Discussion:
Any reason why I shouldn't buy the Canon FS4000US?
(too old to reply)
Dimitris
2003-07-26 00:35:40 UTC
Permalink
Hi all,

I'm considering forking out the 600-odd GBP for a FS4000US, was wondering if
there are any (strong) reasons on not to buy it. I'm mostly concerned about
it being "overtaken" by a newer version... after all, i think it has been
around for a couple of years now.

Any thoughts?
Thanks
Dimitris
Andrey Tarasevich
2003-07-26 01:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimitris
...
I'm considering forking out the 600-odd GBP for a FS4000US, was wondering if
there are any (strong) reasons on not to buy it. I'm mostly concerned about
it being "overtaken" by a newer version... after all, i think it has been
around for a couple of years now.
...
If you want to get most of this scanner you'll also have to fork out for
a decent SCSI card and HD50-HD50 SCSI cable. With SCSI connection this
scanner performs better with regard to speed and image noise.
--
Best regards,
Andrey Tarasevich
Dimitris
2003-07-26 01:48:01 UTC
Permalink
I'm already using SCSI devices on my system, so that's not a major issue for
me (just need the cable).

Regards,
Dimitris
Post by Andrey Tarasevich
Post by Dimitris
...
I'm considering forking out the 600-odd GBP for a FS4000US, was wondering if
there are any (strong) reasons on not to buy it. I'm mostly concerned about
it being "overtaken" by a newer version... after all, i think it has been
around for a couple of years now.
...
If you want to get most of this scanner you'll also have to fork out for
a decent SCSI card and HD50-HD50 SCSI cable. With SCSI connection this
scanner performs better with regard to speed and image noise.
--
Best regards,
Andrey Tarasevich
Tim O'Connor
2003-07-27 01:14:56 UTC
Permalink
Another point is FARE, Canon dust-removal. It works great with the
canon software, but VueScan sometimes has problems with the IR-Clean.
Ive no problems with Vuescan in this regard, other than the time it
takes...Certainly no artifacting to speak of.
On the other hand with the Canon software you have no color management
and no real batch facility.
Silverfast is the other option, although Im not sure why they dont support
FARE. It seems to do the best job of
getting the colours right though.
If I had to decide today and a budget of 1000 USD or Euro to spend, I
would have also a closer look at the new minolta scanner.
Regards,
Winfried W. Schwolgin
Fernando
2003-07-28 08:14:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimitris
I'm considering forking out the 600-odd GBP for a FS4000US, was wondering if
there are any (strong) reasons on not to buy it. I'm mostly concerned about
it being "overtaken" by a newer version... after all, i think it has been
around for a couple of years now.
Hello, I think the FS4000 to be a good machine; but I would also have
a look at the new Minolta Scan Elite 5400: at 5400 dpi and with ICE
and Grain Dissolver, should be an interesting scanner.
Here in Italy, its price is the same of FS4000's

Fernando
Dimitris
2003-07-28 16:27:21 UTC
Permalink
Fernando,

I had considered that myself, but to the best of my knowledge it doesn't
have an APS option (let alone comes with one for "free" as with the Canon).
I have a number of APS films as well as my usual slides/positives/negatives
that I would like to scan, so unless they miraculously create an APS adaptor
for it, I've already crossed this one off my list.

Dimitris
Post by Fernando
Post by Dimitris
I'm considering forking out the 600-odd GBP for a FS4000US, was wondering if
there are any (strong) reasons on not to buy it. I'm mostly concerned about
it being "overtaken" by a newer version... after all, i think it has been
around for a couple of years now.
Hello, I think the FS4000 to be a good machine; but I would also have
a look at the new Minolta Scan Elite 5400: at 5400 dpi and with ICE
and Grain Dissolver, should be an interesting scanner.
Here in Italy, its price is the same of FS4000's
Fernando
David Chien
2003-07-28 18:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Minolta 5400. Superior scans, higher resolution, better.
Dimitris
2003-07-29 00:39:13 UTC
Permalink
NO APS!!!
Post by David Chien
Minolta 5400. Superior scans, higher resolution, better.
Rudiger Voss
2003-07-29 13:26:09 UTC
Permalink
There is no reason why you shouldn't buy the FS4000. When used with VueScan,
it's an excellent scanner. I'm not an APS user, but have occasionally
scanned APS films for friends and it works flawlessly. Judging from the
specs, the new Minolta 5400 seems better value for money but if you need
APS, the FS4000 is probably the best choice you can make today.

