Negative Scanner Worth the Investment?

I am not a photographer but a mom with a lot of photos and negatives

(color from years 1970-2000). I would hate to lose these and I

thought I should make the investment to scan them. I was thinking of

something like the Epson 2480 Ltd. Edition but then lots of friends

a family asked if I could scan their negatives and photos too.

 

Then I thought I would get a Nikon Coolscan V ED but after reading

many of the posts on this site, I am concerned about scanning times

and storage. If I use ICE, does scanning time go up as much as 5

minutes each? Or is that including photoshop editing? Also, isn't a

DVD OK for storage? This way I could make many copies to give to

friends and family.

 

Can someone make this simple for me? How can I do this "the right

way" without going broke or going overboard?

 

Thank you so much!

Laine:

 

In my case, I own a canon 9900F, is an excelent scanner for amateur work. But the work it requires to scan my negatives depends on what I want to do with them. Normally I scan at full resolution (8x10 at least) and with "FARE" (ICE) it takes around 4 minutes each. At the end, depending on the negative condition, it may not be ready for printing, it requires cleaning dust (90% of times), and when I need quality print, it requires PS work. Then I save it in TIFF uncompressed in CD. I don?t scan all my negatives, only those that I really like. The time it takes depends also on your ability to work in PS (I think).

 

I hope this helps a little.

High quality, high resolution scanning is a slow process. To properly scan a whole roll of 35mm film (36 exposures) and edit the results in photoshop can take most of a day (well, several hours at least).

 

My Canoscan FS4000US can take up to 7 minutes to scan a frame at the highest resolution, bit depth and with dust removal turned on. I'm sure there are much faster scanners, but scan times are still generally going to be measured in minutes, not seconds if you want the highest quality scans.

 

If you're prepared to scan at lower resolution, things will be much faster.

High-quality scanning is inherently slow no matter what scanner you've got. There's lots of data to acquire and transfer, and that takes time. I'm not even considering the time it takes to post-process the scan, which can exceed the scan time.

 

The best way around this problem is to be selective about which negatives you scan. I'd guess that only about 10% of the negatives I shoot are worth turning into high-resolution digital files. The rest properly belong in the dustbin. That ratio keeps the process manageable, and also makes me look like a much better photographer than I really am!

if you are wanting to scan the images to digitize your collection and throw away the original film, I would advise against that plan of action. if you are scanning just to have desk top images (to set as a background or something, then you don't need real high resolution and the epson 2480 would work great (I think it has a film feeder, right?).

 

but as previous posters have stated any high quality (possibly overboard) scan will take time and, in most cases, money, in some form or another (whether having them scanned by a lab or buying a scanner capable of high quality).

 

chances are you will be satisfied with the epson 2480. and you can use these images to print small to medium sized prints, and if you use photoshop you can even get into playing with some of the tools available to you.

 

one thing though is that ICE will remove extra dust and scratches from color film and this may be worth it to you (otherwise you might end up with dust and scratches.. but if you scan at low resolution this might not be such a big problem.

 

this will be a big time consumming task no matter what you do so try to learn about it first so that you don't end up in the deep end.

Nikon V will take 3-5 minutes per slide at maximum (4000 real ppi) resolution for 13X19", including handling and Ice. It's slower with negative film, which requires motorized fiddling to properly position each frame. Nikon's (genuine) Ice is so effective that you'll rarely want to do any dusting of color films.

 

B&W negative film or damaged (filthy or scratched) color film scan just as quickly but do require post scanning work... you don't have to do that, leave that task for your grandkids :-)

Laine, If you just want to save your negs to make 4X6 snapshots in the future why don't you just take the whole lot to Wolf Camera or someone like them and let them scan the negs onto CD's for you as a one time deal. fast and easy. You can then copy the CD's for your family members.

Many good points have been discussed so far. The super scanner Les uses is probably the best way to go, if its within your budget.

 

If you just need something for web use, scanning the 4x6 print on a flat top scanner will probably be good enough. Also, unadjusted color accuracy may be better than unadjusted output from some film scanners.

Les's 5000 is distinctly faster than the Nikon V, but is essentially the same otherwise. I don't think they have any rivals, except arguably for one of the Canons or the Epson 4990, neither of which would be as sharp but would be easier with multiple formats.

 

Basic good scanning practice requires no fiddling to get correct color...scanning crappy little 4X6-type prints won't give you any advantage except for possibly easier physical handling... may require less learning. Little prints are made either by robots or by unskilled minilab printers...the least amount of learning will beat them.

.

 

I have a Konica Minolta DiMage Scan Elite 5400 II - I LOVE IT - on USB2 card on an 800MHz 512MB PC.

 

It takes me 10 minutes per image for 1600x1200 8-bit scan with ICE and GEM and Pixel Polish. The pictures files are BEAUTIFUL!

 

But, that's 6 hours per roll of 36, plus making and printing contact sheets and archiving/cataloguing. I can do a roll a day.

 

I choose 1600x1200 as my working draft since it's larger than screen size and prints up to a page nicely, and I can then go back and rescan any ONE image to full resolution later if I want to, but NOT all images all the time get scanned to full resolution - there isn't enough time in the day, let alone my life!

 

Since my negatives are my archive, the scans are just for use.

 

If you have to give the negatives back, I'd scan at full resolution, ICE, no manipulation, since ROC, GEM, SHO and so on are also software choices we can apply later to ANY image file.

