The Plustek has a Dmax of 3.6, the Cannon is not stated so its likely 2 or less. A higher Dmax captures more detail in the dark areas of the film.
I've had my FS4000US since 2003 (purchased new). It's still a great scanner. I'm using Vuescan, which supports it very well (Windows 10). I'm also using a SCSI interface (Adaptec 29320LPE ULTRA320), which is much faster than the USB, since it's only USB-2. If you are talking about scanning a ton of images, I'd definitely go with the DSLR approach, the speed of acquisition is way beyond that of the Canon. The usual image size (TIFF/RAW) is around 125MB, scan time is 1m30s.
since it's only USB-2
If you are talking about scanning a ton of images, I'd definitely go with the DSLR approach, the speed of acquisition is way beyond that of the Canon.
I will scan around 500 mounted slide and negatives.
Do you think that warrants DSLR? What about SCSI upgrade?
I am going to start scanning my negs and need a decent way to do it. I'm tossing up between DSLR and scanner.
I recently got ahold of a canon FS4000US. I am running via USB with windows 10 (I understand the SCSI is faster if you go that route).
Is this a good scanner in general? It seems to work alright, however it's fairly old, and I wondered if something like a plustek 8200 is better option?
I will be using to scan and print photos. Nothing huge. A3 or thereabouts.
It’s only USB1.1 unfortunately!
People say it takes 3 times as long as SCSI.
I will scan around 500 mounted slide and negatives.
Do you think that warrants DSLR? What about SCSI upgrade?
There is no "FARE" option, this was a feature of the CanoScan SW, but Vuescan has dust removal and other features.
I have tried Vuescan with the Canon 4000. The scanner does the 2nd (IR?) pass. Is Vuescan using this IR information for the dust removal?
The Nikon scan appears like more "blur" or noise reduction was added. That reduced the grainy effect in the sky but also lowered the sharpness of the lettering and the whole scan. The Canon scan left the sharpness in the adjustments and ignored blur edits.
This always raises a point about comparisons. Unless you know exactly what edits the person did, it's very hard to get a comparison that passes muster. If the editor added a little more blur to the Canon or reduced the amount of blur on the Nikon, they might look the same.
Have you found any after market supplier of the negative holders? Or will ones from any other brand fit? I have seen a number of the scanners for sale on ebay but they do not have their film holders.Slide and film holders are not easily available, so don't lose or break yours, and don't buy a unit without the slide and/or film holders because you can't use the scanner without them.
I am basing my estimate that the canon scan was slightly sharper on the fact that I can read the writing on the zoomed in portion of the tent top a little easier on the canon scan than on the nikon scan.The Nikon scan appears like more "blur" or noise reduction was added. That reduced the grainy effect in the sky but also lowered the sharpness of the lettering and the whole scan. The Canon scan left the sharpness in the adjustments and ignored blur edits.
This always raises a point about comparisons. Unless you know exactly what edits the person did, it's very hard to get a comparison that passes muster. If the editor added a little more blur to the Canon or reduced the amount of blur on the Nikon, they might look the same.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?