Hallsy
Member
Hi guys, I have been using an Epson V600 for home scanning of my negatives. I am happy enough with the output from MF, but 35mm I am not so happy!!
I realise a lot of the issues lie with the flimsy film holders, I considered trying some ANR glass, but I feel thst a spevific 35mm scanner might be a better bet.
I had been looking at used Plustek 7400/7500/7600 or the latest 8xxx equivalent (I gather the hardware is much the same?), but a Coolscan IV ED has come up for sale lically for a similar price as the Plustek's.
The fact that the Coolscan IV has auto/manual focus and comes with a 6 frame feeder is a major plus point for me - but is it far behind the Plustek in terms of resolution?
The Nikon is 2900 dpi, the Plusteks are maybe a little higher, but is there much in it? I'd only be looking to print to A3 size at home. If I wanted to print larger I would get it done professionally.
In a nutshell, at around £100-150, is a CoolScan IV ED still a good buy in 2018!?
Thanks
I realise a lot of the issues lie with the flimsy film holders, I considered trying some ANR glass, but I feel thst a spevific 35mm scanner might be a better bet.
I had been looking at used Plustek 7400/7500/7600 or the latest 8xxx equivalent (I gather the hardware is much the same?), but a Coolscan IV ED has come up for sale lically for a similar price as the Plustek's.
The fact that the Coolscan IV has auto/manual focus and comes with a 6 frame feeder is a major plus point for me - but is it far behind the Plustek in terms of resolution?
The Nikon is 2900 dpi, the Plusteks are maybe a little higher, but is there much in it? I'd only be looking to print to A3 size at home. If I wanted to print larger I would get it done professionally.
In a nutshell, at around £100-150, is a CoolScan IV ED still a good buy in 2018!?
Thanks
meloV8
Established
Coolscan IV ED is better than Plustek. Do not look at the resolution only.
Ted Striker
Well-known
Agreed. Resolution specs are made only for public consumption. A more broad view is needed and I would bet that the Nikon is the better scanner. A shame that they folded up that business.
BernardL
Well-known
+1 Not only that, but the Coolscan may actually have a better resolution. Resolution as quoted by makers is actually sampling resolution. Past a certain point, the extra "resolution" is just zillions of pixels sampling a soft image.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The Nikon Coolscan scanners were some of the best made consumer production scanners. I had the IV, but when a V became available at a good price I bought it and sold the IV to a friend. Both are excellent.
The major improvement to the V over the IV was to use a slower lens with more DoF and a higher gain sensor/brighter illumunation to keep the speed up. The difficulty was with film that had curled too much on the IV: it has very thin DoF and sometimes (pretty infrequently...) you need ANR glass in a manual feed holder to flatten the negs properly for best sharpness across the field. Some kinds of film do this constantly, others it's never a problem.
Comparing these scanners to a PlusTek is kinda like comparing a mid-line Mercedes and a higher end Volkswagen: they'll both get the job done well enough, but the VW will feel a little raw and unrefined by comparison and the Merc will last much much longer.
The major improvement to the V over the IV was to use a slower lens with more DoF and a higher gain sensor/brighter illumunation to keep the speed up. The difficulty was with film that had curled too much on the IV: it has very thin DoF and sometimes (pretty infrequently...
) you need ANR glass in a manual feed holder to flatten the negs properly for best sharpness across the field. Some kinds of film do this constantly, others it's never a problem. Comparing these scanners to a PlusTek is kinda like comparing a mid-line Mercedes and a higher end Volkswagen: they'll both get the job done well enough, but the VW will feel a little raw and unrefined by comparison and the Merc will last much much longer.
Photog9000
Well-known
I agree with ya, Ted. I just keep hoping my Super Coolscan 5000 keeps running.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Sure, CS is absolutely better. It just unknown for how long.
This is why I purchased new Plustek, from BH under huge discount.
This is why I purchased new Plustek, from BH under huge discount.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I bought this Coolscan V I use now in 2011. Still working perfectly, never a single problem. It's scanned probably between 1500 and 2000 negatives. It wasn't new when I bought it. My Coolscan IV was also bought used, about five years before that. It's still working just fine for the friend who bought it from me.
