Digital BW, The Print

My old Nikon LS1000 has finally given up the ghost and I need to get 
a new scanner for 35mm and APS film. I sold off my large and medium 
format gear some time ago (age and infirmity took their toll in 
carrying capacity) and won't need that capability. 

In looking around there are a plethora of scanners available but on 
a cost/benefit basis the Canoscan 4000US looks pretty good. Has 
anybody on the list had any experience with this beast? 

I have always had a fondness for Canon products and optics so I am 
drawn not entirely rationally towards that brand.

Other suggestions would also be welcome, of course. 

Thanks,

Roger

on 8/29/02 10:18 PM, rlsopher at rlsopher@... wrote:


In a Magazine test I read recently, the canon scanner 4000 rated highest in
sharpness of all the $1500 and less scanners.  I don't know how fast it is,
or its density range though.

Jerry

I haven't measured the output from my Canoscan 4000 .. i think it performs
very good -- and will just tell you what i wished it did different:

    * No Mac OS X drivers
    * USB is slow -- the firewire scanners although more expensive (almost
2x) are WAY faster
    * can't batch scan more than 6 frames at a time..

the good things is that its cheap, i got mine for $750 ..

-- ricardo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Canoscan 4000US


> on 8/29/02 10:18 PM, rlsopher at rlsopher@... wrote:
>
>
> In a Magazine test I read recently, the canon scanner 4000 rated highest
in
> sharpness of all the $1500 and less scanners.  I don't know how fast it
is,
> or its density range though.
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various r
esources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

I've made a direct comparison between the Canon and the Nikon 4000. The
Canon ate dust.By far. Scanning BW the Nikon was a light year ahead. I
bought the Nikon,even with the price difference. BTW,all my photo gear is
Canon,so I was not biased...
Andre Vallejo

> Message: 2
>    Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 03:18:45 -0000
>    From: "rlsopher" <rlsopher@...>
> Subject: Canoscan 4000US
>
> My old Nikon LS1000 has finally given up the ghost and I need to get
> a new scanner for 35mm and APS film. I sold off my large and medium
> format gear some time ago (age and infirmity took their toll in
> carrying capacity) and won't need that capability.
>
> In looking around there are a plethora of scanners available but on
> a cost/benefit basis the Canoscan 4000US looks pretty good. Has
> anybody on the list had any experience with this beast?
>
> I have always had a fondness for Canon products and optics so I am
> drawn not entirely rationally towards that brand.
>
> Other suggestions would also be welcome, of course.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Roger

Saturday, August 31, 2002, 1:18:16 PM, Andr\ufffd Vallejo wrote:

AV> I've made a direct comparison between the Canon and the Nikon 4000. The
AV> Canon ate dust.By far. Scanning BW the Nikon was a light year ahead. I
AV> bought the Nikon,even with the price difference. BTW,all my photo gear is
AV> Canon,so I was not biased...
AV> Andre Vallejo


I've never used a Canon 4000 but have the Nikon LS-IV and LS-4000 and
now own the 4000.  It's fantastic.

Tim Grey, who is George Lepp's "tech guru", said that they have
extensively tested the Canon scanners.  After all George is a big
Canon proponent with Canon being one of his biggest sponsors of his
camera gear, lenses, etc.  SO you might say they certainly wanted to
like the Canon scanners, but here's Tim's opinion:

"George Lepp is also a big fan of Canon equipment, but it is important
to choose the best tool for your needs rather than just buying what
your favorite company is producing. While the Canon FS4000US is a good
scanner, the Nikon scanners are better, and that is why we are using
them for our production work and for the courses at the Lepp Institute
of Digital Imaging. When comparing the Nikon Super CoolScan 4000 ED to
the Canon FS4000, I strongly recommend the Nikon scanner. I would even
choose the Nikon CoolScan IV ED over the Canon FS4000 if price were an
important factor. The basic scan quality from the Canon scanner was
good. However, I felt the Nikon produced a better scan. The Canon also
includes FARE technology to clean dust and scratches. However, I found
that it performed poorly, and produced problems in the images. I would
not recommend scanning with FARE turned on. As for scan times, the two
scanners have similar results when scanned with similar settings. The
Nikon will take longer when Digital ICE is enabled, but this is time
well invested in your image, as you will save tremendous time later
because you won't need to do much (if any) cleaning of the image in
Photoshop. There is no question that I very much favor the latest trio
of scanners from Nikon compared to all others that I have used. The
Canon FS4000 represents a big step up from prior Canon scanners, and
demonstrates some excellent potential. However, it still doesn't match
the results you can get using one of the latest scanners from Nikon."


Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

No, but I bet you had a faulty scanner. 3 different reviews said the
canon was sharper than the nikon 4000 or any other scanner under $1500.
My 2720 film scanner was as sharp as the polaroid 4000, so I sent the
Polaroid back.

Jerry

If you are saying that something other than sharpness was worse than the
canon, that's different. How did it "eat dust"?




Andr\ufffd Vallejo wrote:

> 
> I've made a direct comparison between the Canon and the Nikon 4000. The
> Canon ate dust.By far. Scanning BW the Nikon was a light year ahead. I
> bought the Nikon,even with the price difference. BTW,all my photo gear is
> Canon,so I was not biased...
> Andre Vallejo
> 
> > Message: 2
> >    Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 03:18:45 -0000
> >    From: "rlsopher" <rlsopher@...>
> > Subject: Canoscan 4000US
> >
> > My old Nikon LS1000 has finally given up the ghost and I need to get
> > a new scanner for 35mm and APS film. I sold off my large and medium
> > format gear some time ago (age and infirmity took their toll in
> > carrying capacity) and won't need that capability.
> >
> > In looking around there are a plethora of scanners available but on
> > a cost/benefit basis the Canoscan 4000US looks pretty good. Has
> > anybody on the list had any experience with this beast?
> >
> > I have always had a fondness for Canon products and optics so I am
> > drawn not entirely rationally towards that brand.
> >
> > Other suggestions would also be welcome, of course.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Roger
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

So  Which reviewers to believe?  I guess you'd just have to test them
yourself first.

There were a lot of complaints on the scanner list that the nikon 4000
didn't hold the negatives perfectly flat, and were slightly out of focus
at the edges. I used both nikon and canon 2720 DPI scanners, and Found
that was true with the less expensive nikon scanner. The edges were NOT
as sharp as the center. I understand you can get a glass filmholder that
would alleviate this problem with the Nikon 4000.

I've seen other equipment reviewed by many different reviewers, and they
drew opposite conclusions. So the best advice would be to test before
you buy.  Someone else on the list today said the canon 4000 was TOO
sharp. Imagine being too sharp. I don't think I could imagine that. 

Perhaps you get better scans with black and white negatives with the
nikon. Maybe canon is better if you scan color negatives and use their
FARE software. 

Test before you buy, if you can, or else buy from a company that will
refund your money if not satisfied: B&H, Calumet, Camera World

Jerry

Saturday, August 31, 2002, 3:00:43 PM, Jerry Olson wrote:

JO> 3 different reviews said the
JO> canon was sharper than the nikon 4000 or any other scanner under $1500.


Jerry,

Which reviews were these? Links? I tend to judge my reviews,
obviously, by my impression of the reviewer(s). For example I think
those semi-anonymous sites where people post a few sentences, are
pretty much useless.

In the end there's people happy with both these scanners.  You're
right, best is to test them yourself.

Thanks.

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

> In the end there's people happy with both these scanners.  You're
> right, best is to test them yourself.

OTOH, I was poisoned against Canon by their first entry into the 
scanner world, the 2700 was, at best, suitable only for learning, and 
for web photos.

Tim



-- 
Tim Spragens

http://www.borderless-photos.de
http://www.borderless-photos.com

All my photo gear is Nikon and bought CanosScan because of the price. I'm not happy. I scan basically B&W (TMY) and most of my pictures are too grainy.
Renan Lopes

Andr\ufffd Vallejo wrote:

>  I bought the Nikon,even with the price difference. BTW,all my photo gear is
> Canon,so I was not biased...
> Andre Vallejo
>
>
> > In looking around there are a plethora of scanners available but on
> > a cost/benefit basis the Canoscan 4000US looks pretty good. Has
> > anybody on the list had any experience with this beast?
>