The totally inscrutable interface of Silverfast "light" of whatever it's
called that comes with an Epson scanner was enough to make me return to
Epson scan or Vuescan. Either one.
Chuck Norcutt
Bill Pearce wrote:
> I have ended up with two scanners. I first got a minolta 5400 (the I
> version, not the II version which some believe is a step down) and have been
> quite happy with the results, although I would like to get Silverfast.
> Later, I got a used Multiscan, so as to scan my Xpan and 6x6 stuff, and am
> also quite happy with that. I consideed selling the 5400, but the money I
> might get isn't enough, so I save it for 35, where it does quite well. I
> recommend either of these, and think they are a bit better than the NIkons,
> as thy don't have the led light source.
>
> And don't try to sell me on Vuescan. If it works for you, fine.
>
> Bill Pearce
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Moose [mailto:olymoose@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 1:02 PM
> To: Olympus Camera Discussion
> Subject: Re: [OM] Planned Obsolescence
>
> On 8/30/2010 7:45 AM, Nicholas Herndon wrote:
>> ....
>> Moose, I don't really like the idea of having two scanners for one job,
> but since flatbeds are so cheap I suppose that's an option.
>
> I didn't suggest it before, but when you said: "Am I unhappy? Not really,
> just cheap, apparently. :)", I sorta had to. ;-)
>
> I suppose I must be cheap too, as that's my solution. Then again, I never
> considered the Nikon, although that was probably at least in part about
> cost. I thought a flatbed was the best solution for me.
>
> 1. Back when I bought a 135 scanner, there were several choices, and I spent
> a LOT of time wandering the web, reading reviews and looking at example
> scans. I concluded that the Canon was the best overall performer, with both
> Nikon and Minolta having fussy focusing, while not clearly outperforming the
> Canon otherwise. The Canon's flawless performance for me, occasional
> comments on focus here and the comments on and examples of flare posted by
> C.H. and AG convince me I was right for me.
>
> 2. I'm going to have a flatbed scanner on my desk for the foreseeable future
> anyway, for scanning, copying and OCR of printed media, so moving to one
> that also does film didn't impact my space. A Nikon 9000 would.
>
> 3. I have a very few 4x5 negatives, which have now been scanned.
>
> 4. The 135 capability, while not quite up to the FS4000, is pretty good,
> especially with VueScan, so it provides back-up for the dedicated 135
> scanner.
>
> 5. My own slides and negs go back almost 50 years, and those from my father
> more like 65. A lot of the early stuff simply doesn't have the resolution of
> later film. Some of it may even suffer from less than great technique and
> lenses (Like the lens , lens standard rigidity and film flatness on Dad's
> Kodak 120 folder, my first 50/1.8, etc.) Greater scanning resolution just
> makes the grain clearer, without revealing more image detail. The flatbed
> can pull out all that is there while scanning larger numbers of frames at
> once.
>
> I'm generally one who eschews multifunction electronic gadgets. If the
> printer dies, the scanner still works, and so on, and I like functional
> redundancy.
>
> Moose
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|