The fact that Canon has neglected software support for the FS4000, and the
renewed competition from Minolta have indeed stirred speculations about a
successor model - up to you to decide if you want to wait, but it remains to
be seen whether a new model (if any) will support APS.

Ideally, you may want to find somebody who wants to switch to the new
Minolta and sells you his Canon scanner at a good price ;-) (Ebay?)

Rudiger
Post by Dimitris
Hi all,
I'm considering forking out the 600-odd GBP for a FS4000US, was wondering if
there are any (strong) reasons on not to buy it. I'm mostly concerned about
it being "overtaken" by a newer version... after all, i think it has been
around for a couple of years now.
Any thoughts?
Thanks
Dimitris
bmoag
2003-08-15 20:48:01 UTC
Permalink
Ignore everyone else and listen to me: I have had this scanner since shortly
after it was released.
The issue of color management is a non-starter: there is an ICC profile for
the scanner and if you are that serious about these issues you already or
will develop a color work flow routine in Photoshop where color management
belongs, not in the scanner software. Any truncation of the exposure
information done in the scan software, such as adjusting levels or curves,
loses information for processsing in Photoshop.
In reality Vuescan, which I have, offers absolutely nothing over the Canon
software if you are going to process your images in a decent program like
Photoshop or Photopaint. Vuescan does not interact with the FARE
dustcleaning system properly anyway.
Silverfast is now offering software for this scanner: however I personally
have not found the demo justifies the $200 cost.
If the scanner is directly connected to a USB port and does not pass through
a USB Hub the scan times are only slightly longer for USB than SCSI. But
this scanner is slower than comparable Nikon models (it is also much less
expensive).
There is NO difference in "noise" between the SCSI and USB connectors.
This scanner does an excellent job with APS if that is a significant
consideration to you, although the mechanics of using the APS adapter make
scans slower than with 35mm materials.
You will rarely scan above 2400dpi if you do not plan to make prints larger
that 8x10 inches. 4000dpi yields a 50-60mb file, I shudder to think what
5400 dpi yields. When you print whatever software you use is going to
discard most of those pixels anyway.
Whatever you do make sure your computer has at least 512mbs memory.
Tim O'Connor
2003-08-18 01:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by bmoag
Ignore everyone else and listen to me: I have had this scanner since shortly
after it was released.
Me too! :-)
Post by bmoag
In reality Vuescan, which I have, offers absolutely nothing over the Canon
software if you are going to process your images in a decent program like
Photoshop or Photopaint. Vuescan does not interact with the FARE
dustcleaning system properly anyway.
You have said this before I think, but I have not seen any evidence of it
with my FS4000, and Vuescan.

Personally I dont like the Canon software. In general, I find that I have
to fiddle with the image more to get it
to my personal liking, and Vuescan seems to get it closer to the mark - I
tend to just have to touch up the levels a bit.
Post by bmoag
Silverfast is now offering software for this scanner: however I personally
have not found the demo justifies the $200 cost.
If the scanner is directly connected to a USB port and does not pass through
a USB Hub the scan times are only slightly longer for USB than SCSI. But
this scanner is slower than comparable Nikon models (it is also much less
expensive).
'Slightly'? Come on, its dramatically faster for most scans - Only poorly
exposed or dense scans bring the USB timings within a Bulls roar
of the SCSI timmings. I have direct experience with that.
Post by bmoag
There is NO difference in "noise" between the SCSI and USB connectors.
From my experience, I agree with this.
Post by bmoag
You will rarely scan above 2400dpi if you do not plan to make prints larger
that 8x10 inches. 4000dpi yields a 50-60mb file, I shudder to think what
5400 dpi yields. When you print whatever software you use is going to
discard most of those pixels anyway.
I have an A3 printer, so 4000 is essential. If you wish to crop your image,
then you will need something greater than 2400.
Post by bmoag
Whatever you do make sure your computer has at least 512mbs memory.
Absolutely.

Loading...