This is not a response as such; I am also considering investing in an Epson
scanner, but in my case the 2400. The performance of the 2400 and the 2450
seems to be very similar from the specifications, but the 2450 costs 50-70%
more. Does anyone have a real comparison, and a good reason for purchasing
the 2450 instead of the 2400?
Regards/Mvh.,
Roger Key
>Hi
>I have been considering this scanner as well and have read people on the
>list talk about using it for medium format. I have also read some
comments
>on the list maybe, but certainly in other places on the net that suggest
>that it is not sharp enough for 35mm.
>Does anyone on the list with personal experience of this scanner have an
>opinion. If it will do the job I want with 35mm as well as its other
>benefits, it seems like a very good buy.
>Trevor Urlwin
Chris wrote:
>
> I also use an Epson 2450 Perfection flatbed/film scanner for 645
> negs. This scanner is lovely: fast, high resolution and versatile.
>
Fast ? I guess it depends on what you compare it with.
Chris, have you used it much for scanning prints ? I'd be interested in
your comments.
...Wayne
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|