Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/06/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Mike, I've never tested an Imacon and as you say I prefer don't do this mistake. My particular opinion is quite as yours, the advantage of the Epson is taht you can use it too for medium format. I'm using for all my scanns you are seeing on the LUG an already old Epson Perfection 3170 Photo. Thank you, Lluis El 05/06/2010, a las 21:37, Mike Durling escribi?: > I have an older Minolta Scan Dual III which I used for many years. > I bought an Epson V500 for medium format work. Since I don't have > room on my desk for both scanners I end up using the Epson for > everything. I find that the results are almost indistinguishable, > except that the Epson, because of its diffuse light source, shows > far less dust than the Minolta. Batch scanning with the Epson is > actually faster because of the excellent batch capabilities in the > stock software. > > Neither is particularly high resolution, but more than adequate for > me. I made the mistake of comparing the Epson with an Imacon and > the results with the latter are incredible. If you want the > ultimate in quality Imacon is the way to go. Way too expensive > though. > > Mike D > > Lluis Ripoll Querol wrote: >> Since Nikon and Minolta has stopped to produce Scanners, purchase >> one of these on our days could be a mistake IMHO, probably no more >> spare parts and not updates for the new operating systems on >> computers. I think if I decide to buy a new scanner today it would >> be an Epson V700, probably less perfect for film than the >> mentioned, but I never obtained a scanned slide with really >> comparable quality to the projected image, neither with a >> traditionnal wet print on B&W. >> >> Saludos >> Lluis >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information