Nikon 4000 ED or Nikon 5000 ED?

[phil_sugar]

I am looking for a slide scanner that can scan kodachrome as well as E-6

slides, and am looking at both the older Nikon 4000 and somewhat newer 5000.

While I can afford the 5000, I would certainly like to save some money if the

4000 will essentially do the same job. The only differences I have seen in the

specs is the 4000 has a lower D-max and is 14 bit rather than a 16 bit. I

have read on other posts issues with flare around highlights. If any one has

used these scanners I would really appreciate your commets/recommendations and

thoughts about the claimed flare issue.

[nigel d]

The ICE4 of the 5000 is reported to be better behaved with Kodachrome than ICE3 (4000).

[jammer_jammer]

Phil,

I have no experience with either scanner. I'm in the same boat as yourself, looking for the right scanner to buy.

 

I've had very knowledgeable and experienced people tell me that the flare problem is a major issue and therefore the Nikons should be avoided at all cost if most of your slides are Kodachrome.

 

I've had very knowledgeable and experienced people tell me that the flare problem is either non-existent or a minimal at worst. Two of these people actually scan slides for a living.

 

This leads me to believe that it is a quality control issue where some of the Nikons have this problem and some do not and it also leaves me completely paralyzed as to which scanner to buy. : -(

 

Wish I could be of more help.

[Stock-Photos]

Phil, Nigel is correct in that the 4000 and it's version of "Ice" (3), will not scan Kodachrome without loss of detail.

 

Get the 5000...you'll regret buying the 4000 because of the Kodachome and "Ice" issues. The 5000 scans "almost" twice as fast also.

 

You deserve the best!

[ed_dods]

Or, if you're serious about trying to shave cost, why not look at the Coolscan V? It's almost half the price of the 5000. Sure it's slower, with 14bit A/D, but if i'm not mistaken it would be able to produce slides to the same quality as the 5000, just not maybe as fast.

 

I'm of the school, that needing 16 bits versus 14 is really not necessary, unless you've got a true Dmax higher then 3.6.

 

In laymans' terms, the A/D converter would be the "pipe". The Dmax (Max. Density Range) would be the "oil".

 

Correct me if i'm wrong......ed

[phil_sugar]

I would like to thank everyone for their very helpful comments. I am not much of a computer techie, and don't really understand what 16 bits versus 14 bits really means and how significant it is in terms of getting a good scan. Perhaps someone who understands this technical aspect can explain it. Also, are the Nikon advertised specs for the D-max anywhere near accurate, considering that the people who write the spec sheets are really only nterested in marketing a product.

[roger_smith4]

No, those dmaxes are theoretical and I have yet to see any evidence, here or over at comps.periphs.scanners that the 5000 (or 9000) produce superior 35mm scans to the Coolscan V. Personally, I'd go for the V if I were buying a new scanner today.

[rich815]

My LS-4000 scans Kodachrome fine, even with ICE, though I do hear that some versions of Kodachrome will have trouble with ICE. Without ICE either will scan Kodachrome just fine. That said if affordability is not an issue definitely get the 5000.

[ed_dods]

Phil,

 

Here is an excellent article by Bob Atkins, on Dynamic Range A/D Converters.

 

http://www.photo.net/learn/drange/

 

It's a little nitty/gritty, but the context of the whole thing is summarized in the last 3 paragraphs.

 

I'm actually trying to choose between the V & the 5000ED. So like yourself, i know the feeling of trying to spend, but not overspend for quality.

 

I mostly understand all the hardware/software differences, but just haven't been able to figure out if there is a true "image scan quality" difference yet.