Re: walexander@leisurepublishing.com

["Ernst Dinkla" <E.Dinkla@xxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca>
To: <scan@leben.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 2:12 AM
Subject: Re: walexander@leisurepublishing.com


> 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.