Re: filmscanners: Nikon Service

[Raphael Bustin <rafeb@channel1.com>]

On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Arthur Entlich wrote:

> 
> 
> rafeb wrote:
> 
> > I don't give a rat's ass about your observations
> 
> > on this topic,
> 
> I stand behind my statements.

Apparently not, Art.  You have yet to answer
my simple question.

 
> Even with your nice expensive Nikon scanner, I STILL own a lot more
> Nikon equipment dollar per dollar than you do, and I can speak with
> years of experience with their equipment as to what has happened to the
> quality of the stuff and their repair service.

Pissing contest, based on conjecture, 
and utterly irrelevant.

 
> In terms of their scanners, I maintain that relative to their costs,
> they have, if not the highest, one of the highest levels of internet
> posted complaints regarding defects in hardware and or software, and
> service related issues of the major scanner companies.  Now, I'll accept
> that might be due in part to more discerning purchasers making higher
> demands, or even their market position, perhaps selling more scanners.
> But they also cost a lot more to purchase, and that should also account
> for something more than being further out of pocket.


The 8000 ED and the LS-120 have nearly identical
retail price at the moment.  Historically, the 
Nikon and Polaroid scanners have tracked each 
other quite closely in terms of retail cost for 
similarly-featured models.  This is public 
information, Art.  I read Shutterbug, peruse 
the BH Photo catalog, and pay attention to 
these details.  Your assertion about comparative 
pricing is just plain wrong.

Recall that when the 8000 ED was first announced, 
Nikon undercut Polaroid's estimated retail price 
for the LS-120.


> You know, I find it interesting that just a few months back when the new
> Nikon scanners were just being released, I indicted that depth of field
> issues were beginning to be reported through my sources.  I got sh*t on
> both this and the scanner@leben list for taking a strong stand on this
> matter, stating this was a problem which had become a greater one with
> the higher res Nikon scanners.  Many people demanded "where is your
> proof" "you don't own one", "you are just anti-Nikon", etc.  Well, as
> more of these units became disseminated to users, guess what happened...
> more and more reports about the DOF limitations began to spring up, and
> now its an accepted "feature' of those scanners.

It is an issue, but hardly insurmountable.
The actual images that have been posted 
show that the Nikon is no slouch in terms 
of sharpness, and holds its own against the 
competition.
 

rafe b.