[Leica] OT - Konica Minolta Scanners and ???

[henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff)]

>As an addition to what has already been asked and answered, I spoke 
>to my sales/account man here, last Friday, concerning the scanner 
>situation.
>
>There is a sizable quantity of scanners of various models on 
>back-order (BeNeLux), some for several months now ............... 
>and although there is no mention of scanners in the various KM 
>statements, he anticipated the supply to be finished/dead.
>
>It seems that only cameras and lenses will be produced for Sony (as 
>shown beneath).
>
>Conclusion, from him ............. difficult support from Sony; no 
>more stock; 31 March shutdown (mirror of report beneath).
>
>I am looking for a scanner (35mm and 6x6) too. It leaves only Nikon 
>8000 or 9000; the ArtixScan 120tf from Microtek; the Epson 
>Perfection 4990 and the F-3200 (apparently not available in North 
>America!).
>
>Does anyone have experience thought on these models, please?
>
>Thanks,
>B.

I'm quite familiar with the Nikons and the Epsons; the 8000 isn't 
much different from the 9000 and operationally/performance wise not 
really much better and so generally not worth the difference. For 
both of these count on buying (v. expensive) or making additional 
film holders.

The Epson 4990 seems to have generally better performance than the 
F-3200, and is more versatile. Neither is adequate for 35mm or 
transparencies, and also they are not as good as the Nikons for B&W 
w.r.t. density, although they don't have the grain aliasing problems 
like the Nikons at time do.

Note that the Nikon 8000 and 9000 are not as bad w.r.t. grain 
aliasing as the 35mm only series, as they use a trilinear array which 
is more diffuse. I use an 8000 and 5000 at present, and the 
difference is there. The 8000 is definitely better overall for B&W 
than the 5000, lso because the 8000 can use glass carriers, and 
produce fully sharp images at all times. The 5000 will at times 
produce soft corners.

The Epson 4990 is fine for colour negative material from 120 and 
larger film. I scan 6x12 and larger film on this machine and get best 
results by scanning at 4800 dpi and immediately halving that to 2400 
dpi, which seems to be what it actually can resolve. This gives me 
slightly sharper results than scanning directly at 2400 dpi, but is 
used only sometimes. Mostly I scan at 2400dpi

The 3200 that I tried didn't have either the resolution or the 
density range of the 4990.

If you only want to scan up to 6x9, the Nikons are better; if you 
want to scan 35mm for high quality prints, forget the Epsons. If you 
also want to scan 6x12 or 4x5 or larger and don't have 
transparencies, consider the Epson 4990. If you have 4x5 
transparencies, get them scanned by someone else unless you have a 
lot and are getting paid for it.

The ArtixScan/Microtek is poorly supported in this area, and when it 
shows up can be had for a lot less than a used Nikon. A friend who 
had one sold it for a Nikon. That's all I know about it.

All of these are supported by Vuescan, which is what I use.

Henning

-- 
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com