Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: Nikon Service





rafeb wrote:

> I don't give a rat's ass about your observations

> on this topic,

I stand behind my statements.

Even with your nice expensive Nikon scanner, I STILL own a lot more
Nikon equipment dollar per dollar than you do, and I can speak with
years of experience with their equipment as to what has happened to the
quality of the stuff and their repair service.

In terms of their scanners, I maintain that relative to their costs,
they have, if not the highest, one of the highest levels of internet
posted complaints regarding defects in hardware and or software, and
service related issues of the major scanner companies.  Now, I'll accept
that might be due in part to more discerning purchasers making higher
demands, or even their market position, perhaps selling more scanners.
But they also cost a lot more to purchase, and that should also account
for something more than being further out of pocket.

You know, I find it interesting that just a few months back when the new
Nikon scanners were just being released, I indicted that depth of field
issues were beginning to be reported through my sources.  I got sh*t on
both this and the scanner@leben list for taking a strong stand on this
matter, stating this was a problem which had become a greater one with
the higher res Nikon scanners.  Many people demanded "where is your
proof" "you don't own one", "you are just anti-Nikon", etc.  Well, as
more of these units became disseminated to users, guess what happened...
more and more reports about the DOF limitations began to spring up, and
now its an accepted "feature' of those scanners.

Only one detractor had the decency to write me privately to (sort of)
apologize for being so abusive to me. That says a lot more about them
than me.

I've grown relatively thick skinned over the years I've been
contributing to lists and groups. I give advice here based upon a
mixture of my experience, research, other published and personal
sources, and other elements.  I neither have the time nor inclination to
gather "proof" for statements I make.

I could be vindictive about this and demand you (and others) "cite
facts" every time I don't like what someone says, but I see little to be
gained.  You know as well as I, how difficult it would be to document in
an irrefutable manner most of these types of things.  Heck, the Austin
and Todd show was proof enough of that.

Since you are unwilling to disprove my statements, (I don't know how
they could be either proven or disproven, quite honestly, other than
hiring on a research team) I guess, I can only assume your viewpoint is
based upon your perceptions, as mine are upon mine.

As I said before, I don't need to be involved in a rear-end accident
with a Pinto to know they have a dangerously placed gas tank.  

So, in this kind of circumstance, I suggest letting the chips fall where
they may.  If my credibility is as lacking as you suggest, no one is
believing a word I write here anyway.  Right?

Art





 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.