slide scanners

[Bob Allen]

Without going into tedious detail, comparison of the Nikon and Canon 
slide scanners reveals that Nikon's scanners are better at resolving 
detail in the shadows. I say this even though I am a diehard Canon EOS 
user and owner of four Canon EOS camera bodies and several lenses. 
Reviews such as those at http://www.dpreview.com/ and 
http://www.leppphoto.com/ will prove helpful.

Instead of the Nikon Super CoolScan 8000, consider the Nikon Super 
CoolScan 4000. Quality is identical and price is much less for the 4000 
(I paid about $1600 US for mine at http://www.clubmac.com/). The 8000 
is intended primarily for those who need to scan large-format slides 
and negatives. If you use 35mm photographic equipment, then the 4000 is 
what you need.

The Nikon models transmit data over FireWire (designated as IEEE1394), 
a faster transfer than the USB used by Canon. Both are built into 
modern Macintosh computers. Of course, if your computer doesn't have 
either of these interfaces, you'll need to install a card if one is 
made for your computer. Look into those made by Orange Micro or Belkin 
(avoid anything made by Ratoc).

-Bob Allen

On Sunday, October 27, 2002, at 10:21  AM, Heike Vibrans wrote:

> Dear taxacomers,
>
> some time ago I asked for advice on slide scanners for a
> massive slide-scanning project. There were a good number
> of responses, both on- and offlist. In the end I decided
> ask for Nikons Super Coolscan 8000 ED, which has a rather
> steep price (about 1700 US dollars here in Mexico) but
> apparently many satisfied customers. The associated
> software is supposed to be particularly good.
>
> However, recently I have been told that the Canon CanoScan
> FS-4000US "does practically the same as the Nikon
> Coolscan", but at a third of the price. The announced
> resolution is the same for both scanners (4000 dpi), but
> the technical specifications show some differences:  in
> the light source, for example (cold cathode mercury
> fluorescent lamp in Canon, and a LED-Array in Nikon), but
> of which I do not know the advantages and disadvantages of
> these. The data transfer is over different interfaces (USB
> in Canon, IEEE1394, whatever that is, in Nikon) The Nikon
> takes more formats (microscope slides, for example); that
> is not so relevant for my present work, though it may be
> in the future. The Canon is much smaller and lighter and
> comes with a "light" Photoshop version, which Nikon lacks.
>
> Does anybody have comparative experience with these
> mashines?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Heike V.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dra. Heike Vibrans L.
> Laboratorio de Etnobot?nica
> Especialidad de Bot?nica
> Colegio de Postgraduados en Ciencias Agr?colas
> km 35.5 carr. M?xico-Texcoco
> 53230 Montecillo
> Estado de M?xico, Mexico
>
> Tel. +52 (595) 95 20 200 Ext. 1335 (directo), 1331
> (secretaria), 1330 (direcci?n)
> Fax. +52 (595) 95 20 247
> Correo electr?nico: heike at colpos.colpos.mx (trabajo)
> heikev at prodigy.net.mx (casa)
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Bob L. Allen
bugbob at mac.com
http://homepage.mac.com/bugbob/