Nikon 9000 is great ... but...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alan Browne
  • Start date Start date
A

Alan Browne

Well, finally, many months after getting the Nikon 9000 I'm scanning
film from the summer of 2006. It was near impossible to get a crisp
scan with the supplied holder. I finally, after many months of waiting
for stock got the glass holder a couple weeks ago...

The scanner is optically very good, of course. It works ICE very fast
compared to my Minolta 5400 (which I sold).

The Nikon Scan software SUCKS in user interface terms, but I do like it
better than VueScan, so I'll count my blessings.

The Nikon film holders are a disaster. What the hell were they
thinking? (Working with curled film is horrible). They supply masks
with one cutout for 6x6 and the rest of the mask is open. Another mask
for 6x7 and the rest is open... why not supply masks with three
apertures for 6x6?

Cheers,
Alan
 
Alan Browne said:
The Nikon film holders are a disaster. What the hell were they
thinking? (Working with curled film is horrible). They supply masks
with one cutout for 6x6 and the rest of the mask is open. Another
mask for 6x7 and the rest is open... why not supply masks with three
apertures for 6x6?
Click to expand...

Maybe because the spacing between film frames in 120 film vary
somewhat from camera to camera.
 
The Nikon film holders are a disaster. What the hell were they
thinking? (Working with curled film is horrible). They supply masks
with one cutout for 6x6 and the rest of the mask is open. Another mask
for 6x7 and the rest is open... why not supply masks with three
apertures for 6x6?
Click to expand...


actually, they kinda work fine for me. the "stretch' bar is more
than enough to take care of any curl in my 6x7 film.
but the real problem is the space between images
varies greatly between different camera brands. and
sometimes even in the same camera type: my rb67 std
backs and pro-s backs leave quite different spacing between
images...
 
Back
Top