Nikon LS4000 are a better scanner regarding speed, manual film feeder,
cleaning function. They are equal regarding dynamic range.
Canon are inferior regarding noise in the black, slow but sharp as SS4000.
Nikons sharpness problem is well known today.
If the difference between the old SS4000 and 4000+ are like when Sprintscan
35+ was introduce, than the difference is huge and a much better scanner.
I just heard that the news paper Sydsvenksa Dagbladet in Sweden have send
down 15 Sprintscan 35+ to service in Holland. They still believe that this
scanner is the best for the news paper work. IMO 35+ is still
one of the best scanner regarding speed, and results. And its newer failure
to work. The scanner is what we in Sweden call - a real working horse
Mikael Risedal
>From: "Tomasz Zakrzewski" <tomzakrz@ka.onet.pl>
>Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 / 4000+
>Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 00:11:13 +0100
>
>Dave King wrote:
> > Yes, and there are some who have said the "old" SS4000 you still own
> > is better than the "new" Nikon regarding dynamic range and film plane
> > DOF. I'm not sure an upgrade would really get you better scans.
>
>I'm trying to follow carefully all the threads on this list and from what I
>learned, Nikon's dynamic range wasn't criticised earlier neither here nor
>in
>computer/photo magazines. It certainly has some other drawbacks, like
>shallow DOF or buggy software but not too small dynamic range.
>Should I conclude that Polaroid 4000 will be better in this respect
>compared
>to Nikon?
>
>I recently tested Nikon 4000ED / Canon FS4000U and chose Nikon as the
>better
>machine. Now I only have to compare Nikon to Polaroid or rather Microtek
>ArtixScan 4000T which is available in good price in my country, unlike
>Pola.
>
>Regards
>
>Tomasz Zakrzewski
>www.zakrzewski.art.pl
>
_________________________________________________________________
Hämta MSN Explorer kostnadsfritt på
