repair old Nikon or buy new one?

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Douglas W. Hoyt

unread,
Nov 6, 2002, 6:57:44 PM11/6/02
to
My LS-2000 just died. An 0x04620000 hardware error (it makes a lame long
whining beep instead of it's usual whirring and grinding).

Repair is a flat $275 fee plus maybe $30 shipping. A new LS-4000 is $1500
minus a $200 rebate.

Is anyone delighted with their repaired LS-2000 and grateful they didn't
spend another thousand bucks to get the LS-4000, or do I really have a
glamorous new paperweight on my hands? Any insights appreciated!!!

P.S. Will the LS-4000 indeed work with my old SF-200 slide feeder?


UrbanVoyeur

unread,
Nov 7, 2002, 9:22:11 AM11/7/02
to
Yes, the Nikon 4000 will work with the SF-200. In fact it is the only
current nikon scanner that will.

Don't know about the relative cost issue. I have a 400 with the SF-200 and
I'm very happy.

--
J
www.urbanvoyeur.com


"Douglas W. Hoyt" <dougl...@takeNOoutSPAMcharter.net> wrote in message
news:usjb3nb...@corp.supernews.com...

Dippity Doo

unread,
Nov 7, 2002, 11:36:46 AM11/7/02
to
Doug

I had my LS-2000 repaired/rebuilt by Nikon and feel it was well worth
the $300.00

I suppose what you have to ask yourself is whether or not the LS-4000
is worth the additional $1,000.00 - for me I couldn't justify the cost
for the type of work that I'm involved in.

HTH

Bruce Feist

unread,
Nov 7, 2002, 1:27:22 PM11/7/02
to
UrbanVoyeur wrote:
> Yes, the Nikon 4000 will work with the SF-200. In fact it is the only
> current nikon scanner that will.
>
> Don't know about the relative cost issue. I have a 400 with the SF-200 and
> I'm very happy.

I have a 4000 and the SF-200 and *hate* the SF-200. It jams constantly,
and it doesn't allow you to preview everything before scanning so that
you can customize cropping and exposure for each slide.

In my opinion, the design is idiotic. It shouldn't have been a stack
feeder, it should have been a carousel-type feed or something of the
sort. Ideally, it would have used the slide trays as a 35mm slide
projector. Yes, that might have required loading the slides into a
different tray before scanning instead of tossing a pile into the
feeder... but it could have pretty much eliminated any jamming problem,
and made all common slide mounts work well.

Bruce Feist

Douglas W. Hoyt

unread,
Nov 7, 2002, 4:27:34 PM11/7/02
to
> I had my LS-2000 repaired/rebuilt by Nikon and feel it was well worth
> the $300.00

Thanks for that feedback--I think I'll go ahead and have it repaired (I read
one or two complaints about interminable problems, but I'm glad to hear of
your good experience). Though half of me now has the fantasy of TWO
scanners (connected to my two computers) grinding away day and night. I
think it would then only take me 10 years to scan all my old slides. Thanks
for the info!


Douglas W. Hoyt

unread,
Nov 7, 2002, 4:33:37 PM11/7/02
to
> I have a 4000 and the SF-200 and *hate* the SF-200. It jams constantly

I finally went ahead and did the credit card modification--and now if I use
only one specific type of slide mount oriented in the same direction, I have
no problem with jamming--I can scan hundreds of slides without having to
think about them (except that I've been scanning so many batches now that
the motor on the LS-2000 unfortunately crapped out).

> and it doesn't allow you to preview everything before scanning so that
> you can customize cropping and exposure for each slide.

I've finally decided to do all of that in an image editing program after the
fact. I got tired of doing multiple scans of a slide to get just the right
brightness and contrast. I'm really amazed with a software program,
ICorrect, I just picked up--it does a brilliant job on the dark point and
white point, and takes all the nasty color casts out of old slides with
incredible ease.

> In my opinion, the design is idiotic.

Yes, it's probably the worst designed piece of $500 equipment anyone will
ever buy!


degrub

unread,
Nov 7, 2002, 9:54:14 PM11/7/02
to
Bruce ,

Have you tried the credit card fix for jams ? See:
http://www.pytlowany.com/ED4000_pg_4.html

i did and it eliminated all of my jamming problems with cardboard mounts.

Frank

Bruce Feist

unread,
Nov 7, 2002, 10:27:32 PM11/7/02
to
degrub wrote:

> Have you tried the credit card fix for jams ? See:
> http://www.pytlowany.com/ED4000_pg_4.html
>
> i did and it eliminated all of my jamming problems with cardboard mounts.

