Re: filmscanners: Nikon MF LED light source...

[tflash <tflash@earthlink.net>]

> I'm a bit puzzled though.  If you have one of these, why do you dislike it
> so much, and continue to bring up only (what you perceive as) "negative"
> things about it (or things that other scanners do better)?  I've not
> (certainly recently at least) heard you say one good thing that is has going
> for it, even though it has a LOT good going for it, even against technology
> that is 10 years newer!

Austin,

Your post was much longer, but this was the only point on which there is
confusion between us.

I like the leaf, I'm glad I bought it, but mine has some problems, and the
cost for shipping and repair is prohibitive. So I live with it in it's
compromised condition. I won't get into details here about the problems it
has, as I've done so on the Leafscan list, including posted images. You may
remember you were going to send me a sample of your output for comparison?
Don't worry about it, I already know mine doesn't perform as well as most
other's.

I do take issue with you that I only get into it's problems. On this very
list I posted what follows in response to an inquiry about the Leaf.

*****

> Leaf scanners occasionally turn up on Ebay for a reasonable price.  What's
> with
> them?  Are they a good deal or a maintenence nightmare?
> 
> Rich

If you get one that gives no trouble, they are a phenomenal buy. If you get
one that needs repair, you can figure on at least $300 round trip shipping,
possibly for an estimate alone.

I recommend buying one, but make sure you get some sample scans done first
to make sure all is in order.

Todd

******

I don't think I could phrase it any better today.

I feel I'm just giving a fair report of the Leaf in comparison to what I
consider to be hype from a lot of Leaf owners. I've told you before, I get
the sense that a lot of owners (not you, you are a special case altogether
;-)) don't want to discuss any negatives about the Leaf other than it's
weight. I wonder if there is a tacit conspiracy to try to keep resale prices
high ;-).

Admittedly, if mine was in perfect working order, perhaps I'd be as hyped
about it too. I haven't had the opportunity to compare it's scans to the
better desktop scanners, only to drum scans, which were far superior, but
given their cost, that is as it should be.

But let's keep perspective here. You're taking issue with me for pointing
out that the time you quoted for a leaf scan was based upon a lower
resolution, and also you use the minimum exposure time, which reduces
quality (I know it's arguable whether it matters with negatives). As the
engineer that you are, I'm surprised you take issue with me trying to keep
the parameters the same when making comparisons. I'd have thought you'd
appreciate that; unless in fact, it is You! - ha ha! -  who has a leaf
agenda! <wink, wink>

In short, if someone is dis'in the Leaf I'll stick up for it, to give it
fair representation. On a list with you, I feel I need to add a little
negative weight to keep the report balanced. I just don't think I have the
same allegiance to the machine as you. Even in light of the fact it's ten
year old technology.

No matter, I'm glad you're a proud and happy owner. I sorta, kinda, am too.

Todd