Filmscanners mailing list archive (email@example.com)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: filmscanners: Nikon Service
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Tony Sleep wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:18:17 -0400 rafeb (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> > It's not my job to refute your unfounded
> > statements. You made the statement; YOU
> > provide the facts to back them up.
> Not wishing to pour petrol on troubled waters, but Nikon does have some
> 'previous' :-
Sorry, Tony, but I'm afraid you missed my point.
The information is real, I'm sure, but not quite
what I was asking for.
I had a specific question directed at Art; which
he did not answer.
Anyone who's been reading this list knows that
Nikon scanners have problems. As do scanners from
any number of other vendors. The question was,
how does Nikon rate against its competitors, in
these matters (service, reliability, basic
Art insinuates, repeatedly, that Nikon is unique in
supplying faulty gear and rotten service. That
is simply untrue. As I recall, Art himself
recently took delivery of a new Minolta scanner
that was unfit for service.
Shall we recite the litany of scanner flaws,
and scanner-service horror shows described on
this list, over the years?
Can you honestly say that any one brand is more
or less prone to reliability or service headaches
than "the others?" And if so, I'd sure like to
see the basis for your judgement, whatever it may be.
Quite frankly, a study of this sort would require
resources (and objectivity) that probably can't
be found on this list.
FWIW, my purchase of a Nikon scanner this time
around was a rather direct consequence of lousy service
with some "other brand," and the experience of a close
friend who also bought a scanner of that same
I have no issues with Lawrence Smith reporting
problems with banding on his (Nikon) scanner. That's
real information, quite unlike what we get from
Art on this topic.