New Canon Scanner D2400UF for MF and LF

[gene crumpler]

Has anybody looked at the specs. for the new Canon scanner due out in

May? It will scan 35mm to 4x5 negs and slides at 2400x4800 dpi with an

expected street price of $499. It also has new scratch and dust

suppression technology.

 

I'm shopping for a scanner and don't want to drop the change needed

for a Nikon scanner, at least at this point. I am still dedicated to

silver B&W work and just got the capability to do amazing 8x12 inch

color with a new Canon BJC-8200. If I really get hooked on digital,

then I will spent the big $ needed to do 16x20 or larger on my

computer. I want to crawl before I mortgage the house.

[norman_koren]

Gene-- This scanner sounds great, but I can't find references to it on Canon's site or Google. Do you have the name right? Can you provide URLs? By the way, 13x19 inches is the maximum size for reasonaby priced consumer printers: the Epson 1270/1280/2000P. Beyond that you're looking at the second mortgage. I have a fair amount of information on scanners on my site, http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints.html . I just got an Epson 1640SU Photo (1600 dpi) for medium format work, and I'm still assessing its quality. I want to know more about the new Canon-- I'll mention it in my site if I can find reliable information. If it's as good as you say, I may regret purchasing the Epson-- maybe I'll sell it cheap. Write me at normkoren@earthlink.net -- I may not remember to check this unarchived post.

[robin_barnes]

There is an announcement on www.genyosha.com - look under Camera Trade News and then Daily News. This site is often the first to give information about new products.

[curtis_carmack]

You can find info on the scanner at http://consumer.usa.canon.com/scanners/csd2400uf/index.html (on Canon USA's Small Office and Home Office Products section). Canon's latest consumer scanners are impressive (I have the 1220, which is amazing, though not usable for transparencies or negatives), but as this will not be a dedicated film scanner, it is not likely to have sufficient dynamic range for exacting work. I would be surprised if it handled Dmax of greater than 3.4. The Dmax specification is not on the site yet, so I'm just guessing at this point. We can always hope, though ;>)

[brian walsh]

When the D2400UF was announced, Dmax of 3.3 was specified.

[pete_andrews]

There's no mention of dynamic range or Dmax in the specification at Canon's website, see:<br>

<a href="http://consumer.usa.canon.com/scanners/csd2400uf/index.html">D2400 blurb</a><br>Even so, 3.3D seems about right. The limit is basically set by the dynamic range of a CCD sensor, and any maker that claims more is probably lying. (There is a way round it, but it involves using multiple passes, and slows down the scan rate.)

[daniel_bergmann1]

I see one major flaw, it is a flatbed scanner. For scanning film I have never gotten acceptable results with a flatbed scanner. I have been waiting for a resonably priced film scanner that can take 120 film and believe that Nikon will be releasing a MF version of the Coolscan 3000 this summer. The LS-2000 has been a solid performer, the new 3000 is an improvement in resolution and DMAX, the new MF version will propably be a fine piece of hardware.

[ralfs_berzinskis]

I just received this scanner and ran some tests. Previously I was using Nikon Coolscan III and now I took the same slides and negatives and compared the resulting scans side by side. Coolscan in my opinion was exaggerating colors a little bit; Canoscan�s colors are more moderate and I would say natural. It seems that the true optical resolution of Canoscan is 2400 dpi; even when I turned it to 4800 dpi (which according to Canon is true optical in one dimension) there were slightly less details than from Coolscan III (which is 2700 dpi). Canoscan seems to have a little bit better dynamic range than Coolcan III (shadow details were better). The noise in dark areas is also practically non-existent. My first impression is that the new Canoscan D2400U compares very well with a dedicated film scanner like Coolscan III. Frankly speaking, I did not expect so good results from a flatbed.

 

I prepared a little sample at http://www.geocities.com/aanticulturee/scantest.htm

[joe_w]

Ralf, Thanks for posting your initial results with the Canon D2400UF. How's it been working for you since then? Are anymore examples available to see? I've refrained from getting into digital printing for 2 reasons: 1) print longevity (now addressed by Epson's 2000P); 2) affordable MF scanners. My Epson 1200U Photo is fine for computer imaging, but not printing. Are you using your Canon for printing? If so, are you pleased with the results? Thanks! Joe

[kasigi]

I use both a Canoscan d2400uf and a Nikon Coolscan-III. For Medium format film I relish using the canon. It also handles IR film fairly well in MF. However when I am scanning slides with a lot of resolution (like Velvia) the Canoscan cannot meet the standards of the Nikon - the images are just not up to par. But for MF this is by far the best bet. Besides - it is also an awesome print scanner which I have use for anyway - so working with two scanners is a fact of life for me in any case.

[peter_hutchins]

I have just purchased a Canoscan 2400UF and found the results for scaning 35mm poor, even at 2400 dpi.After experimenting I found scanning the neg on the glass gave considerable inprovement. Further investigation found the 35mm plastic neg holder had had a slight bow and did not sit flat on the glass. I have rubbed the holder on some abrasive paper on a flat surface to ensure that no plastic nibs are present and have added a weight to the holder ie: a metal bar approx 110mm x 18 x 4mm. This sits on top of the neg holder (below the negs) and the lid rests on it. This ensures the neg holder is firmly pressed down onto the glass. Results have improved 100%. The scanner obviously has only a small depth of field and the photo must be close to the glass. I think this is a design flaw in the neg holder.