> > ----- Original Message -----
> > True; but tests I've seen so far indicates that the Polaroid SS4000 and
> > Canon 4000 are on par with the Nikon LS4000 (some rate them actually
>better
> > than the Nikon in some respects) IMO the Nikon is overpriced and people
>buy
> > the name more than anything else.
Have you actually worked with a Nikon LS-4000? It's a very fine piece of
machinery that is easily worth its price. I definitely wouldn't buy on the
basis of their name as I've had beefs with Nikon in the past. A few years
ago I ditched my Nikon cameras and lenses and replaced them with a couple
of Canon EOS1n's and Canon lenses and never looked back. Names don't
impress me. Only performance matters. I've never seen a single post on this
list by anyone who bought a Nikon scanner simply for its nameplate. Its
competitors have excellent quality also but if you need ICE^3, like the
Nikon's film handling and modularity and their software interface then it's
worth the bucks.
I bought my Nikon LS-4000 because of it's superior film handling
>capabilities. I fail to understand how this feature can be continually
>overlooked in a day and age where everyone in the world (at least on this
>forum) seems to be pressed for time. I don't care who made them or what
>brand name is on them, the Nikon strip and roll film adapters are
>hassle-free time savers. What is your time worth to you? to your loved
>ones?
If it had Mickey Mouse on its nameplate and performed as good as it does
I'd still have bought one.
Cary Enoch Reinstein aka Enoch's Vision, Inc., Peach County, Georgia
, http://www.bahaivision.com/ -- "Behind all
these manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things.
The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object."
~Joseph Campbell
