Is it worth changing my FS4000US?

[SS]

I have the opportunity to sell my Canon FS4000US film scanner to a friend
and buy a 'better' one. The scanner is 4000 dpi. Is there anything out there
that is REALLY worth changing it for (and spending more money) or should I
disappoint the friend who wants to buy the canon off me? I would be looking
for significant improvement (not requiring a magnifying glass to detect) in
quality but as most of my film is ASA 400 then will all I do is enhance the
film grain detail?

 

[CSM1]

I have the opportunity to sell my Canon FS4000US film scanner to a friend
and buy a 'better' one. The scanner is 4000 dpi. Is there anything out
there
that is REALLY worth changing it for (and spending more money) or should I
disappoint the friend who wants to buy the canon off me? I would be
looking
for significant improvement (not requiring a magnifying glass to detect)
in
quality but as most of my film is ASA 400 then will all I do is enhance
the
film grain detail?

Sell only if you want to buy a Nikon film scanner instead.
You will not see much difference, if any at all.

ASA 400 film has a lot of grain, the grain will show even at 2700 DPI.

 

[bmoag]

How much film do you still shoot and scan? Although slow the S4000 is an
excellent machine if used properly.

 

[Greg Campbell]

I have the opportunity to sell my Canon FS4000US film scanner to a friend
and buy a 'better' one. The scanner is 4000 dpi. Is there anything out there
that is REALLY worth changing it for

Several other scanners offer hardware multisampling. This will reduce
electonic noise in the dense areas of the negative. The 400 speed grain
will largely negate that improvement.

(and spending more money) or should I

disappoint the friend who wants to buy the canon off me? I would be looking
for significant improvement (not requiring a magnifying glass to detect) in
quality but as most of my film is ASA 400 then will all I do is enhance the
film grain detail?

Yup. With this film I don't think you'd see any difference worth
mentioning.

The stock FS4000 software offers piss-poor color management. Another
scanner might save you some time balancing color on the computer.

The FS is somewhat slow (a SCSI card helps greatly). If you're doing
high volume (doesn't sound like it), a newer unit would save significant
time.

-Greg

 

[SS]

Yes the FS4000 is slow but I am only ploughing my way through the archive
and not shooting any new. I use Vuescan and this can multi-scan but i notice
very little improvement, same with the slow pass scan (for underexposed
film). I did fit a Scanhancer (light source diffuser) which made a marginal
improvement to grain and dust/scratch (especially useful on B&W where FARE
does not work). But yes, thanks guys, I reckon the extra expense does not
warrant changing as any money would be wasted on the bog standard film I
have used over the years. I'll continue to use Neatimage which does a most
excellent job of cancelling the grain and continue to experiment with
settings and post processing to get the best from my old slides and negs.

 

[Stewart]

Hi.

I upgraded from FS4000 to Nikon 9000. I needed to do so because I had an
increasing number of 120 slides to scan. But I have to say that although
the 9000 specs are better on paper, I certainly don't see any
significant subjective difference in the final prints between a 9000 and
the FS4000 using Vuescan. Perhaps a little less noise for the 9000, but
I'm not sure that would be noticeable with ISO 400 film. If you compared
the 9000 and the FS4000 using their supplied software then the 9000
would look heaps better, but that tells you more about the Canon
software than the hardware.

Stewart

 

[Terry]

Hi.

I upgraded from FS4000 to Nikon 9000. I needed to do so because I had an
increasing number of 120 slides to scan. But I have to say that although
the 9000 specs are better on paper, I certainly don't see any
significant subjective difference in the final prints between a 9000 and
the FS4000 using Vuescan. Perhaps a little less noise for the 9000, but
I'm not sure that would be noticeable with ISO 400 film. If you compared
the 9000 and the FS4000 using their supplied software then the 9000
would look heaps better, but that tells you more about the Canon
software than the hardware.

Stewart

It depends on what you are looking for, check this review out of the
new Epson V700:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson V700/page_1.htm

 

[ian lincoln]

It depends on what you are looking for, check this review out of the
new Epson V700:

flatbeds still haven't acheived dedicated film scanner quality. The v700 is
the closest yet but probably requires more fine tuning than the canon. I
always found a straight scan then save as a tiff in photoshop then adjusting
a copy of the file is the best way. Far superior than using the scanner
software. Rather than buy yet more hardware i would concentrate on colour
management and calibration. Scan in the adobe 1998 colour space if possible
and get your monitor profiled. my monitor has an srgb preset and the
scanner had a srgb. so does photoshop. That was great for starting off
with. I then used to save as a minimum compressed jpeg and then use the
printers bundled software for printing. That got me the closest match
between the lot.