Anyone used one of these? Any opinions?
http://www.morgancomputers.co.uk/shop/detail.asp?ProductID=2101
At work I use a Nikon CoolScan 8000ED. At home I have a Minolta ScanDual
III. Last winter I got to see a demo of the KonicaMinolta Scan Elite 5400
II, which included making prints and playing with the interface software.
If all you're doing is posting images to the web or printing at home on an
inkjet, any of the above scanners would be fine.
If you really want the best results, I'd have to put my money on the Nikon.
Nikon really does make some of the best glass on the market these days, and
this makes a HUGE difference in scanning little negatives or slides at high
resolution. If I could afford it, I'd buy two Nikon CoolScan 9000EDs (the
current high-end model) and only shoot film.
One question people ask is, why get the Nikon when the KM ScanElite 5400
produces higher resolution scans (5400 ppi vs the Nikon's 4000 ppi) for less
money? Well, as far as I can tell, the higher resolution is primarily
marketing. Yeah, you get more pixels in your image, but I really don't
think there's any benefit to this. I mean, when I scan something at work
with the CoolScan 8000 at the full 4000 ppi resolution, usually film grain
is readily apparent. Scanning at any higher resolution would be a waste of
time at this point, because there's nothing left to resolve.
When I make a 24"x36" print on the Epson Stylus Pro 9600 (essentially a
giant, calibrated Epson Stylus 2200) from a CoolScan 8000 scan, they tend to
be practically flawless. No pixelisation, no artifacting, no problems.
So again, my money is on Nikon. If the 8000/9000 is out of your price range
(it's pretty pricey), the next one down will still do a great job for 35mm
slides and negs (the 8000/9000 can take medium format film, so it's just a
lot bigger).
John Celio
--
http://www.neovenator.com
AIM: Neopifex
"Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a
statement."
