Re: [Leica] sprintscan 4000 v. LS 2000

[Neil Frankish <nfrnkish@tcd.ie>]

I have the Sprintscan4000 and 1270 and have printed A3+ and enjoyed the
result. I have found that HP5 in Xtol rated at 400, 800 & 1600, when
scanned at 4000 dpi, that one can see the grain (maybe you have to look
hard with 400). Anyway, you see grain before pixels when magnified in
Photoshop. I also found that letting the scanner do the exposure gave me
more shadow detail on some prints (B&W) that I printed traditionally (shows
how bad a printer I am!)

I am just starting on this digital odessey, so everything I say should be
taken with a pinch of salt.


>Hi -- would welcome comments on these scanners and particularly (LEICA
>CONTENT) their resolving power cf. Leica lenses.
>
>Here's the skinny: I have a nice new 1270 which I want to print BIG on. I
>need to replace my filmscanner, and am down to a choice between the two
>above. I went into a store and ran a comparison on a tranny, and despite the
>4000 dpi the Polaroid came out softer than the Nikon... definitely
>subcritical sharpness. (The Nikon revealed a focussing error in the slide
>that the Polaroid simply obscured). However, I'm told recent
>firmware/software updates eliminate this 'focus bug' and that the Polaroid
>is indeed critically sharp, and capable of pulling more detail off the neg
>than the Nikon.
>
>Comments?
>
>Incidentally, the Dmax of the Sprintscan is 3.4 (ish) compared to the
>Nikon's 3.6, but I have to say that though I used a very tough (and dark)
>tranny the difference in shadow detail was all but invisible.
>
>JB