1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

A good scanner is hard to find..

Discussion in 'General Equipment Chat & Advice' started by Britcat100, Sep 12, 2001.

  1. Britcat100

    Britcat100 Active Member

    After posting some photos in the members gallery and following Big Wills advice I have decided to see if I can get a new scanner for christmas off a combination of loved ones....so I am looking for suggestions to find myself a doozie.At present I have a Primax Colorado direct 9600 with a parallel connection (as my pc didn't want to know about a USB connection)...so any suggestions will be greatly appreciated and if you feel the urge to critcise the phots I have posted then feel free.
    Cheers Niall :)
     
  2. cgproudfoot

    cgproudfoot Well-Known Member

    I have recently acqired a Nikon CoolScan IV.

    I am very pleased with teh results. Indeed it has brought my negatives to life !!
     
  3. SCT

    SCT Well-Known Member

    I wonder if it would work on "Fangs"

    Steve C Thompson IRIPN
     
  4. David Stout

    David Stout Well-Known Member

    You can't go wrong with a Nikon scanner but it sounds like you might have to go the SCSI route if your PC can't handle USB. I don't know of any quality film scanners that use the parallel port.

    David
     
  5. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    Nikon certainly have a good rep ( probably the best among affordable scanners), but there have been reports of the software crashing if run at the same time as Photoshop. It seems to be very memory hungry. Don't let that put you off though, as the results always seem to be good.

    I'm looking elsewhere, but that's due to my own needs.

    Get out and get shooting!!
     
  6. David Stout

    David Stout Well-Known Member

    I always scan from my Nikon LS2000 via Photoshop and have never had any problems either with the software supplied or the latest version I downloaded from the Nikon web site.

    David
     
  7. chrisg

    chrisg Member

    version 3.0 of nikon scan is prone to crashing, whether invoked within photoshop (mine is 5.5 full) or not. 3.1 seems much better although still crashes occasionally when running standalone, seems better within photoshop oddly enough. the coolscan IV i have, damn good scanner, has a visibly superior dynamic range when compared against the acer scanwit 2720/2740.
    why not get a PCI USB card? only 20 squids from the following URL.. http://www.scan.co.uk/allprice.htm#45
    :eek:)
     
  8. Mick

    Mick Well-Known Member

    Sorry to contradict you David but I have just gone seriously wrong with a Nikon scanner or two. Splashed out £1200 for the new LS4000 the week before last and discovered the focus was faulty. Brought it back to Jessops who replaced it and believe it or not, the replacement was faulty as well. I now have a Canon 4000US which works perfectly but unfortunately is not as good as the Nikon which, apart from not focusing properly, gives the best scan quality I have ever seen.
     
  9. BigWill

    BigWill Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff

    Mick my son, where the hell have you been? Haven't heard from you in a coons age! So the Nikon was great apart from the fact that it didn't work. Now there's an Irish statement if ever I heard one. The moral of the story is "If you want something that works....buy Canon!"
    BigWill
     
  10. Clive

    Clive Well-Known Member

    But the Canon isn't as good as the Nikon - Mick said so. And welcome back, Mick - as the dustman said when he knocked on my door this morning "Where's ya bin?".
    <font color=red>#
     
  11. Canonball

    Canonball Well-Known Member

    But the Canon works, which is a bit of an advantage./img/wwwthreads/smile.gif

    Geoff
     
  12. Clive

    Clive Well-Known Member

    But the Nikon's only not so good because it doesn't work - still a better scanner, though. My Coolscan IV is also good, and it works, but it isn't as good as the LS 4000. That clear?
    /img/wwwthreads/smile.gif<font color=red>#/img/wwwthreads/smile.gif
     
  13. Mick

    Mick Well-Known Member

    Hi Will, Clive, Canonball
    This is no laughing matter boys so please stop tittering. The 4/5s of the scans which were in focus were absolutely mindblowing. It was the other 1/5 which were unsatisfactory (to say the least and that is not the type of language I've been using about them). The Canon is great but it can't match the Nikon's dynamic range (for capturing highlight and shadow detail).

    I can't believe Nikon putting this rubbish on the market at that price without testing each scanner individually. I got two out of two and I'm wondering how many more of them are out there. I'm very glad I bought it in my local Jessops rather than by mail order. They have replaced them without any hassle and are going to try and get me another one in proper working order if I want it. Or I can have an FM3A and the Canon for the same price more or less. Hmm?
     
  14. BigWill

    BigWill Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff

    No contest Mick, go for the FM3A and the Canon.
    BigWill
     
  15. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    What connection are you using Mick? If SCSI I hear the Microtek Artixscan 4000T is very good.

    Get out and get shooting!!
     
  16. Mick

    Mick Well-Known Member

    Sounds like a simple choice Will but I just loved the 4/5s of those scans which were sharp. A working LS4000 and an FM3A and an extra £600 may still be on the agenda. If only my salary matched my desires.
    Tim, I'm currently using USB with the Canon but if I keep it I will need a SCSI card anyway. I've had the Firewire card for the LS4000 in and out so I don't mind messing with the innards of the computer. I checked out the Artixscan specs on the Microtek website last week but it doesn't match the dynamic range of the LS4000 (3.6 versus 4.2). This makes a huge difference when scanning contrasty images. Canon don't quote a figure for the dynamic range but judging by the results I guess it is 3.6 as it just doesn't match the Nikon in this department.
     

Share This Page