Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/08/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]kb I know that the Nikon has many more useful accessories for scanning a large number of images in bulk. That, to me, is more important than image quality. Regarding image quality, both probably have the same potential. The learning curve might be a little easier on one that the other. I say the features are more important than image quality because I think most scanners have huge untapped potential. In other words, though you hear raves about one device or another, technique (and available software) has a lot to do with it. Since I have Photoshop the actual scan software isn't so important to me. I just want a scanner than can give a raw hi-bit, hi-res scan with minimum noise; plus, can spit out a number of low-bit, low res scans with minimum effort. I think both the Nikon and Canon would meet criteria one, but the Nikon might be better at two. Features are important to me because time is so valuable. Feeding images one by one doesn't cut it. It gets tedious in a hurry. If I only need a few really high end scans, I almost think a service bureau is a better way to do. Do I spend several grand for a scanner, or buy another Leica lens? Tough choice, sometimes. Dave - -----Original Message----- From: Ken Benderly [mailto:ken_benderly@hp.com] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 6:49 PM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: [Leica] Canon CanoScan FS4000 Does anyone have experience with the Canon FS4000 scanner and how it compares to the Nikon LS4000? kb