little space.

      g) For those contemplating the use of an FX body with PB-4 bellows and the PS-4 holder, I should add a final point. It has to do with the choice of the FX body from the current Nikon FX body line-up. Any F-mount camera can be directly attached to the PB-4 bellows. The belief that the F mount in the bellows can damage the electronic contacts in the mounts of modern cameras is incorrect. They do not. Camera bodies can be directly attached to the mount in the bellows. However, there are some space restrictions. Bodies with built-in grips (e.g., D2 and D3 series) cannot be mounted because of physical interference with the lower part of the PB-4 assembly. There simply isn’t enough space for the complete rotation of the body. To mount these bodies one needs to use an extension tube to provide the necessary clearance. Unfortunately, this alters the original geometry of the PB-4, PS-4 and 55mm Micro Nikkor combination and the result is even greater magnification and a further reduced image. However, this does not apply to the D700.

      To conclude I should add that these points do not dismiss the importance of a high-quality scanner. The work flow of a digitization project should include the scanning of images identified as worthy of the additional time and processing cost. However, I am not entirely convinced that Nikon has abandoned the scanner product line. In fact, I would not be surprised to see Nikon release a new, improved version in the near future.

      • thanks fo the long comment – this sounds more like a guest post, interested?

        • E.

          Thanks. Yes, it would be great to prepare a guest post on this. I just wish the days had more hours!

  • Mock Kenwell

    Crap. Now they’ll be more expensive than ever.

  • R R

    that is sad.. real sad.

  • Anonymus Maximus

    I bet another Pentax 645D effect.

  • Peter B

    Epson Scanners any good?

    • Not good enough. I’m getting really annoyed with Nikon. I wanted to buy one, but whenever I had the money, I could never find one in stock.

      I think Ilford or Kodak (someone vested in film) ought to license the design or have them built. Now I really can’t afford a Flextight or Imacon scanner. I have scads of different generations of Epsons, and they just don’t do the trick for MF and LF scanning.

      • Or maybe someone like Vuescan should build one.

    • Eric Pepin

      decent, not the best solution. If epson released a $1500 – $3000 hypothetical V900 (whatever the name) and made it faster , much, much faster and gave it a higher true dpi with better dmax, maybe that would be an option. The V700 doesent cut it for most printing though.

      • nathan

        Not sure what you mean here. I used my PB-6, Nikon D700 and a few different 50mm lenses. One was a EL-Nikkor stopped down to f/11 and the others were a 50mm f/1.8 AIS and a 50mm f/1.8 AF lens. The 50mm f/1.8 AF lens turned out to be the best of the bunch there. That surprised me as I thought the enlarging lens would beat it out since it’s optimized for flat negatives/slides.

        I then scanned a 35mm slide with the Epson V750 with the latest Silverscan and did my usual fiddling with the slides to make them look as good as possible.

        The results showed that the V750 slide scan was ever so slightly more sharp and detailed than the best that I could throw onto the bellows. However, both would give beautiful prints.

        That said, though, if I’m going to digitize my slides from now on I’m going to use the bellows/lens combination because the detail and sharpness that I’ll “lose” isn’t all that much. The difference in time it took to capture the image with the bellows was basically less than 1 minute from cleaning the slide, putting it into the holder and pressing the button. The time it took to scan the slide and make it look similar to the camera shot was about 15 minutes.

    • Simple answer: yes.

      More in depth answer: better than most people’s ability to use them. Oh, assuming you’re using something as good as Silverfast.

      There’s nothing I can’t get out of film with my 4800. You do have to get yer 35mm flat, which takes either glass or a third party rig. I find a combo of glass and the stock holder are more than sufficient to get all there is out of 35mm. The stock 120 and sheet film holders are more than sufficient to hold your film flat, and results with those are quite good without any fuss.

      Yeah, not the fastest thing in the world, especially with ICE enabled. Looking at the specs on B&H, the 9000 looks about 20% faster than my 4800. If you want speed, just shoot digital to start with.

      Of course, I’ve been doing this for years, so I know how to get the results I want. YMMV, but the equipment isn’t a limiting factor here.

      • Mock Kenwell

        Agreed. And unless you’re printing really huge, the V700, V750 are actually quite good for the cost if you know what you’re doing.

        • nathan

          I’ve blown up one of my 6×6 negatives to 30×30 using the V750. Looks pretty darn good.

  • Freaking bad news. Now I’m using a crappy Epson V350 and know that V700 will don’t meet demands in the future. Coolscan was in my wishlist after bunch of hi-end lenses and now really nothing to do, because Hasselblad Imacon is astronomically expensive.

    There’s no realible news about films, but by all means we see that analog techonology is not dead yet if Kodak releasing new films such as Ektar 100 and Portra 400. Polaroid has reborn from the ashes. And what about Ilford? Fuji? Agfa (despite that this is not an Agfa)? There lot of SF, MF and LF users, so this is sad that in some days all this gear will become useless.

    • Lots of LF format users? Define “lots”…

      This Nikon doesn’t do LF, so it’s irrelevant. Some of the Epsons and Canons and Minoltas do. This is obviously driven by demand, which I imagine is next to non-existent.

  • edstate

    Wow… i’ve been lazy about scanning all my slides in (I have a SUPER cool scan, so it’s VERY cool)… and this scares me. I need to get on that, and do it right. Because if something happens to it (it’s 8 years old) I’m SOL.

    /still loves slides

  • anon99

    Absolutely wrong, irresponsible decision for Nikon to discontinue such a great product. Definitely a bummer!!

    There are pros out there who still rely on film for good reason. No point to push everyone to stick to the digital route in all cases.

    Flextights are hi-spec performers but are astronomically expensive and usually affordable only by the publishing media. So a desktop film scanner like this LS9000 is the only option to most photographic pros.

    Currently using the Minolta AF5000 myself but there’s no more support anymore. Scanner has gone thru a few major repairs, and no more spare parts are available. Have been thinking about getting the LS9000 when the AF5000 eventually dies, but now all hope is gone.

    CCD technology has been advancing during all these years. If Nikon still has the conscience to release a successor to the LS9000 I’m sure the specs would be much better, with more dpi resolution and (maybe) better noise reduction (critical for recovering shadow areas of the film).

  • C.

    This will be available starting June 2011:–ab-Juni-2011-erhaeltlich.html

    List price will be around 1,500€. Hope it is any good.

  • neversink

    As a professional photographer, I am so disappointed in Nikon for not updating this scanner for years. It probably needs a replacement as it doesn’t work well with the latest Mac OS or other OS, although the third party software is better anyway. With all my negatives I have, I need a decent, reasonably priced scanner.

    I was (and still am) hoping that Nikon will come through with an updated scanner. With the demand for this scanner on ebay, I just can’t understand why Nikon hasn’t put a newer version on the market….

  • Paul

    This is actually most disappointing because this scanner had the ability to scan brightfield microscope slides at reasonable resolution (with an adaptor). I scanned 5000 microscope slides for a postdoctoral project and have the smaller one but couldn’t justify the old cost of this. I think this is the real reason they killed this so they could up sell a digital microscope for 10-15K.

  • Back to top