Don't assume that ... you mean the LS 4000, right? Just a note, there's a noticeable difference between the older Coolscan IV and LS4000 and their updated versions, the Coolscan V and the LS5000.
>From what I gather scanning this thread your comparisons are way off base. Compare the scanners that you are considering, not older or different models. My Coolscan V produces better scans than any of the Coolscan 4000 scanners that I used previously. There is different software in the machines, the lenses have been changed, the LS9000 is pushing 16-bit while the LS8000 is running 14-bit. The Nikon uses, AFAIK, a different light to do the scanning than the Canon. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Mark Cassino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Just for the record here - this is a comparison of the Canoscan FS-4000 > (which I assume is roughly equal to the LS-400 in quality)
