Re: filmscanners: Used Nikon LS-20 for sale

["Karsten Petersen" <kp@KPNetwork.com>]

Hi Art,

> Can I ask you two silly questions?
>
> 1) Why did Nikon charge you DM351 to fix a scanner which was operating
> within the normal "technical limitations" of the scanner?

They claimed that they have cleaned it, and that it was working properly
AFTER their action. I could not make out any difference in the results
before and after, judging from test scans.

> 2) Why would you spend DM351 to have a scanner serviced which you were
> going to put on sale for less than the servicing cost?

Simple: at the time I had it serviced, I had not intended to sell it,
because I had hoped that the service would remedy the problem. I've had had
an extended discussion with Nikon's service agant about the whole affair,
but they were uncooperative. After that, I didn't pursue the matter further
because I considered it a waste of time, nerves, and money.

Thanks,

Karsten



----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur Entlich" <artistic@ampsc.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: 03. June 2001 10:40
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Used Nikon LS-20 for sale

> Karsten Petersen wrote:
>
> > It sometimes makes subtle stripes in the very dark areas of a slide
(that's
> > the reason why I recently bought a Polaroid SS4000... quite happy with
it!).
> > I had it serviced by Nikon a couple of weeks ago (cost me DM351), they
say
> > these results are "normal" and due "to the technical limitations of an
8-bit
> > scanner". Thus, according to Nikon, the scanner is in perfect working
> > condition. (If you ask me [or my photo gear supplier], that's a bunch of
> > BS.)
> >
>
>
> Can I ask you two silly questions?
>
> 1) Why did Nikon charge you DM351 to fix a scanner which was operating
> within the normal "technical limitations" of the scanner?
>
> 2) Why would you spend DM351 to have a scanner serviced which you were
> going to put on sale for less than the servicing cost?
>
> Art