Nikon LS-2000 vs the current flatbeds

  • Thread starter Thread starter jojax14
  • Start date Start date
J

jojax14

Hi all,

I am thinking about updating my LS-2000 to a current-model flatbed
(Epson 4870, Canon 9950) that would allow me to scan the handful of
120 negs that I have. My budget is restrictive such that I have to
sell the LS-2000 to afford the purchase, therefore, whatever I buy
has to exceed the performance of the LS-2000 on 35mm.

How do the current range of flatbeds stack up against the LS-2000? Is
pinpoint sharpness at 2700dpi better than soft scans (+ some USM) at
4800dpi? What about colour fidelity? I assume that grain aliasing
would not be a problem on the flatbeds if the image is so soft.

Has anyone had the opportunity to do side-by-side comparisons? If so,
what do you think? Does anyone know of a review site that has the
same image scanned on an LS-2000 and a Canon/Epson so that I can see
what sort of differences there are?

Thanks,

JJ
 
jojax14 said:
Has anyone had the opportunity to do side-by-side comparisons?
Click to expand...

I tried a 4870 vs. my LS-2000, earlier this year, and returned the
4870. Not only that scanning 35 mm without ICE is a major nuisance, the
quality obtained with the LS-2000 is clearly superior. This goes for
density as well as for detail.

Ralf
 
AFAIK the ICE implementation in Epson version is much weaker. Besides, it
locks the PC a lot more. Without ICE it's OK, but the quality is better out
off LS-2000.
 
jojax14 said:
Has anyone had the opportunity to do side-by-side comparisons? If so,
what do you think? Does anyone know of a review site that has the
same image scanned on an LS-2000 and a Canon/Epson so that I can see
what sort of differences there are
Click to expand...

Forget the flatbeds. The epson 4870 was measured with an effective
resolution of 1600 dpi. See test images here:
http://www.heise.de/ct/ftp/testbilder/scanner_0404/

An older canon was tested, too:
http://www.heise.de/ct/ftp/testbilder/scanner_0312/
On this page you can compare to the nikon LS 40, which should have more
or less the same performance like your LS2000.
 
Forget the flatbeds. The epson 4870 was measured with an effective
resolution of 1600 dpi. See test images here:
http://www.heise.de/ct/ftp/testbilder/scanner_0404/
Click to expand...
Its nitpicking Erik, but that page doesn't even reference the Epson
4870. Perhaps you gave the wrong reference.

Nevertheless, I completely agree - no flatbed currently on the market
will offer the performance of an LS-2000, in several aspects, not just
resolution.

I am still hoping that one of the flatbed scanner manufacturers will
come up with a business model that allows them to put double sided
multicoated glass in their scanners to overcome this issue, because the
fundamental technology in a flatbed is now comparable if not superior to
what is currently in many dedicated film scanners.
 
I have compared a Canon 9900f to a Nikon Coolscan 1000, which is about seven
years old. Despite the nominal advantage of the Canon (3200 dpi .vs. 2700
dpi) there is no comparison. The Nikon is clearly superior. Unforturnately I
have had random outcomes with infrared cleaning on the canon, cancelling
another advantage for the Canon.
 
Agree. Meanwhile I wonder if it would be feasible to butcher a scanner
like the 4870 or 9950f by removing the glass and use a modified
holder?

<snip>

KM> I am still hoping that one of the flatbed scanner manufacturers will
KM> come up with a business model that allows them to put double sided
KM> multicoated glass in their scanners to overcome this issue, because
KM> the fundamental technology in a flatbed is now comparable if not
KM> superior to what is currently in many dedicated film scanners.

KM> --
KM> Kennedy
KM> Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
KM> A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
KM> Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
 
Agree. Meanwhile I wonder if it would be feasible to butcher a scanner
like the 4870 or 9950f by removing the glass and use a modified
holder?
Click to expand...

There was a guy that tried it, with an older scanner (don't remember
if it was an Epson 2450, or maybe a Microtek something).
If I remember well, the results were hard to distinguish... after the
glass removal he found more chromatic aberration (!!), a hint of
improved microcontrast... something like that.
At the time, someone suggested that the actual limit for those flatbed
is not only the poor glass, but also the optics; that, in order to
have large enough DOF (for lack of autofocus), use very tiny
apertures, so diffraction kicks in heavily and lowers the
performances.

I never tried myself, though, just trying to reporting something I did
read here time ago. :-)

Fernando
 
Back
Top