Written on March 22, 2003
Updated on March 5, 2004
Let me first give you a little background on where I'm coming from. First, this is not a technical review of this scanner comparing it to other units on the market. It's a subjective view so take it as such.
I've been taking pictures for more than twenty years, starting back when I was in junior high school. All through high school I worked at a local weekly newspaper. I studied journalism at Ohio University in the school of Visual Communication. Throughout college I did summer internships at newspapers and then worked as a newspaper photographer for about seven years before changing careers.
The bulk of my negatives are on Tri-X. I've been lucky in that I have most everything I shot going back to high school. The last four years that I shot professionally were mostly on color negative films. Sprinkled throughout are some E-6 and Kodachromes.
After being away from photography for a few years I picked up an inexpensive Kodak DX3900 digicam to replace my Olympus Stylus point and shoot film camera. I regained the desire to shoot pictures again thanks to that camera. But soon I began to miss using the Leica M cameras I loved, going back to college when I bought my first M2. I used an M6 in addition to the Nikons I carried with me on assignments. My M camera was always the faithful companion that documented everyday life.
I was trying to use the Kodak like I would my M camera. But the shutter lag inherent in all P/S digicams, along with extreme depth of field in these small-chip cameras, began to drive me crazy. Everything is in focus, always, whether you want it or not. It's great when you want massive DOF, but there is no way to blur out a background with these tiny sensors like you would with a film camera.
Archiving digital images was another thing that began to worry me. There is something comforting about having a negative that you can go back to if needed. A negative has never crashed on me. You can lose it or it can get destroyed in a fire but that's about it.
Along those lines, the archival properties of C-41 also worried me. As I start to shoot pictures again for myself I wanted to shoot real B&W for its archival properties. Plus, it's dirt cheap to process your own B&W compared to shooting slide films. But at heart I love B&W images over color. I would like to think that if anyone cares, my negatives will be around for a while after I'm gone. As I looked back over those 20 years worth of negatives, I realized how important those pictures of friends and family are. After doing some research on archiving photos on CDs I will be using the gold CDR's from Mitsui. They seem to be the way to go.
It's these sundry thoughts that led me to buying a film scanner. I wanted a unit that could handle all those old B&W negatives, along with the new images I wanted to shoot.
At work we have a Nikon LS-30 (aka Coolscan III). I use a Mac with OS X. My first thought was to see how good it was. Then I ran into my first wall. It did not work on OS X and Nikon was never going to upgrade their software for this scanner to work on OS X. After writing them an email expressing my dissatisfaction, I discovered Vuescan and purchased a copy. Then I hit my second wall. That Coolscan had been sitting around for about 2 years with the slide unit installed and uncovered. It had sucked in so much dust the scans were unusable. Nikon wanted $275 to clean it. I found a local shop that cleaned it for $145. Cleaning the Coolscans is not for the feint of heart as it requires a lot of disassembly. The 4000tf ships with a cleaning brush that they suggest you use once a month. I keep my scanner covered with the included dust cover when not in use.
Once the Nikon was cleaned I could finally test it out. The scans seemed sharp enough but I really struggled getting a good scan out of B&W negs. I tried every trick I could find: scanning as a slide and inverting, etc. But I never got a scan that really pleased me.
At that point I did a ton of research. There wasn't a whole lot out there. Nikon and Canon were the only two makers that got much press. I was really biased against the Nikon due to their lack of OS X support or care about their customers.
I was about to go with the Canon 4000fs over the Nikon 4000ED when I discovered the Microtek 4000tf.
There was not a lot of information about the Microtek compared to the Nikon and Canon. I did talk with Microtek users via email and they were all very happy with their units. I read a few positive reviews. The one that convinced me was David Brooks' review of the unit in the March 2003 Shutterbug magazine. Admittedly Shutterbug is not hard-hitting but Brooks has a reputation for being honest.
Several factors led me to the Microtek 4000tf:
1. I use a Mac with OS X and this unit works well with that.
2. It's a firewire scanner. The Nikon 4000ED is too but the Canon is only USB or SCSI. Also, the Canon does not support OS X (they may by now) and I would have to use Vuescan. I could have run the Canon on my Mac under SCSI, but having to reboot all the time like I did with the SCSI Nikon LS-30 was a drag. The Nikon scanner has so-so software from what I've read. That would mean Vuescan for that scanner as well. The Microtek comes with the powerful Silverfast software which seems to be an industry standard.
3. The Microtek handles real B&W film very well due to its bundled software (Negafix). This was one of the biggest reasons for me. I have a lot of old Tri-X negs and I want to shoot real B&W instead of C-41. All the scanners seem to handle E-6 well.
My first impressions:
I've found the assertion that the Microtek handles real B&W film better to be true. I would struggle with the Nikon/Vuescan with real B&W, both Tri-X and T-max films. Again, this is probably not so much the scanner as it is the Negafix software in Silverfast.
I've found the scanner to be very sharp and fast. I find the negative strip to be easier to use than the Nikon.
I like that Microtek includes a nice dust cover. Too bad Nikon isn't that smart.I have not needed tech support so I can't tell you how good or bad Microtek is to reponding to users. They do not have a toll-free support number so it's on your nickel if you have to call.
Silverfast comes with extensive documentation in PDF format. I went ahead and printed it all out.
The 4000tf also comes with Genuine Fractals Printpro 2.5. I have not yet used it.
One review I read complained how the noisiness of the 4000tf. Not image quality but the actual sound the unit produces when scanning an image. I don't find it all that bad. I was expecting a whirring jet engine based on their moaning.
SRD - Dust and Scratch Removal
The scanner does not have Digital ICE or Canon's FARE for dust and scratch removal. Instead, it uses something called "SRD" that is part of Silverfast. It works in software when you want it and it does not effect image quality like ICE. It also works on Kodachrome and real B&W films. FARE or ICE only work on C-41 and E-6. SRD is as good as Digital ICE. I would argue that it's better since it does not soften the image. Canon's FARE also does not effect image sharpness. Most of my negatives are pretty clean so I seldomly use SDR and just clean them up in Photoshop with the healing brush.
Take a look at my SRD example page.
Here are some example scans. I'm not sure if you can tell anything by looking at low-res web images, but here are some different films:
This is a Kodachrome 64 slide.
This is a Kodachrome 64 slide.
This is a rather dense Tri-X neg. It would have been a nightmare on the Nikon.
This is a thinner than you would like C-41 neg
This was another Tri-X neg that is good and meaty.
Tri-X neg. Shot in low light wide open and cropped a bit.
Silverfast has software called Negafix that is used when scanning B&W and color negative films. It has different profiles you select to match your negative. The profile for your film is not always the best profile to use. For example, I've never used the Tri-X profile when scanning a real Tri-X negative. The best profiles for Tri-X I've found are:
Kodak > aerocolor
Kodak > porta 160 NC 6x6
Kodak > porta 160 VC 6x6
Kodak > Advantix 200 APS
Kodak > T-max 100 6x6 (seems to be the best for thick negs)
Agfa > HDC plus 100
As of September 2003 I've switched to shooting Fuji Neopan 400. I've come to love this film's long tonal range. It hold whites without blowing out and really digs into the shadows. It's also very scanner friendly. All the B&W images in this gallery are shot on that film.
In summary, I would highly recommend this unit. I feel like my gambled has paid off. At some point it was a leap of faith since I was never able to test other units myself, save the Coolscan III. This scanner is a giant leap for me in image quality and ease of use over what I was getting with the Nikon and Vuescan.
I want to make one point about using ANY scanner. I worked for many years in a wet darkroom printing both black and white and color. No scanner is going to give you a great looking scan right off the bat. You need to acquire the skills in Photoshop to make your images sing, just like you to do in a wet darkroom. The scanner is one half of an important pair. Your skill is the second half.
I'm not sure why the 4000tf doesn't get more press or notice from end users. I purchased this unit from B&H photo for $930USD (plus shipping) in March of 2003. I found a cheaper price on the web and they matched it. It was only a $20 savings but it doesn't hurt to ask. As of 1/13/05 B&H is selling the 4000tf for $700 plus a $100 rebate.
Postscript
Carl Smith sent me the following note. Carl has done a wonderful review pitting the Nikon against the Canon scanner:"I would make clear the differences between SRD and ICE/FARE. ICE on the Nikon 4000 is a problem but FARE on the Canon is unbeatable. SRD doesn't make use of actual separate scan data and in my experience can be a tad less reliable and the quality is a step below FARE. SRD equivalents are avaliable for the Nikon, Canon or any scanner as well. Polaroid has developed a good plugin that is pretty good although it requires more input."
You can read Carl's review at http://www.rit.edu/~cgs2794/comparison.htm
Derek Simpson had this to say:
Two notes on Microtek service. 1) Having a problem with my 4000t within a few weeks of purchase it was replaced immediately without question. 2) Recently two months out of warranty it was returned faulty to the Irish Dealership. Diagnosed with having two broken cogs it has now been gone a month which is not funny. They say the parts have to come from afar - but I didn't think they meant extra terrestrial. Minor note - the slide carrier was breaking up as well and it hasn't been overused - at a very generous estimate it may have scanned 1500 slides (in two years plus) but more likely under 1000. Good to hear the 4000tf has a dust cover.
I do like the machine - just a leetle narked at the downtime and jobs piling up.
Microtek Ireland have just (after a deal of chasing) informed me that Microtek UK has pronounced my 4000t "uneconomic to repair." Not an overworked machine by any means. And what's more by way of compensation they offered to replace the machine with a new one "at cost" (approx £425-450). You could say I am not impressed. By the way details of exactly what is wrong and why they thought they'd fixed it before are not available - I have asked. Cheers Derek Simpson.
I got the chief exec today and outcome is a newq 4000t for £325 between thee and me. I tried for a deal on the tf but couldn't get them low enough so I'll stick with the devil I know (2 year guarantee so if it puts a cog wrong) . M/tek Ireland blame M/Tek UK and I don't doubt them. Seems dodgy "repairs" from UK are not unknown shall we say. Canon scan times scared me off their offering - I settled for the best deal I could get that will have me back in business soonest. Cheers Derek Simpson.
Update: June 4, 2003
I have been less than impressed by Microtek's customer service. I sent them an email inquiry concerning some scans that seemed soft. I would do two scans in a row of the same negative and sometimes one was soft. After getting an automated email response I never heard from a real person. A few weeks later I called Microtek tech support (on my nickel as they do not have an toll-free number). After a half hour and a lengthy maze of options to press, I finally got a techie. I described my problem and told him I had sample images to send. He gave me his email address and he promised to call me back in 20 minutes. I never heard from him again. I sent him an email a few days later and never did hear back from the second email. I have to give Microtek a failing grade on this point.
My other little nitpick is that the crop box in the preview window is a little askew. That means I cannot scan the entire image without cropping into it a bit.
I started playing around with Ed Hamrick's Vuescan now that he supports this scanner. It's slower to use than Silverfast and is a bit buggy with this scanner right now, but it seems to handle dense negatives better. I'm not sure why I could not get better B&W scans out of the Nikon with Vuescan. It could be the scanner itself or a better understanding now on my part in using Vuescan.
I'm still doing some testing so it's too eary to make a call but everyone should buy a copy of Vuescan. At $40 it's well worth the price. See http://www.hamrick.com/.
Update: August 2003
Microtek replaced my scanner. The new scanner still doesn't square up the crop boxes. I don't think it's the scanner but the film holder that is the problem. There is a good deal of latitude where the film sits in the film strip holder. When the scanner sucks the film holder into machine there is a lot of side-to-side play. Now if I need to get an image squared perfectly I will scan outside the film area so I have some room to rotate it in Photoshop. It's too soon to tell if the focus problem I was having was with that particular unit or if the autofocus in the Microtek gets fooled or confused at times. This was not a easily noticed problem because it was not grossly out of focus. From time to time I still get scans that are out of focus. It's something you might not notice unless you pay attention and look at the scan at 100% in Photoshop. But pretty soon you get very good as spotting an image that's just slightly "mushy". When that happens I immediately scan again and almost always get a tack sharp scan.
Update on the skewed scans issue
From Eric Strandjord:"I have been exchanging emails with their tech support on the same issue for about a week now (crop boxes not being square to the negative).
They kindly offered to repair the unit or replace the film templates, but I suspected an improper internal adjustment after precisely measuring the film templates and finding them perfectly square!
I used a fiber-optic scope to view the innards of the unit, and determined that because of the "wobble" of the film template in the inner motorized scan unit, it often does not sit perfectly square.
I notice a bunch of wiggle when the drive motor sucks it in and out! Where it randomly settles on mine affects the squareness of the scan. If I brace my finger against it on the right side just right, I get good scans."
I tried out Eric's suggestion and it works great. I used my finger on the right side of the film strip holder to keep it flush left during the pre-scan and final scan. Both times I got the most square scans ever with this scanner. Thanks Eric!
Conclusion
I'm still happy with my scanner. If I had to purchase another scanner today I would seriously look at the Minolta 5400 and the 4000tf again. As of September of 2004, unless you jump up to an Imacon I don't see any film scanners for dedicated 35mm scanning beating either of these two scanners in this price range.
--Jim Arnold
Go to my home page