Re: filmscanners: evolution (was Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Tony... I wasn't talking about a $200 scanner... I was talking about a scanner in the $1000 to $2000 range, same as those cameras you referred to... BTW, I use a Nikon N90s, cost me $750 for the body new... uses the same glass as the F-5... It seems to me a camera is actually a more complex animal than a scanner, even a film scanner... when enough fotogs start to figure out they are going to have to scan or die, the market will get really competitive for their dollar, just like the pro camera market is... Mike M. Tony Sleep wrote: > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:33:31 -0700 Michael Moore ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > There is a BIG market out there for a good quality, reasonably priced > > scanner that will meet pro needs.. > > Ah, but the market determines the price. Why would a manufacturer charge less > than they can achieve? A cheap pro quality scanner is therefore tautological. > The same goes for Nikon F5, EOS1v, sundry Leicas and Contaxes etc. Of course I > wish they were $200 too... > > However, as with cameras, mid-market filmscanners may start to acquire extra > bells and whistles to entice buyers who aren't as interested in long-term > durability or best-possible quality, but rather the overall blend of > attributes. The profusion of brand new acronyms might suggest filmscanner > marketing is already headed down this well-worn path. It's a sign of a maturing > market where technological advance has rather reached a stalemate, or at least > adequacy for the market, and is a standard way of making your products seem > superior to rivals of otherwise equal performance. > > I think all the current generation filmscanners are, at a hardware level, > basically competent and capable of good results in the right hands. That's why > I think the donated-Q60 review methodology is past it's best-by date. When I > started doing it, just about every scanner was grossly different and incapable > of anything approaching neutrality. That has changed - like SLR's they're all > pretty damn good now, and preferences come down to features, ergonomics, > software and useability. And of course price. > > Regards > > Tony Sleep > http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & > comparisons
Re: filmscanners: evolution (was Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:33:31 -0700 Michael Moore ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > There is a BIG market out there for a good quality, reasonably priced > scanner that will meet pro needs.. Ah, but the market determines the price. Why would a manufacturer charge less than they can achieve? A cheap pro quality scanner is therefore tautological. The same goes for Nikon F5, EOS1v, sundry Leicas and Contaxes etc. Of course I wish they were $200 too... However, as with cameras, mid-market filmscanners may start to acquire extra bells and whistles to entice buyers who aren't as interested in long-term durability or best-possible quality, but rather the overall blend of attributes. The profusion of brand new acronyms might suggest filmscanner marketing is already headed down this well-worn path. It's a sign of a maturing market where technological advance has rather reached a stalemate, or at least adequacy for the market, and is a standard way of making your products seem superior to rivals of otherwise equal performance. I think all the current generation filmscanners are, at a hardware level, basically competent and capable of good results in the right hands. That's why I think the donated-Q60 review methodology is past it's best-by date. When I started doing it, just about every scanner was grossly different and incapable of anything approaching neutrality. That has changed - like SLR's they're all pretty damn good now, and preferences come down to features, ergonomics, software and useability. And of course price. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: evolution (was Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 6:13 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: evolution (was Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid > Sprintscan 120 ?? > > > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:33:31 -0700 Michael Moore > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Ah, but the market determines the price. Why would a manufacturer > charge less > than they can achieve? A cheap pro quality scanner is therefore > tautological. Tautological or an oxymoron? Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
RE: filmscanners: evolution (was Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
On 21 Feb 2001 07:22:44 -0800 Frank Paris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Tautological or an oxymoron? At 3am, I didn't care :) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