I didn't know about this fix until today... and the URL you showed above
isn't working. I'd appreciate it if you could verify that it's correct.

Thanks for the pointer!

Bruce

Douglas W. Hoyt

unread,
Nov 7, 2002, 11:00:37 PM11/7/02
to
> I didn't know about this fix until today... and the URL you showed above
> isn't working. I'd appreciate it if you could verify that it's correct.

I tried the URL and it worked and it worked just fine. In fact, the picture
on the website it shows is exactly what I wound up doing, after trying goofy
fixes in other spots, based upon vaguer fix references, that were a joke.
The credit card I stuck in, unfortunately, is not not flat and without
numbers and relief on it! It still works though if I set the plunger toward
the outside so that it doesn't get stuck on the credit card numbers. I
would change to a flat credit card if it were more of a problem. I highly
recommend Scotch double-stick tape too--not just for this manouver, but for
lots of uses.


Bruce Feist

unread,
Nov 7, 2002, 11:17:46 PM11/7/02
to
Douglas W. Hoyt wrote:
>
> I tried the URL and it worked and it worked just fine.

I tried it again, and it worked this time -- must have been a transient
thing. Thanks very much for the URL! I'll give it a try.

Bruce

ThomasH

unread,
Nov 8, 2002, 5:30:40 PM11/8/02
to

Obviously we all agree on SF-200 and SF-200S. With the 'credit card fix'
is it more or less reliable. Otherwise I of course second Bruces opinion
that the feeder should be taking regular slide trays of all sorts.


What I am curious here is the ICorrect software: Could you give some
pointers about this product and its use?

Thomas.

ThomasH

unread,
Nov 8, 2002, 5:33:20 PM11/8/02
to

Hm... I recommended it to you from the day one long time ago!

Use the card to adjust the gap from the input tray to match
your particular slide mount type. You can affix the card using a
regular soft paper clip.

Thomas.

Paul Chefurka

unread,
Nov 8, 2002, 8:15:20 PM11/8/02
to
On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 14:30:40 -0800, ThomasH <tho...@coco.net> wrote:

>What I am curious here is the ICorrect software: Could you give some
>pointers about this product and its use?

The company is called Pictographics, and their URL is http://www.picto.com/

They make two Photoshop plugins that do similar things: ICorrect
Professional 3.0 and ICorrect EditLab 3.0. EditLab is a more advanced
program that gives more flexibility. I can't say enough good things about
both products. I started with ICorrect Pro, then bought EditLab because I
realized I was using the plugin on every single photo I edited. I've never
seen anything like for setting b/w points and colour balance.

For reviews take a look at
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/1photo-pages/i/icorrect.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/editlab.shtml

They are both exceptionally useful programs, IMNSHO.

Paul

Douglas W. Hoyt

unread,
Nov 8, 2002, 8:23:46 PM11/8/02
to
> What I am curious here is the ICorrect software: Could you give some
> pointers about this product and its use?

I wind up taking dozens, sometimes hundreds of shots quickly to put on CD
for work and friends--with these pictures my delightful Canon s110 camera
has a capacity for some bland washed out whites, and indoor shots can have
some awful color cast (usually yellows).

I also am scanning lots of old pictures with my now defunct LS-2000. The
older ones can have odd greenish casts to whole batches--or other subtle
pervading color dullnesses. But not only that, I used to spend too long on
slides that will not be sent to National Geographic--trying to get
brightness and exposure more perfect.

Now, for slides not going to National Geographic, my thumbnail viewer,
Compupic, offers excellent and pretty handy image adjustment--by pulling
brightness, black point, white point and/or contrast faders. Trying this
and trying that, I get much more vivid pictures--but most of this has to do
with making the black point a little blacker, and the white point a little
whiter--except for pictures that clearly need to be a shade brighter or
darker. Still, it takes at least a minute per picture to get it optimal,
and often several minutes.

Then when I was doing a search about "black point"s in Google, I stumbled on
ICorrect--and it sounded as if it does what I am doing with white point and
black point automatically (!). They designed it, they say, specifically for
digital imagery precisely because this dynamic is often wanting in digi
pictures. This was SO tempting that I bought it, and I am really happy with
it (I bought it as a stand alone program, not as a plug-in to Photoshop).
It makes that particular aspect of digital pictures--which I find I'm having
to adjust for all of the time--instantly acceptable--no adjusting and
re-adjusting multiple faders to get the balance right--and the pictures have
a lot more very natural punch.

