User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  0
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Nikon Coolscan vs Canon 8800f

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    29 Nov 2008
    Location
    River Murray
    Posts
    727
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Nikon Coolscan vs Canon 8800f

    Thought I would post a comparison between two scans. Both scans done in Vuescan Pro.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. #2
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,652
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I'm guessing the Nikon is the first one?

    Was the original blown out? and it looks like some of the settings on the Nikon need a tweak to reduce the brightness when scanning. Hard to compare a comparison like this when there is no scientific basis to it. ie, accuracy of settings.

    My mum has a Nikon Coolscan and it does a brilliant job, much better than these would appear.
    "It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro

    Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
    Nikon, etc!

    RICK
    My Photography

  3. #3
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    29 Nov 2008
    Location
    River Murray
    Posts
    727
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No the second and far superior scan is the Nikon. The d.r is ok on the neg but it does show the limitations of the Canon. The setting are as close as can be set between two scanners with the same software. The Nikon scan clearly shows grain clumps scanned from the neg where the Canon cannot resolve. I have tried to optimise both scans with a levels adjustment in CS3.

    "My mum has a Nikon Coolscan and it does a brilliant job, much better than these would appear."

    Does the second scan look poor to you Rick? I quite like the shot and I am pleased with the scan.

  4. #4
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,652
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Ah, ok, at least other members will now know what scan is from what scanner.

    I do agree that the second looks better, at least neat image etc, could do some clean up on the grain, but being mono (was the original a mono), grain would probably have been evident in the original?

    Thanks for the extra info your settings for both scanners, certainly helps, us members, to know this stuff when trying to evaluate results. I have always been impressed with the results from my Mum's coolscan, even some badly degraded 1950's transparencies came up a lot better than I ever expected.

  5. #5
    Member Calxoddity's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Apr 2008
    Location
    Wollongong
    Posts
    473
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hmmm... interesting. Is the quality difference worth the price difference between the two?

    I'm looking a a scanner to bring in negs, some dating back to 1975, but I get scared off by the price of the dedicated negative/slide scanners. I was considering the 8800F, but after seeing the direct comparison, I'm not so sure.

    Another I was considering was the Plustek neg/slide scanners, but I haven't heard much about them.

    Regards,
    Calx
    Calxoddity
    Concert Pianist, Test Pilot, Pathological Liar


    Nikon D40, Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5 HSM, Nikkor AF-D 50mm f1.8
    Post Processing: Aperture 3 & Photoshop Elements 6

  6. #6
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    29 Nov 2008
    Location
    River Murray
    Posts
    727
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rick this is from a 400 ISO silver halide neg so there is a bit of grain. I developed this in Rodinal which certainly isn't ideal to acheive fine grain. I do not claim this to be a great pic, handheld with a 70-200 from a fair distance, but it does give a reasonable indication of what can be acheived with a dedicated scanner. I could not acheive a better result out of the Canon scan (top) however the Nikon scan may be able to be improved on given some more time with the scanner.

    Calx, I certainly do think that the price difference is worth it. Not only will you acheive a better result, your work flow will be greatly improved. Scanning a mounted slide is a breeze, and those Canon film holders are tricky for 135 negs and trannys. The only reason I went for the Canon to begin with was to scan my 120 film, but I have now sold all of my medium format gear. With a strip of 135 film, just feed it into the slot like a $5 not on a vending machine. Easy.
    Last edited by TOM; 17-01-2009 at 6:32pm.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •