|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
It's just that neither the Polaroid or the Nikon is particularly difficult in use, nor do either have "real world" problems. Certain folks have more "problems" with technical gear than others, and others appear to enjoy speculating ad infinitum about so called design flaws in gear they have no direct experience of. All of the reported so called flaws with the LS-8000 appear to me to be intelligent design features. Michael Reichmann says in his review of the LS-8000 it's 97% of the image quality of the Flextight Photo, but the Flextight is still significantly more expensive, and no dICE. I haven't used the Flextight, but I can tell you I'm very impressed with the LS-8000. The majority of professional users will find very little to complain about here. Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Greenfield" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 11:42 PM Subject: Re: nikon 8000 or polaroid 120 (now comparing with an Imacon Photo) > > Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 05:19:47 -0700 > > From: Arthur Entlich <firstname.lastname@example.org> > > Subject: Re: nikon 8000 or polaroid 120 > > > > 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 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. > > 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). > > > > It's not unfair to point out differences, Art, 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. > > Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 11:57:47 -0400 > > From: email@example.com > > Subject: Re: nikon 8000 or polaroid 120 > > > > On 24 Apr 2002 at 22:08, 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. > > > > > > Sorry to reply twice to the same post, but this paragraph > > caught my eye on re-reading. > > > > I'm not questioning the observation, but its significance. > > > > 1. The number of Imacons in the field is a probably a > > small fraction of the number of Polaroid and/or Nikon > > medium-format scanners. > > > > 2. Imacons tend to be used by professionals and labs, > > whose users may not be well represented on internet > > newsgroups. > > > > > > Stephen's observation is a bit akin to saying, "Hey, > > I don't hear many complaints about Lamborghinis > > on the newsgroups, but man -- those Toyotas > > and Hyundais must really suck." > > > > > > > > rafe b. > > If you will read my earlier post I did not say that the Nikons and Polaroids > are not without merit, particularly for 35mm users who want scans for their > own purposes. I don't shoot 35mm and haven't for 25 years. I once again > state that it's the person behind the equipment (provided it works properly, > and there's the rub). As to whether Imacons may be used more by > professionals and labs, had nothing to do with my decision. My decision was > based on my requirements. I personally don't spend money until I see how it > will make me money. There is a Imacon newsgroup that I studied as well > before I made my choice. Actually, many "amateurs" have more discretionary > income to spend that professionals who must make a profit in their business. > > And I drive a 1990 Honda Accord with 197,000 miles on it and it's still is > going strong. It cost twice as much as a Hyundai in 1990, but most (if not > all)1990 Hyundai's have gone to a junkyard by now, and I'd wager few made it > to 100,000 miles, and those Hyundais had plenty of problems too. > > Here's a good lesson for all of us to remember and what I tell potential > clients when they question my fees (higher than most). > > "If you pay $100.00 for an item, but it doesn't work properly, causes you > problems, and you don't get the results you want, that's expensive. If you > pay $1000.00 for an item, and it's a pleasure to work with, gets the job > done without hassles, and gives you the results you want that's inexpensive. > > That for me is what the Imacon Photo model is, a good value that makes me > money. > > > Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 09:05:07 +0100 > > From: "Simon Lamb" <firstname.lastname@example.org> > > Subject: Re: nikon 8000 or polaroid 120 > > > > Sephen > > > > You say 'not that the Imacon is perfect'. In what way is this? > > > > Simon > > > Nothing's Perfect. I prefer to setup the film holders on a light table, > rather than the light table on the Imacon, so I made a jig on a light table > to speed up the work flow. > > Regards to all, > > Stephen > > Stephen Greenfield Photography > 4718 Pebble Brook Circle NE > Cleveland, TN 37312 US > 423-479-8712 email@example.com > Commercial, Architectural, Editorial Photographic Services - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.