|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
----- Original Message ----- From: "Arthur Entlich" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 2:12 AM Subject: Re: firstname.lastname@example.org > Some of the issue have work arounds, none particularly have solutions. > All work arounds require either compromises in terms of speed, or > quality, or the need to purchase or even manufacture items to fix them > (as you have determined). Nikon's response is to either ignore the > facts, provide workarounds which create other issues, or to make extra > income on the design defects by charging considerable bucks for things > like glass carriers. Glass carriers should always be available for MF scanners. I can't judge whether they are too expensive. The workarounds that Nikon provides take more time but nothing else. I have seen conflicting tests about the time it takes to scan on the Polaroid 120 and the Nikon, so it isn't clear yet which one is the fastest in several modes. The item I made for the Nikon 8000ED is unique for DTP MF scanners, it solves the DOF issue but that can also be done with a normal Nikon glass carrier. The other advantages are like with any fluid mounting that scratches, newton rings will not appear either. Airbubbles are then the only thing left to pay attention to. At least the Nikon allows you to make a carrier like that. > > You exaggerated the problems, denied the Nikon's advantages, and > > favoured the Polaroid 120 and that all based on experience of > > others while you had no first hand experience of both scanners. > > The Polaroid 120 must be a good scanner (no first hand experience > > here) but I do not consider the Nikon 8000 ED a bad scanner. > Exaggeration is in the eye of the beholder. I consider when people > return devices they really wanted, due to defects or design elements, > that shows a pretty clear indicator of the impact of a defect. Check the reviews, I saw at least as many people returning their Polaroid 120 for whatever reason. > I mentioned the one known problem and the solution with the reflections > on the carriers. I mentioned it doesn't have dICE for mishandled film. You forgot to mention Polaroid's financial troubles. Not a minor issue. > Once again, the whole reason I had intended this to be private mail was > to avoid stirring up this whole can of worms again, (and I do take full > responsibility for it having become public, in spite of my intent) but > since I am being challenged publicly, I have responded to the critics again. If you write a private message you should in my opinion try to be more objective than in writing to a list. The list will correct any biased opinion as it has done in the past with your messages on the same subject. That automatism isn't in private messages. > At this point, I am ending my participation in this thread. Anyone who > wants to relive this type of thread can look through the archives. Correct, the archives are the best source on all the aspects of the Nikon/Polaroid/Minolta and this kind of discussions. One can judge the scanners and the people involved. Ernst - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.