You open the program window, and select a 'queue' of pictures that will open
one after another. As soon as you open the first picture, it shows on the
left, and the automatic adjustment for black point and white point instantly
shows on the right. And 9 times out of 10, the picture is far more vivid
and rich--the darks are appropriately dark, and the lights are wonderfully
white--it maximizes the range based upon it's reading of the picture (it
doesn't over-contrast the picture--I'm not a big fan of added contrast at
all--so I'm simply really happy with the inceased dynamic range it gives the
picture). At that point you can also change brightness, or contrast if you
want, by fairly gross increments, but it's still useful. That is the $19.95
version. For the $39.95 version you ALSO get a color adjustment tool that
lets you choose the TYPE of material-based color you want to adjust for:
neutrals, skin tones, foliage, or sky. Then you click on a spot in the
picture, and it changes the color cast of the entire picture. This, I'm
finding, is very hit or miss. Sometimes it instantly makes the picture more
natural and appealing, and sometimes it is way off. But then you just undo
it and try again, or forget about changing the color cast. For $20, though,
I'm happy I got the $39.95 version, just because it's an immensely fun, and
often very handy, extra to have. Apparently you can download a trial
version of the product, but I didn't even bother, I was happy enough with
the webpage samples and the description of the product.

You can save the adjusted image at any point (or do multiple saves with
different adjustments), and then move on to the next picture in your folder
with one click. The one thing I really miss, though--and sometimes go into
Compupic to adjust after the fact (which adds another generation to the
picture if it is a JPG I'm afraid)--is a sharpness function.


Bruce Feist

unread,
Nov 8, 2002, 8:59:19 PM11/8/02
to
ThomasH wrote:
> Bruce Feist wrote:

>>I didn't know about this fix until today... and the URL you showed above
>>isn't working. I'd appreciate it if you could verify that it's correct.
>>

> Hm... I recommended it to you from the day one long time ago!

You did? Then I'm drawing a *major* blank here! This doesn't sound
familiar. My apologies.

> Use the card to adjust the gap from the input tray to match
> your particular slide mount type. You can affix the card using a
> regular soft paper clip.


I'll try it!

Bruce

ThomasH

unread,
Nov 9, 2002, 3:51:21 PM11/9/02
to
"Douglas W. Hoyt" wrote:
>
> > What I am curious here is the ICorrect software: Could you give some
> > pointers about this product and its use?
>
> I wind up taking dozens, sometimes hundreds of shots quickly to put on CD
> for work and friends--with these pictures my delightful Canon s110 camera
> has a capacity for some bland washed out whites, and indoor shots can have
> some awful color cast (usually yellows).
>
> I also am scanning lots of old pictures with my now defunct LS-2000. The
> older ones can have odd greenish casts to whole batches--or other subtle
> pervading color dullnesses. But not only that, I used to spend too long on
> slides that will not be sent to National Geographic--trying to get
> brightness and exposure more perfect.


A great user report, thanks. It lands in the "vault of most valuable
messages" :-) I just downloaded the demo and will play with it.

Thomas.

ThomasH

unread,
Nov 11, 2002, 2:29:02 PM11/11/02
to
Bruce Feist wrote:
>
> ThomasH wrote:
> > Bruce Feist wrote:
>
> >>I didn't know about this fix until today... and the URL you showed above
> >>isn't working. I'd appreciate it if you could verify that it's correct.
> >>
> > Hm... I recommended it to you from the day one long time ago!
>
> You did? Then I'm drawing a *major* blank here! This doesn't sound
> familiar. My apologies.

Thanks, but that was sure rather my fault! Anyway, the major point
here is that with SF-200S we get for $500 a piece of very simple
hardware which is sure a blessing to have but its construction and
function does not justify a price like that.

I would expect rather that Nikon would have talked to one of the
projector manufacturers and taken a universal slide tray advance
mechanism supporting all important trays, straight and carousel
(Leica Pradovit for example) in order to be able to be bidirectional
in slide advance and support random access. In addition I would
expect that the feed mechanism would be able to rotate the "portrait"
oriented slides automatically.

I also miss an eject button and "slide loaded" indicator. Eject
requires always running software or a manual fiddling with the slide.

Thomas.

>
> > Use the card to adjust the gap from the input tray to match
> > your particular slide mount type. You can affix the card using a
> > regular soft paper clip.
>
> I'll try it!

PS: I actually do not use a credit card, but a slim and flat member
card in same size with a cut off edge.

>
> Bruce

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages