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 Scanners, DOF and focus settings (was: VueScan 7.2.11 Available)



The Minolta Elite has just been upgraded to the Minolta Elite II.  The
Elite wasn't a huge seller, but those who own them seem to like them.
The Elite series is the only Minolta 35mm scanner that has dICE.  (The
newer Minolta Multis also have dICE).

Other Minolta scanners, (of which there are quite a few over the years)
were overall, reasonable products for their prices.  The current product
line includes the Elite II (with dICE cube), the Dual (which is a good
scanner design, but they have had quality control problems) and the
Multi Pro, which scans both 35mm (at 4800 dpi) and medium format (at
3200? dpi, I believe) is getting good responses.

Regarding price versus value, I'm not sure I agree that people are
demanding too much.  Although price versus quality does enter into this
equation, some design defects simply should not get out the door, and
some quality control problems should also be caught at the factory.

Bad software, hardware defects or design flaws, and service problems are
inexcusable for a product that sells for $400-1000 US or more.  I've
bought stuff at the dollar store which has more care taken in design
and QC than some scanners I've owned.  If the manufacturers cannot make
enough profit to release a good product consistently at the prices they
charge, then they all need to charge more. I don't think that is the
case, but maybe that the excuse.

I have paid for one film scanner, back nearly three years ago.  However,
I have gone through six film scanners in that time, due to exchanges of
defective merchandise and design errors.

All I asked for from the beginning was a scanner that did what it
claimed in the product literature.

Art



Rob Geraghty wrote:

 > "Ralf Schmode" <rschmode@gmx.net> wrote:
 >
 >>after so many people stating that *all* Nikon filmscanners allegedly have
 >>that DOF problem, it is good to read from someone else who in fact *is*
 >>
 > able to
 >
 >>get edge-to-edge sharp scans out of a Nikon.
 >>
 >
 > Caveat: I suspect others are wanting more out of the scanner than it can
 > deliver.  It's been said on the list before; you can't expect a 
scanner that
 > costs US$500 to provide the same quality as one that costs US$20K, yet it
 > seems that many people expect as much.  I had quite high expectations 
of my
 > scanner, but I've come to learn a lot about its limitations.  If I go 
about
 > it the right way, the scans are great for my purposes.  I've had them
 > published as cover photos for a news-stand magazine, so I'm happy!
 >
 >
 >>my opinion and go for Minolta's Scan Elite II. My LS-30 has served me
 >>
 > quite
 >
 >>well for the time I had it, but the hearsay about Nikon's LS-40 and the
 >>behaviour of their service really doesn't encourage me to go with Nikon
 >>
 > again.
 >
 > The Minolta for ICE?  As opposed to a Polaroid?  I've heard very 
little on
 > the list about Minolta scanners.  I presume it's because there's few in
 > circulation, but maybe it's because the users are happy with the way they
 > work?
 >
 > Rob
 >
 > PS Now I'm about to go to Japan, and I'm going to miss having the LS30!
 >
 > PPS Don't get me wrong - I think Nikon are doing themselves a disservice
 > with the way they are treating their scanner customers.  DOF clearly 
*is* an
 > issue, and the problems with Nikonscan can't be helping sales.  But I use
 > the film strip holder if I have time, and use Vuescan, and I get the 
results
 > I need!
 >
 >
 >
 > .
 >
 >







 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.