itf
itchy trigger finger
I'm on the verge of ordering one or the other of these scanners. I'd love to have a 5000ed, but just can't stretch. My question is which should I go for between a new 50 and used 4000 at the same price?
It seems the 4000 has single pass multi sampling, does it make much difference? I've read speculation that the 50 may have a bit more dof? After reading a whole lot I can't figure out what the real difference is between the two apart from the roll scanning ability.
Any advice before I pull the trigger would be great.
It seems the 4000 has single pass multi sampling, does it make much difference? I've read speculation that the 50 may have a bit more dof? After reading a whole lot I can't figure out what the real difference is between the two apart from the roll scanning ability.
Any advice before I pull the trigger would be great.
galavanter
Established
I am about to open a just delivered factory refurb LS-4000 from B&H.
Currently in stock: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...rch=yes&O=UsedHomePage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t
I went through the same deliberations. Thom Hogan says:
For those that are paying attention, the older 4000 ED (LS-4000) seems to be specified almost exactly the same as the newer V ED (LS-50): 14 bits, 38 second scans, not a lot of options. Thus, a used 4000ED is a strong possibility if you're considering a new V ED.
Here is his review of the 5000:
http://www.bythom.com/coolscanv.htm
I went with the 4000 because of it's ability to use the SA-30 bulk film loader. Not that I could afford to pay another $450.00 for it, but because one can modify the SA-21 film adapter to work as one. You may have seen Quinn Porters posts and link concerning this:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55165
He has the 5000 but the link he provides belongs to a 4000 owner. Both accept the bulk loader.
I decided even I could perform this mod. I have never scanned, and I am afraid I won't like it much. The bulk scanning ability seems a great time saver, and I have read other's statements to that effect.
In recent months I have purchased a Contax G2 and lenses, lots of Tri-X (that just came today too), and am going to give film, home developing, and scanning a go.
But if I can't get a relatively simple workflow going, I know I won't stick with it.
One difference between the two I belatedly learned is DEE. V has it, 4000 doesn't. Hogan talks about this. Also, V has Ice4, 4000 Ice3.
Since this is all so new to me, my plan is to get Vuescan (I have an intel mac with leopard and Nikonscan is due for an update), and perform as few adjustments as necessary while scanning. The Raw feature in Vuescan (pro I think) appeals to me.
I want to get a dust free scan into the computer and work from there in image editors. I am not looking for perfection (How could I with so many variables, all new to me), but would like a better result to my eye for B&W photos over digital B&W.
I'm also looking forward to scanning the B&W negatives I developed in my first photo course, around 30 years ago.
With all the pages I read I never came across any saying the V had greater depth of field. If you can give a link, I would appreciate it. I did read complaints about dof on the 4000. The strip film holder is supposed to help with curled negatives.
Hopefully some actual users will give you some additional feedback.
Currently in stock: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...rch=yes&O=UsedHomePage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t
I went through the same deliberations. Thom Hogan says:
For those that are paying attention, the older 4000 ED (LS-4000) seems to be specified almost exactly the same as the newer V ED (LS-50): 14 bits, 38 second scans, not a lot of options. Thus, a used 4000ED is a strong possibility if you're considering a new V ED.
Here is his review of the 5000:
http://www.bythom.com/coolscanv.htm
I went with the 4000 because of it's ability to use the SA-30 bulk film loader. Not that I could afford to pay another $450.00 for it, but because one can modify the SA-21 film adapter to work as one. You may have seen Quinn Porters posts and link concerning this:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55165
He has the 5000 but the link he provides belongs to a 4000 owner. Both accept the bulk loader.
I decided even I could perform this mod. I have never scanned, and I am afraid I won't like it much. The bulk scanning ability seems a great time saver, and I have read other's statements to that effect.
In recent months I have purchased a Contax G2 and lenses, lots of Tri-X (that just came today too), and am going to give film, home developing, and scanning a go.
But if I can't get a relatively simple workflow going, I know I won't stick with it.
One difference between the two I belatedly learned is DEE. V has it, 4000 doesn't. Hogan talks about this. Also, V has Ice4, 4000 Ice3.
Since this is all so new to me, my plan is to get Vuescan (I have an intel mac with leopard and Nikonscan is due for an update), and perform as few adjustments as necessary while scanning. The Raw feature in Vuescan (pro I think) appeals to me.
I want to get a dust free scan into the computer and work from there in image editors. I am not looking for perfection (How could I with so many variables, all new to me), but would like a better result to my eye for B&W photos over digital B&W.
I'm also looking forward to scanning the B&W negatives I developed in my first photo course, around 30 years ago.
