|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Stephen Greenfield wrote: >> >> >> >>>Take a look at the archives on this list. Count the number of >>> > continuing > >>>issues with the Nikon and Polaroid models. Now search the newsgroups >>> > for > >>>issues with the Imacon Photo. Much, much less. >>> >> >>I will not argue that the Imacon Photo is a better scanner (it costs >>over twice the price of the other scanners being discussed, so it darn >>well outta be), but the logic of the next statement about the number of >>issues is a bit unfair... well, its a LOT unfair. How many people on >>this list even own one relative to the other brands? >> >>That's a bit like saying on a general car discussion list that there are >>more complaints about Ford Taurus cars than DeLoreans. ;-) >> >>Art >> > > Actually, the DeLorean had many more problems and complaints than the Ford > Taurus. When's the last time you saw a Delorean? Expensive is not always > better. I've made many photographs for clients with Polaroid cameras as > opposed to my Hasselblad. Check my last statement in my first reply. It's > the person behind the camera/scanner that really makes the difference. I just lost the response to this, due to a problem crash that I haven't been able to identify the cause. This one will be shorter, but you won't know that since you didn't get to see the first one ;-) I intentionally picked the DeLorean car because I known it was problematical. That was indeed my point. In the average car newsgroup or list, most people would be more likely to be discussing their problems with a Ford Taurus than a Delorean, but that wouldn't prove it was a worse car than the Delorean. In the same way since many more people on this list own scanners other than the Imacon, you are statistically more likely to see complaints about other scanners than the Imacon. However, if you saw 100 complaints about others, and there were 5000 owner, and only 3 complaints about Imacons when there were perhaps 4 owners, what would that prove? It might just prove that Imacon owners are more picky, or expect more for their extra costs, or it could mean the Imacon was a really bad product... who knows? In high tech, particularly, price does not mean better particularly, and I tell people this all the time. Sometimes, a company just takes a really expensive and bad way to design something. > > I can't help it that the Nikon and Polaroid scanners do have many more > problems, with results that would hinder me in my work. I make a living as > a photographer, not as a scanner operator. I need something that works, > reliably, with good (make that excellent) support from Imacon. > You misunderstood my comments, I did not say the Imacon wasn't a better product. I would hope at twice the price it would be at least that, or people are truly being ripped off. This marketplace is full of different products because there are different requirements. If the Imacon is more reliable, (and I am not saying it is or isn't) and gives you better work flow, more peace of mind, or whathaveyou, then it may well be worth it for you to buy it, at whatever more it costs. I've not used one so I don't know, and I certainly haven't heard much about it from the people I associate with, and therefore I have no opinion. I only suggested that your means of someone determining if it was better (looking at the number of complaints) were not the best way to make any determination. In fact, your comments above, based upon your own experience, are more helpful than looking at the archives which basically have little to say about the product one way or the other. > Now if others want to be scanner operators and problem solvers with their > equipment that's fine with me, I just don't have time for that, with results > that would not pass the critical review that I (and my clients) insist upon. > Why spend thousands for camera bodies and lenses to thwart the final results > with equipment that I consider a hassle. That's the reason I said that for > my professional reasons $1500-2000 is a small price to pay for MY piece of > mind (plus I don't have to apologize for the results not rip out my > remaining hair to get it done). > You get no argument from me about this. Everyone needs to find their own watermark. If my time was billed out at $500 a hour, I could justify buying much faster equipment that I didn't have to tinker with. In fact, I'd probably hire my scanning out. I only want people to be ware of their options, and to find the scanner that best fits their needs and budget. > > > It's not unfair to point out differences, Art, I absolutely agree with you. Reread my comments, I never stated otherwise. I only stated that looking over the complaint here would not supply the information a person needed to make such a decision, and that for double the price it should be a better product. I looked at the scan comparisons someone here mentioned and the difference between the Imacon and LS-8000 in scan quality alone does not, IMHO justify a double price. I have been told that the Imacon plays some games with sharpening so that in order to turn it off you have to dial it down to a large negative number. If that is accurate, then the Nikon LS-8000 scan is even closer to the Imacom. If that's the case, then I would expect there are other qualities of that scanner that make it worthwhile at twice the price, and you note that part of it is reliability. > it's also not true that the > Imacon Photo is twice as much as the Polaroids Sprint Scan 120 at 2600.00 > and the Nikon 8000 around the same. The Imacon Photo model is now is > 4995.00 minus a $500.00 cash back for purchased film, and two free film > holders valued at $210.00 each, effectively makes the Imacon Photo model > about $4100.00--about $1500.00 more as I earlier stated. > Well, here I will disagree with you. That's some pretty fancy footwork to get to the pricing you do. You have to buy $500 worth of film (which for most photographers is admittedly a drop in the bucket, but its not exactly cash in the pocket), and you get two "free" film holders that you don't need otherwise (are those camera film holders, or are they needed for the Imacon?) If they are film holders for cameras, then the assumption is you need them, and you may not, and if they are film holders for the Imacon, well the holders for most scanners come included, so that's moot. You could just say the film holders were worth $2250 each and so with the film, the scanner is actually FREE, buy I think that's a bit of a game. If someone has $5000 plus whatever taxes for a MF film scanner, they should at least consider the Imacon, but its a big leap of faith to say it is necessarily worth the price for most people on this list who are considering the Polaroid SS120 or the Nikon LS 8000. Art PS: I'm not sure I'd want a scanner that's called an I'm-a-com, anyway ;-) - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.