Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/07/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]It was the medium format scanner I was talking about and I do not believe (or usually read) anything on the DPReview forums ;-) There are competent 35mm scanners. This (start of a long thread) is the new hope for medium format scanners http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=114288 john ________________________________________ The Nikons and Minoltas were made many many moons ago. The intelligence of buying anything resembling old digital equipment escapes me. I think they've learned one or two things in the past half decade on the components which go into scanning technology. Some of which I'm sure overlap into what goes into cameras. I do see the string bad reviews on the B&H site from who knows who these classless customers are but on the DPREVIEW I see nothing bad at all its like two distinct parallel universes. http://www.dpreview.com/search/?query=Pacific+Image+scanner If they really are bad I'm sure some company makes a decent scanner nowadays. Its like these people they have pictures and negatives and slides... And they need to scan them. So who wants to make some money is there any money in this digital photography thing? Mark William Rabiner Photography http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > From: John McMaster <john at mcmaster.co.nz> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 00:05:05 +0000 > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] IMG: Back to film! > > Doesn't mean that they are all good though. There is a new medium format > film > scanner due in a few months, the current Pacific Image one is badly > regarded > (and you have to cut 6x7 into single frames to scan). Given that Nikon and > Minolta had done the design and manufacturing of good scanners I guess that > there is only a small market which is why they stopped production? Which in > turn shows why the used prices for Nikon/Minolta film scanners are still > high..... > > john > ________________________________________ > > I have to admit to being surprised that there are still so many available. > I > had very good results scanning 120 film with an HP flatbed scanner 10 years > ago, and prices on those could only go down. Gaa! I remember buying a B&W > flatbed scanner in the early 90's (only opaque scanning, no transparency), > and > it seems like it was about $500. > > Regards, > > Jeffery > > > On Jul 17, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote: > >> 22 different film scanners on the B&H site. >> 70 flat beds. >> There is a LUG myth that a scanner without the names Nikon or Minolta or >> Hasselblad on it does not exist. And should be widely Ignored. >> A " baseless fabric of a vision " [Tempest] >> >> I think a film scanner made by a company such as "Pacific Image" just may >> be >> able to scan film without shreading it. One made by them cost $1,399.00. >> It's called the Pacific Image PrimeFilm 120 Multi-Format CCD Film Scanner. >> They make a dedicated slide scanner which looks good to me for $479.95. >> I'll >> take that one too please gift wrapped. >> And they make Pacific Image PF7250U 35mm Film and Slide Scanner which cost >> $269. A perfect stocking stuffer. >> My next scanner would be one of these. Brand new. From Pacific Image. >> And I can't be more specific than Pacific. I'm sure there are some worthy >> ones from Atlantic. >> But I'll stick with Pacific. >> >> Mark William Rabiner >>> >>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 Chris Saganich <csaganich at gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> I'll continue using my Minolta DiMage untill that gives >>>> out like the Polaroid Sprintscan before. The real killer is software >>>> and >>>> cable compatibility. >>> ========================================================================= >>> What went wrong with the Sprintscan? We are still using one with an old >>> Mac >>> at the office. >>> >>> Alan >>>