I concur, with one caveat. The Minolta's aren't up to serious use. I killed my Scan Dual III after ~300 rolls in ~2 years. But for lower-rate use they're great.
-Adam On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[email protected]> wrote: > I have and use both a Minolta Scan Dual II and Nikon Coolscan IV ED. Either > can be found for well within or under your budget. Both do a superb job. > > The Nikon is a more robust unit and includes dust and scratch removal ( not > usable with BW silver gelatin films). > > I don't use any of the manufacturers' software. I drive them both with > VueScan. It does a better job. > > In some ways I like the scan quality of the Minolta more: it's lens has more > DoF and handles severely curled film better. But the Nikon is faster and has > slightly better acutance, and it's film carriers are sturdier (particularly > the APS carrier). > > Both of these ~2900ppi scanners have made scans that produced superb 13x19 > inch prints. > > Godfrey - www.gdgphoto.com > > On Feb 17, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Nick David Wright <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> What would you all recommend for a good, reasonably priced film scanner? >> >> I'm thinking in the $200-300 range. >> >> Thanks. >> >> ~Nick David Wright >> http://pedalingprose.wordpress.com/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
