I can only answer half your question, but I have some idea of the
changes that Minolta made between the two.
In it's time, the Minolta SD2 was considered good value, however, it was
not without its flaws. They had a problem with quality control which
led to what I coined "lazy sensors" which mean
"Berry Ives" wrote: "Okay, does anyone have experience on both the
Minolta SD2 and SD4? If so, please share that with me. I've read the
specs already."
I don't usually do "Me too" posts, but I want to second Arthur Entlich's
post (and I hope my agreeing with him doesn't sp
on 9/11/04 6:43 AM, Arthur Entlich at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I can only answer half your question, but I have some idea of the
> changes that Minolta made between the two.
>
> In it's time, the Minolta SD2 was considered good value, however, it was
> not without its flaws. They had a problem
I'm only a neophyte at this but I never noticed any of the problems
mentioned with my SD2. I am very happy with it for the price. It
sounds like significant improvements have been made though, so the SD4
sounds like the better deal.
-- al
--
>if time were money (it
>isn't for me) I'd opt for a scanner with dICE.
Preston, I have to wonder if time were money if you would actually save a
whole lot by using dICE since using it often slows down the scan speed a
great deal. If one cleaned one's film and dust out of the scanner, would
one h
Dear folks,
I've been a member of this mailing list for years and it's been an
indispensable resource.
I still have many thousands of slide and negatives to be scanned and I'm
in the market for a new scanner.
Film scanning is not a dead letter, nor is it even moribund. There are
oceans and cont
"LAURIE SOLOMON" wrote: "Preston, I have to wonder if time were money
if you would actually save a whole lot by using dICE since using it
often slows down the scan speed a great deal. If one cleaned one's film
and dust out of the scanner, would one have to spend more than a minimal
amount of time
Preston,
At one time I had all my color negatives ( and B&W, I use XP2) done at one
hour labs and I spent a lot of time spotting - I don't like the dust removal
programs (I've tried various instances) as it reduces the sharpness of the
image - I already feel that I am not able to truly use the nea
> Most rolls I have gotten back from a variety of labs seem dust-free, but
the scanner still
> picks up a lot of tiny-to-small spots.
There are a number of possible causes for this. Some may be as Brad
suggests dirt/dust as well as water marks and contaminants embedded in the
emulsion during proc
