On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:33:31 -0700 Michael Moore (miguelmas@qwest.net) wrote:
> There is a BIG market out there for a good quality, reasonably priced
> scanner that will meet pro needs..
Ah, but the market determines the price. Why would a manufacturer charge less
than they can achieve? A cheap pro quality scanner is therefore tautological.
The same goes for Nikon F5, EOS1v, sundry Leicas and Contaxes etc. Of course I
wish they were $200 too...
However, as with cameras, mid-market filmscanners may start to acquire extra
bells and whistles to entice buyers who aren't as interested in long-term
durability or best-possible quality, but rather the overall blend of
attributes. The profusion of brand new acronyms might suggest filmscanner
marketing is already headed down this well-worn path. It's a sign of a maturing
market where technological advance has rather reached a stalemate, or at least
adequacy for the market, and is a standard way of making your products seem
superior to rivals of otherwise equal performance.
I think all the current generation filmscanners are, at a hardware level,
basically competent and capable of good results in the right hands. That's why
I think the donated-Q60 review methodology is past it's best-by date. When I
started doing it, just about every scanner was grossly different and incapable
of anything approaching neutrality. That has changed - like SLR's they're all
pretty damn good now, and preferences come down to features, ergonomics,
software and useability. And of course price.
Regards
Tony Sleep
- Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info &
comparisons
