Re: filmscanners: Nikon Service

[Raphael Bustin <rafeb@channel1.com>]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Tony Sleep wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:18:17 -0400  rafeb (rafeb@channel1.com) wrote:
> 
> > It's not my job to refute your unfounded 
> > statements.  You made the statement; YOU 
> > provide the facts to back them up.
> 
> Not wishing to pour petrol on troubled waters, but Nikon does have some 
> 'previous' :-

<snip>

Sorry, Tony, but I'm afraid you missed my point. 
The information is real, I'm sure, but not quite 
what I was asking for.

I had a specific question directed at Art; which 
he did not answer.

Anyone who's been reading this list knows that 
Nikon scanners have problems.  As do scanners from 
any number of other vendors.  The question was, 
how does Nikon rate against its competitors, in 
these matters (service, reliability, basic 
functionality, etc.)

Art insinuates, repeatedly, that Nikon is unique in 
supplying faulty gear and rotten service.  That 
is simply untrue.  As I recall, Art himself 
recently took delivery of a new Minolta scanner 
that was unfit for service.

Shall we recite the litany of scanner flaws, 
and scanner-service horror shows described on 
this list, over the years?

Can you honestly say that any one brand is more 
or less prone to reliability or service headaches 
than "the others?"  And if so, I'd sure like to 
see the basis for your judgement, whatever it may be.

Quite frankly, a study of this sort would require 
resources (and objectivity) that probably can't 
be found on this list.

FWIW, my purchase of a Nikon scanner this time 
around was a rather direct consequence of lousy service 
with some "other brand," and the experience of a close 
friend who also bought a scanner of that same 
"other brand."

I have no issues with Lawrence Smith reporting 
problems with banding on his (Nikon) scanner.  That's 
real information, quite unlike what we get from 
Art on this topic.


rafe b.