With all the pages I read I never came across any saying the V had greater depth of field. If you can give a link, I would appreciate it. I did read complaints about dof on the 4000. The strip film holder is supposed to help with curled negatives.
Hopefully some actual users will give you some additional feedback.
itf
itchy trigger finger
Thanks galavanter, and congratulations, seems you have a very capable scanner at a very good price. I had seen that mention of the tinkering to make the 4000 scan rolls without the adapter, and have just seen how simple it seems (though a little scary to be pulling it apart) which is the main reason I'm considering it again.
I just wish I'd seen that before I'd finished cutting up the backlog of 170 rolls I've just finished processing! :bang: Prescan editing is going to be a must. I'm still considering it for future though.
As far as the dof thing; I think it was something I read after searching the photo.net forums and I'm pretty dubious about it. It was just a brief and vague mention that maybe it did because their 5000 seemed to have more than they remember their 4000 having, so maybe the V is similar. I don't know, but I'll see if I can find it again.
The DEE sound interesting, though from what I read it seems scanning responds to slightly thinner negs better anyway, and I don't usually fuss over shadow detail anyway (and sometimes prefer a little less of it).
I didn't notice the difference in ICE, but since I learnt that it doesn't work with B&W I've pretty much ignored any discussion of it.
Thanks for you're input, have to say I'm starting to lean the same way as you now, though the idea of pulling it open...
You're probably up and scanning now, hope it's going well!
I just wish I'd seen that before I'd finished cutting up the backlog of 170 rolls I've just finished processing! :bang: Prescan editing is going to be a must. I'm still considering it for future though.
As far as the dof thing; I think it was something I read after searching the photo.net forums and I'm pretty dubious about it. It was just a brief and vague mention that maybe it did because their 5000 seemed to have more than they remember their 4000 having, so maybe the V is similar. I don't know, but I'll see if I can find it again.
The DEE sound interesting, though from what I read it seems scanning responds to slightly thinner negs better anyway, and I don't usually fuss over shadow detail anyway (and sometimes prefer a little less of it).
I didn't notice the difference in ICE, but since I learnt that it doesn't work with B&W I've pretty much ignored any discussion of it.
Thanks for you're input, have to say I'm starting to lean the same way as you now, though the idea of pulling it open...
You're probably up and scanning now, hope it's going well!
Last edited:
galavanter
Established
Ha ha! I've been up all night going down memory lane. What fun! I'm now on my last Harp left over from St. Paddy's, so it's bedtime soon. It's been a real trip scanning negatives from my youth. Pictures I took of my parents, both long gone...
I bought Vuescan overnight. I got tired of seeing dollar signs on my scans. That Hamrick has a real sense of humor. No crashes, no freezes, everything A OK from this inexperienced user.
I also learned that Aperture 2, even though it now reads DNG's, still doesn't read Vuescan's. But Lightroom and ACR do. I didn't realize...
And Nikonscan, if the poster was correct, makes NEF's but they are not the same as NEF's from a Nikon camera. So you can't convert them to DNG's.
What a mess.
I work the next 4 nights but come Tuesday I will probably get the screwdriver out. I'm a little apprehensive too but it does sound relatively simple. Yeah I am only doing B&W scanning too.
My B&H refurb looks like new and everything was wrapped very well. Even a antiquated firewire card like came with the originals.
I had read a post saying the scanner sounds exactly like an MRI machine. I sneered at the guy, thinking what a dumb thing to say. But it does!
170 rolls? Good god! You do need bulk loading for the future!
Most importantly, the look and tonal quality of my scans, without knowing any of the fine tuning aspects of the software, is just what I was hoping for. I am rather certain even I will be able to get satisfying prints (yeah, I'm getting a B&W printer) from these scans.
So since I went for the 4000 it must be the better scanner. So to answer your original post, yeah go for the 4000, unless a years warranty rather than 90 days makes a difference to you. 170 rolls?
I bought Vuescan overnight. I got tired of seeing dollar signs on my scans. That Hamrick has a real sense of humor. No crashes, no freezes, everything A OK from this inexperienced user.
I also learned that Aperture 2, even though it now reads DNG's, still doesn't read Vuescan's. But Lightroom and ACR do. I didn't realize...
And Nikonscan, if the poster was correct, makes NEF's but they are not the same as NEF's from a Nikon camera. So you can't convert them to DNG's.
What a mess.
I work the next 4 nights but come Tuesday I will probably get the screwdriver out. I'm a little apprehensive too but it does sound relatively simple. Yeah I am only doing B&W scanning too.
My B&H refurb looks like new and everything was wrapped very well. Even a antiquated firewire card like came with the originals.
I had read a post saying the scanner sounds exactly like an MRI machine. I sneered at the guy, thinking what a dumb thing to say. But it does!