These are very well made scanners. Don't abuse them, keep them clean (closed up and covered when not in use), and they'll likely outlive your interest in scanning.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
I believe the Coolscan IV ED has a Firewire rather than a USB port if that is of any importance to you. If you are using it with Windows, you'll probably need to install a Firewire card or get an adapter. Just something to think about.
Hallsy
Member
Thanks for all of the replies guys - very helpful!!
The lack of support/parts is a consideration, but I'm happy enough to take the risk at these prices.
Does the Coolscan IV have any common failures?
The lack of support/parts is a consideration, but I'm happy enough to take the risk at these prices.
Does the Coolscan IV have any common failures?
kiemchacsu
Well-known
No, the IV uses USB port, while the 4000 use Firewire
kiemchacsu
Well-known
I've used IV, 4000 and 5000 (now using a 4000)
in terms of quality scan, the CS IV is still a very solid solution.
just sold a IV to a friend because i upgraded to 4000, with ability to scan full roll at once which is important for me.
the 5000 is much faster.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
To add: The model difference, name-wise, is Coolscan IV ED and Coolscan V ED vs Super Coolscan 4000 ED and Super Coolscan 5000 ED. The Super Coolscan models are the higher end models with FireWire, the Coolscan IV and V are both equipped with USB 2.0.
I don't know of any specific common failures, but if a used one has been used hard and not kept clean, it will likely need a cleaning to work at its best. Best to buy one from a hobbyist than a pro shop.
G
kiemchacsu
Well-known
yes, the most common "failure" is mirror needs cleaning to achieve best performance.
this is an easy job, you can search on some good tutorials on this topic.
this is an easy job, you can search on some good tutorials on this topic.
andrewnelles
Established
Yeah, the coolscans are hard to beat short of spending many thousands of dollars. Luckily there is an increasingly good DIY community for repairs these days.
Hallsy
Member
I had found a tutorial for cleaning a CS IV onlune, it looked simple enough - so that's good.
The seller of the CS IV has gone quiet on me, so I continue to look around whilst waiting to hear back.
But of a curveball, but how does the Canoscan FS4000US compare to the CS IV? On paper the specs are similar.
Main complaint I have read of the FS4000US is that it's slow via it's USB 1.1 interface, but the CS IV is also USB 1.1.
The seller of the CS IV has gone quiet on me, so I continue to look around whilst waiting to hear back.
But of a curveball, but how does the Canoscan FS4000US compare to the CS IV? On paper the specs are similar.
Main complaint I have read of the FS4000US is that it's slow via it's USB 1.1 interface, but the CS IV is also USB 1.1.
Hallsy
Member
Just spoke to the seller of the Canon, he was quite honest and said that a full res 42 bit scan with all features on could take as long ad 20 minutes per frame!
I found some scan times on imaging resource, the Canon is generally four times slower in their tests.
I'm generally a patient guy, but that does sound pretty slow!!
I found some scan times on imaging resource, the Canon is generally four times slower in their tests.
I'm generally a patient guy, but that does sound pretty slow!!
Hallsy
Member
This is all a bit redundant now as I have just won an auction for a Coolscan V at a very fair price.
Hopefully all is well
It doesn't come with any software though, is it worth me tracking down a copy of NikonScan, or just go straight for Vuescan? I have been happy with the EpsonScan software that came with my V600, but that is all I have used.
Hopefully all is well
It doesn't come with any software though, is it worth me tracking down a copy of NikonScan, or just go straight for Vuescan? I have been happy with the EpsonScan software that came with my V600, but that is all I have used.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Good! That's the best 35mm format film scanner available without spending a whole lot more.
Just buy VueScan and learn it; get the pro version so you always get updates free. There's a book out about it now, "The VueScan Bible" that helps. Nikon's scanning software has not been updated in many years, doesn't necessarily even install on anything current, hasn't run on macOS since Dinosaurs Roamed The Earth, etc.
VueScan does an excellent job, and is well supported.
G
Hallsy
Member
Thanks Godfrey - I will have a proper look at Vuescan.
I see that you can download NikonScan, so I will see if I can get that working initially, just to test that the scanner works OK.
I see that you can download NikonScan, so I will see if I can get that working initially, just to test that the scanner works OK.