Plustek 7400

[malcom_knight]

<p>how does a Plustek 7400 stack up against a<strong>n older Nikon scanner?</strong></p>

[mjferron]

<p>The 7600 is awsome. Buy it. Folks are raving about this scanner. Blows my old Minolta scan dual 4 out of the water. You do have to manually avance the film holder to the next frame but it in the end the simplity will add to the scanners life.</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>If the "older Nikon" has less than 16bit grayscale/48bit color then the 7400 will out preform it.<br>

The 7400 is an updated version of the 7200 that the majority of the images in my portfolio were scanned with. The major difference between the different Plustek models is the software. </p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p> 7400 review here.</p>

<p>http://www.filmscanner.info/en/PlustekOpticFilm7400.html</p>

<p> </p>

[malcom_knight]

<p>Marc, the review at http://www.filmscanner.info/en/PlustekOpticFilm7400.html makes it not look like it's not a very good scanner. The Nikon looks to be a better scanner by the comparison made.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>Malcom,</p>

<p>The problem is that the Nikon's are no longer available new. </p>

<p>I really like my Coolscan V but the price for a used one has almost doubled to $1000.</p>

<p>The prices for the Coolscan 5000 have risen to over $2000 on Ebay.</p>

<p>I am not familiar enough with the older Coolscans to make a recommendation. I don't know if their software is compatible with the latest operating systems or what type of interfaces they use.</p>

<p> </p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>Doing a quick look at specs. the Coolscan 4000 or newer will out preform the Pulstek, older may tie.</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>Charles, I wouldn't judge scanners by manufacturer's specs as for resolution and DMax they may be totally unrealistic. The Coolscans have low noise electronics and decent lenses.</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>I based my comments on the bit depth, not the stated dpi or dmax of the manufacturer or some second party tester whose test standards may be questionable let alone what the average user can see. </p>

<p>Manufacturer's most likely base their specs on instrument measurements which is why many claim them to be exaggerated because one can not see that fine of detail.</p>

<p>Many, if not all, the 35mm stuff in my portfolio looks as good on my Sony display as the projected slide does on a good screen or the 11x14 print from a good commercial lab. The 35mm stuff in my portfolio was scanned on a 7200 using Silverfast SE in 48bit HDR mode and adjusted in Photoshop CS2 for correct tones. I'm sure I can get better with a Coolscan 9000 or a drum scanner.</p>

<p>I am a former electronics technician who brought out others jealousy and inadvertently intimated others with my eye for correct color and ability to make very fine adjustments of controls that would equate to 1 second of arc or less of a turn to achieve.</p>

[malcom_knight]

<p>Charles, if you click the image that compares the Nikon to the 7200 on <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.filmscanner.info/en/PlustekOpticFilm7400.html" target="_blank">http://www.filmscanner.info/en/PlustekOpticFilm7400.html</a>, you'll see a little color picture of a tree- Click on it and it compares the Nikon to the 7400. The Nikon looks a lot better.</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>The tree box never switched.<br>

The Nikon 5000 is <strong>newer</strong> than the 4000 where the 8/16 bit change came into play.<br>

Pre 4000 go with the Plustek.</p>

 

[roger_smith4]

<p>I don't think bit depth of the A/D converter is a reasonable indicator of scan quality. You can pair a high-bit A/D converter with a lousy CCD and poor optics and wind up with a bad scan.<br>

<br />I think you'd also be hard-pressed to see the difference between a 14 bit and a 16 bit scan.<br>

In case anyone cares about bit depth, here's a summary from Nikon:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The COOLSCAN LS-2000 and LS-40 film scanners are capable of scanning an image at a bit depth of 12 bits while the COOLSCAN LS-8000 and LS-4000 can scan at a bit depth of 14 bits. The LS-5000 is capable of scanning at 16-bits. This means that each pixel is measured to an accuracy of 1 part in 4026 per color of red, green and blue with 12 bit (1 part in 16104 per color with 14 bit, 1 part in 65,536 per color with 16 bit)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here's an old thread on this topic- I thought the post by Kennedy McEwan was useful:<br />http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/005LdN?start=10</p>

[rossb]

<p> I might buy the 7600 sometime this year. Still thinking about it. Either that one or a Epson V700 as I have the V500 and it is a very poor scanner. I would not be willing to purchase a used scanner.</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>For 35mm I'd get the 7600 over a flatbed if that were my only choice. I also think a used scanner is a very viable prospect- I bought two that way (FS-4000US and LS-5000) and have no regrets.</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>I just checked Nikon's web site:<br>

LS 30, LS 2000, LS40, LS4000-Windows 98SE, ME, 2000 pro; Mac 9.2.2<br>

Super Coolscan 4000ED/coolscan IV,Super Coolscan 5000 ED/ Coolscan V, Super Coolscan 9000ED/Super Coolscan 8000 ED- Windows 98SE, 2000 pro, XP; Mac OS 9.2.2, OS10.1.x; Windows Vista only software available for these scanners.</p>

<p>Windows 7, Mac OS 10.5 or later, 64 bit operating systems or 32 bit or Compatibility mode <strong>Not Supported </strong>we recommend 3rd party software such as Silverfast or Viewscan.</p>

<p>Thus my reason for pre 4000 to go with the Plustek.</p>

 

[roger_smith4]

<blockquote>

<p>Thus my reason for pre 4000 to go with the Plustek.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>In your last post it was about the "8/16 bit change" now it's the OS?<br>

There is a workaround to get it to work with 64 bit OS: http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00Ryck?start=70 or you can use Vuescan.</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>In your last post it was about the "8/16 bit change" now it's the OS?<br /><strong>No.</strong></p>

[jeff_z.]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think bit depth of the A/D converter is a reasonable indicator of scan quality. You can pair a high-bit A/D converter with a lousy CCD and poor optics and wind up with a bad scan.<br /><br />I think you'd also be hard-pressed to see the difference between a 14 bit and a 16 bit scan.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think there's a lot to what Roger said. I've owned a Coolscan IV LS 40 since it was new, and several months ago I lucked upon a refurb Coolscan 9000. Well, it still needed to be "re-furbed", but after getting it back from Nikon (they put new components into it, including a new CCD), it's worked flawlessly. I had medium format in mind when purchasing, but hoped it might be even better with 35mm than my already excellent Coolscan IV, too, because of the higher spec's. I have to tell you, though, the improvement seems pretty negligible, perhaps more so with super contrasty scenes, but for anything I've printed in the way of landscapes, I really can't see it in the prints so far. They're both great machines, but I was a bit surprised at how well the IV with its lesser spec's. held up to the latest model.</p>

<p>The other thing about the Coolscans, as I think others may have mentioned, is the low noise, fabulous ED lenses, and general quality. I've even heard others refer to the weight/solidity of these machines as compared to others in this regard. I found this seemingly thorough review on the LS 40 a few years ago, and it had a lot to do with my choosing this machine over it's higher spec'd. big brother back then, and I have had absolutely no regrets with my decision.<br /> http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/CSIV/C4A.HTM</p>

<p>As far as longevity, it has never needed anything, so I would imagine if you're able to find one that's been consistently covered when not in use, and not abused, you may find the best deal possible today with one of these (35mm exclusively). I think they still service them, too, if needed. I really hope that this Plustek is a great machine because there's obviously a need for new scanners, but if you have any doubts, I know that the Coolscans are excellent.</p>