Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/12/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Resolution is the first thing. With the 5000 you can get the grain patter of them film and have it look a bit like what it really looks like like with a darkroom print. With the 4000 you are not getting the grain pattern of the film. Even grainy tri x. you are not scanning the grain. You get an image. But not composed of the grain from the neg like you would with a darkroom print. With the 5000 you can do that. Certainly with not even grainy tri x. With fine grain stuff not so much. The 5000 puts the 4000 in the stone age. I'd not even give my 4000 to someone I didn't like. Mark William Rabiner > From: Richard Man <richard.lists@gmail.com> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 15:05:57 -0800 > To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Film Scanner Suggestion > > To be honest, I have actually heard about that. Can you enlighten me which > areas are better? Dynamic range? Usability? Details? > > Thanks. > > On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark@rabinergroup.com> > wrote: > >> Well I moved from the 4000 to the 5000 and I found it to be a huge >> improvement. As did several other photographers who did so. >> >> Mark William Rabiner >> > > > > -- > // richard m: richard @imagecraft.com > // b: http://rfman.wordpress.com > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information