Re: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000

["Daniel Merchant" <djmerchant@home.com>]

If this is the case, it is an about face for KODAK.  They use to push their
curved field lenses, and then 8 years ago (it might be longer) they changed
to flat field lenses, saying that with plastic mounts and improvements in
cardboad mounts, flat field lenses were the way to go.  My Carousel came
with the dreaded 102-152 CF (curve field) lense.  It is in a word, terrible.
I purchased a 93 MM FF (flat field) lense last year.  I might add that there
are not very many lense choices for a Carousel in the $100-$400 range.  The
new lense was $200.


----- Original Message -----
From: <markthomasz@ozemail.com.au>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: Re: filmscanners: Canon 4000 scanner VS Nikon LS4000


> Thanks Bruce - yes, as soon as I started projecting Kchromes, I
encountered this problem, so I went back to the shop to ask how I could get
them sharp edge-to-edge on screen..  I ended up buying one of those curved
field lenses (I think it's a Leitz?) to suit my Rollei projector, and it
gives stunning images.
>
> If you have only ever viewed your slides on a mediocre projector/lens, you
are definitely missing an experience..  But of course you also quickly find
out how critical camera steadiness and lens quality are, as per Rob's
comments.
> :-(
>
>
> > >These problems seem to only apply to quite 'bent' film, eg
> <<snip>>
> > Perhaps it's worth noting that Kodak now provides "curved field"
> > projection lenses as standard for normal (cardboard, presumably)
> > mounted slides in their Carousel projectors, but their older "flat
> > field" design is recommended for glass mounted transparencies.
>
>