170 rolls? Good god! You do need bulk loading for the future!
Most importantly, the look and tonal quality of my scans, without knowing any of the fine tuning aspects of the software, is just what I was hoping for. I am rather certain even I will be able to get satisfying prints (yeah, I'm getting a B&W printer) from these scans.
So since I went for the 4000 it must be the better scanner.
So to answer your original post, yeah go for the 4000, unless a years warranty rather than 90 days makes a difference to you. 170 rolls?
Last edited:
craygc
Well-known
For what its worth I have a 4000ED I bought new. I still find it fabulous for scanning B&W using Vuescan. The 4000ED came with the FH-3 film strip holder which the V and 5000 did not. Hopefully its included for you.
Had a look at the Bythom review mentioned above. Anyone who starts talking about Dmax of 4.0 and 4.2 and above with these scanners as serious metrics for a CCD scanner needs questioning anyways. Registering capabilities and actually capture capabilities are two different things.
Had a look at the Bythom review mentioned above. Anyone who starts talking about Dmax of 4.0 and 4.2 and above with these scanners as serious metrics for a CCD scanner needs questioning anyways. Registering capabilities and actually capture capabilities are two different things.
Last edited:
itf
itchy trigger finger
So since I went for the 4000 it must be the better scanner.
Haha, yeah. Unfortunately, as I said, I've now cut them all up into strips of 6 since I'd decided I wasn't going to be able to afford scanning rolls anyway, and they were taking up a lot of room.
I looked at the Hogan link, and the comparison he has is the 5000 compared to the Coolscan III. I'm not sure if the comparison is meant to show the effect of DEE, but as I understand it there is also a substanyially lower Dmax on the III, so it leaves me a little confused.
I've only just realised the 4000 runs with firewire, not USB as the V does. I don't know what firewire is, but I'd better check if the computer I'm using has it.
I find it confusing the way many reviews don't specify whether an image was transparency or neg, it makes it really hard to know whats going on in the high and low densities.
I'd better just make up my mind. Glad to hear you're going well.
Craig, thanks for your input too. I'm glad to hear its worked well for you. I've little experience with this stuff and the discussions of it are as confusing as those for digicams; its hard to know whats important/meaningful and what's not.
itf
itchy trigger finger
Craig, you mention the FH-3 strip film holder, which it seems holds unmounted film in the MA-20 slide adapter. The FH-3 came with the LS-4000 but not the V. The V comes with the SA-21 strip film adapter for unmounted film. I hadn't noticed this difference before you mentioned it, is there an advantage in scanning unmounted film with the FH-3 rather than the SA-21?
Cheers,
rich
Cheers,
rich
wintoid
Back to film
I have the Coolscan 5000 with the SA21, and I bought the FH3 adapter because I thought I would need it. It feels kind of weird feeding a strip of 6 negatives directly into the scanner without any kind of tray to support it, so the FH3 appealed. However, in the year or so I've had the 5000, I have actually never had to use the FH3. The thinking was that it would hold curly negatives more flat, but the SA21 really never has any problems.
kipkeston
Well-known
the 4000 has single pass multi sampling? That's sounds like a sexy spec if you want 4000dpi scans!
R
rich815
Guest
Have you really enlarged your scans to 100% and dragged yourself to the corners? I really suspect you'll see some corner softness. Things may overall be still very acceptable, but I'm think you may see it...
wintoid
Back to film
Ermm no. My scans are good enough for me. Perhaps that should be an implicit caveat. I'm really really happy with my scans, but no I don't view them 100%.
R
rich815
Guest
I too am really happy with my 4000 so do not take me wrong. But the extreme corners are indeed a bit soft from the notorious narrow DOF of the Nikon scanner lenses. Does it bother me much? Like you not particularly....
wintoid
Back to film
According to some articles (e.g. http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Obu1 ) the focus issues are much less pronounced with the LS5000 and LS50 than with the LS4000.
Terao
Kiloran
Other main advantage of the 4000 is the SF-210 bulk slide feeder - essential if you have a huge archive of mounted slides like I do (or rather my Dad does)
If you don't need bulk scanning then the IV/V will do just fine.
Or if you have the money, a used 8000ED is very versatile - 12 35mm negs per load or 8 mounted slides plus of course you have the medium format capability it was designed for.
If you don't need bulk scanning then the IV/V will do just fine.
Or if you have the money, a used 8000ED is very versatile - 12 35mm negs per load or 8 mounted slides plus of course you have the medium format capability it was designed for.
kipkeston
Well-known
The SA21 keeps everything very sharp for me, even in the corners with one exception. The end of the strip, the 6th frame, on the far far far right is usually out of focus due to some curl I assume.
