Any reason why I shouldn't buy the Canon FS4000US?

Discussion in 'Canon' started by Dimitris, Jul 26, 2003.

  1. Dimitris

    Dimitris Guest

    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
     
    Dimitris, Jul 26, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dimitris

    Dimitris Guest

    I'm already using SCSI devices on my system, so that's not a major issue for
    me (just need the cable).

    Regards,
    Dimitris
     
    Dimitris, Jul 26, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dimitris

    Tim O'Connor Guest

    Ive no problems with Vuescan in this regard, other than the time it
    takes...Certainly no artifacting to speak of.
    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.
     
    Tim O'Connor, Jul 27, 2003
    #3
  4. Dimitris

    Dimitris Guest

    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
     
    Dimitris, Jul 28, 2003
    #4
  5. Dimitris

    David Chien Guest

    Minolta 5400. Superior scans, higher resolution, better.
     
    David Chien, Jul 28, 2003
    #5
  6. Dimitris

    Dimitris Guest

    NO APS!!!
     
    Dimitris, Jul 29, 2003
    #6
  7. Dimitris

    Rudiger Voss Guest

    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
     
    Rudiger Voss, Jul 29, 2003
    #7
  8. Dimitris

    Tim O'Connor Guest

    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.
    '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.
    From my experience, I agree with this.
    I have an A3 printer, so 4000 is essential. If you wish to crop your image,
    then you will need something greater than 2400.
    Absolutely.
     
    Tim O'Connor, Aug 18, 2003
    #8
  9. Dimitris

    wally Guest

    Canon's FilmGet is probably OK for negatives where you can't
    easily gauge color accuracy, but for slide films FilmGet does a
    very poor job of making the colors on the scan match the colors
    on the slide -- since the slide is sitting right next to the
    monitor on a light table its easy to see how bad FilmGet is
    compared to Vuescan.

    Vuescan doesn't use FARE, it has its own algorthim using the
    second IR scan pass. Initially it was much inferiour to FARE,
    but recent versions seem do do about the same, On a badly
    scratched slide I've kept for testing FARE does better on some
    parts of the image, Vuescan does better on other parts, basically
    its a toss up here, but neither cleans up everything. On my
    normal slide which are generally very clean, Vuescan "IR clean
    light" setting cleans up enough of stray dust specs without
    noticable softening that I leave it on.

    Actually, offering me less work in photoshop to get good color is
    delivering a lot!

    I usually set up an action with a curves adjustment on the 16-bit
    scan and then convert to 8-bit mode for editing/retouching. The
    action is generally OK for all slides in the batch with similar
    lighting.
    Depends on the film. To get good scans on most of my Fujichrome
    slides I have to bump up the exposure that when combined with the
    IR pass USB vs SCSI times aren't that different, SCSI is faster
    but both are slow enough that I do something else while a batch
    is scanning -- another plus of Vuescan, I can pipeline my work
    and edit one scan while the others in a batch are scanning.

    I've never used Silverfast.
    Me too! USB vs PCMCIA SCSI card on my Dell Inspiron Notebook
    shows no difference in scan quality, since SCSI is only a little
    faster for me, I prefer the convienence of USB.

    2400 is not a "native" resolution so scans will likely be slowed
    down by the resize further negating the SCSI vs USB speed
    advantage.

    --wally.
     
    wally, Aug 19, 2003
    #9
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.