Nikon Super Coolscan 2000

Great scanner once I cleaned it, mirrors and lenses were very dirty. See http://www.cgocable.net/~carguy/ls2000.html for repair info. So far I have been very happy with the scanner once I got used to the software which isn't the best.

Ease of use.

B+W scanning, high contrast scans, dust and software.

Too numerous to mention.

Not needed yet.

The 2000 simply can''t live up to the claims Nikon makes about it. 20 seconds for the average scan? Not if you want a decent quality image... It''s slow, it doesn''t deliver enough for the money and it''s often squirrely. To elaborate: Like I said, the 20-second scan time claimed by Nikon is just bunk. Maybe - and just maybe - if you scanned it at the minimum everything and had no other programs running at the same time, you might get something in the region of 20 seconds. If you''re like me and have a few other programs running in the background and need to edit photos as you scan - I work on deadline, and there''s no time to waste, ever - then you''re looking at 2 or 3 minutes'' wait while the 2000 grinds away. Not very impressive, considering the price of this bad boy. It''s also very tempermental, especially after you get a year or two of use out of it. Expect to have it lock up with regularity, unless you possess mystical powers to make every strip of negatives feed in perfectly. And forget about loading a strip less than four frames long - you''ll swear you''re hearing the 2000 laughing at you. The image reproduction is mediocre a lot of the time - sure, sometimes it''s perfect, but don''t bet on that happening too much. It''s especially bad with night shots or anything involving a large amount of solid colors. A few shots I took of the moon hanging in the still-blue sky came out muddled with noise and were totally useless. Color reproduction is generally good, but sometimes downright awful. I''ve seen the thumbnails come up with fairly accurate color rendition, only to get a scan that ends up skewing the colors to a random point on the palette - generally overly saturated reds from my experience.

With enough prayer and coaxing, you''ll occasionally get a really excellent scan out of this one.

Slow, balky, sometimes mediocre image reproduction. Really needs a USB or Firewire connection instead of the ridiculously bad SCSI interface you have to deal with for now. Nikon software is okay at best, though better on a Mac platform.

I did EXHAUSTIVE testing. Nikon's specs and the general ratings that you will see of this scanner have almost no relationship to its actual performance. The scanning software is also a bad joke as it is more of a game than a tool. The Polaroid Sprint Scan Plus is MUCH faster, scans deeper, cleaner (less noise), and sharper. The Nikon also shows HORRIBLE bleeding. Yes, I am picky--that is why I get paid. If you want something better than the Polaroid, get a Howtek Scanmaster 4500, as they are now relatively inexpensive. One last tip: With the Polaroid, scan at a native resolution (or an even multiple thereof) and then resample in Photoshop.

marketing

everything else

Polaroid Sprint Scan 35 Plus, Microtek, Howtek

Provides excellent scans with good color rendition once it is set up properly. This unit is much better compared to the Canon scanner in terms of the color( I had to manually fix each scan with Photoshop with the Canon and it eventually drove me nuts!). I have been very pleased with the scans so far.

Superb color management,
sharp scans,
digital ICE

Price

Canon FS2710

None needed so far

I bought one cheap second hand and i haven't regreted it yet. I nearly bough the new 4000ED but it didn't seem to match the quality, especially off neg, i got extremeley dark scans.
I have used it successfully for a high profile project at college, where i needed to produce high quality scans. I was going to use the bosses Imacon but when i compared the two, the color quality off the nikon seemed better, without unsharp masking the imacon was only marginally sharper, but of course the imacon had the advantage with the darker slides.
Overall i'm more than pleased with it, I have produced straight scans which people think have been tweaked, but are shocked when i say i haven't done anything to them. if you are thinking of buying one cheap, i suggest you set your color matching up very well, that way you'll get the best from it

Superb color rendition once the color managment is set up. best scanner for cross-processed work. nearly as sharp as the imacon photo (i've used the imacon for a year at work) fast scan times for all resolutions. good detail in shadows.
batch scanning

could be better in darker areas. can be a little on the blue side. Auto levels not always right. multi-pass scanning slow but worthit. limited to 6 frames. no unsharpmask controlls, no ice on b&w

imacon flextight photo,
kodak rfs 3600,
canon 2700f

poor, nikon UK are awfull at customer service