> BTW, I have re- studied the sample scans of the Minolta and the Nikon 8000
> on imaging- resource, and unfortunately I have come to the conclusion that
> the Nikon ist the better scanner in almost every respect: Scans are clearer
> (Minolta has like a veil over them) and show definitely less noise in the
> shadow regions. Look especially at the "old train slide" which is the killer
> slide for a scanner....
I wouldn't rely too much on imaging-resource's scanner reviews. I'm not sure
how much expertise do they have in film scanning. First of all their reviews
are full of quotes from the manufacturers' press releases (snippets like
"unprecedented level of perfomance") and full of rather useless and very
detailed descriptions of the scanning software features. In addition to that
the reviews contain mistakes or even notoriously ridiculous phrases like "the
LED light source is also somewhat collimated, meaning its light waves travel in
relatively straight lines" (quote from their LS4000 review).
In addition to such mistakes they often fail to describe the scanning software
settings which makes me believe they might use it in "all auto" mode.
Their famous train shot may not be the best way to compare scanners. When I was
shopping for a new scanner I looked at the samples from SS4000 and LS4000. The
Nikon was clearly superior according to those. Later I ran into two other
arguably more credible reviews which indicated to me that the Polaroid's
performance (shadow detail and noise) is at least comparable if not slightly
superior to Nikon's.
Regards,
Petru.
PS: if you would like to have a good laugh, see Tony Sleep's message about
ImagingResource's LS4000 review.