 

Do the math, make a plan, then work your plan.

 

For me, it's like so many hours on the ol' chemical darkroom - not all of it is takin' and makin' pictures!

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

.

 

PS - Unless people share their computer speed, memory and such, and connection type (USB FireWire), scan times from one person's experience are not transferable to the next person's experience.

 

For instance, I have a high speed high quality scanner on an old slow computer since for me the potential quality is more important than speed and that's where I spent my money. Someone with a faster computer and a slower scanner may actually get faster overall scans. It's NOT just the scanner, but the rest of our electrinic darkroom gear that matter, also.

 

So, folks, PLEASE specify your computer gear!

 

Thanks!

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

<p>Hi Laine -</p>

 

<p>You need to set a value for your time.</p>

 

<p>You can pay a service company to do the scans for you - giving you high quality, high-resolutions scans for $.50-$1 each, depending on resolution, etc. How much time is $.50-$1 worth to you? There are many companies providing this kind of service.</p>

 

<p>You indicate that you are not a photographer. Have you done any digital imaging work? Played with Photoshop? If you haven't done these things, you have a lot of learning to do. I'm sure you can do it -- but this is another investment in time and energy.</p>

 

<p>Full disclosure: I work for a company that makes its money doing scanning for people in situations similar to yours. I got into this business after attempting to scan my own archive of negatives and slides and realizing just how painful and time consuming it can be. Service companies have the advantage with regard to speed based on the fact that we have already proven, optimized workflows, many scanners and fast dedicated computers that can work together to do the job faster.</p>

 

<p>I second the votes for the dedicated film scanner (we mostly use the Nikon 5000ED). ICE is a requirement -- without it you will spend hours in photoshop, or be quite disappointed with the results. Quality with the dedicated film scanner is much better (at the expense of speed and the ability to scan prints). For scanning prints, a relatively inexpensive flatbed will do nicely. If you are going to do this work, I believe you should do it right the first time -- because it will involve a lot of time.</p>

 

<p>One other issue: resolution. I expect that you don't need the absolute highest resolutions available. As was indicated above, most of the scans are "record scans" which you won't make prints of at all and maybe don't even deserve scanning :). If you do make any prints, they will most likely be small 4"x6". You don't need 5400DPI for this use. Mostly, you will build slide shows for display on your PC or TV or share the images in email and via the web. 1600x1200 is still large for slide shows and viewing on screen or on the TV. 2000DPI give you an image that is ~ 2750 pixels x 1750 pixels - good for at least a 5x7 print or all these "digital" uses. For these reasons, I expect that scanning at 2000DPI will be sufficient. If you are saving the original negatives/slides you can always go back to the few selected gems and rescan at high resolution. Lastly, most negatives from most people haven't been stored in optimal conditions, were shot on less than perfect equipment (e.g., point and shoot 35mm cameras), were shot with less than perfect technique (how often do you shoot on a tripod), used faster film (e.g., 400ASA Kodak Gold orthe like) and were processed less than optimally. All of these conditions mean that the bump in quality from 2000DPI to 4000DPI is negligible. Try not to get oversold on resolution by the scanner manufacturers or scanning service providers.</p>

 

<p>Good luck with your project! Regards -</p>

 

<p>Steve<br>

<a href="http://www.pixmonix.com">www.pixmonix.com</a><br>

Professional slide and negative scanning services</p>

Lanie,

 

You?ve gotten a lot of great advice already; I skimmed thru most of the replies. I didn't see anyone mention the risk of navigates fading away (if someone did mention it then good job). I lost about 2-3 rolls of film so far, the upside is I don't know what was on the film, downside is unfortunately the same.

 

If your truly an amateur and don't really care about printing anything larger than a 4x6 print then the Epson or any Nikon scanner will do just fine. The key to getting quick scans is keeping the bit depth to 8 bits, and you're going to soon find out that you can?t live without using ICE. File size will vary but if you stick to the .JPEG they will be pretty small (compared to my 60MB files). Some flatbed film scanners are able to scan 24 negotiates at one time. This will not yield the sharpest scans but good enough for a 4x6.

 

Otherwise you'll be sucked in like the rest of us and spend about 10 on each scan producing huge files that can make great 8x10's. Good luck!

.

 

Do the math, as I said:

 

Previously posted: "...1600x1200 is still large for slide shows and viewing on screen or on the TV..."

 

Technically, no it isn't, because some screens ARE that large, and because almost ALL software can resize, and resizing DOWN rather than UP is clearer.

 

Previously posted: "... 2000DPI give you an image that is ~ 2750 pixels x 1750 pixels - good for at least a 5x7 print or all these "digital" uses. For these reasons, I expect that scanning at 2000DPI will be sufficient..."

 

So, is 1600x1200 to large, or is your recommendation of 2750x1750, which is even larger, better?

 

And it's ppi, not dpi. dpi is printer output. ppi is scanner input.

 

If the goal is SPEED, the 5400ppi scanner may beat the 2000ppi scanner, even at 2000ppi or less, and what 2000ppi scanner has ICE?

 

Laine, you're getting conflicting advice. No solution is perfect. All take time and or money, and may also require you to master some new skills, and also may need revisiting once you are smarter by experience. Me? I'm on my 2nd personal film scanner and have used the Konica Minotla AND Nikon extensively, and bought Konica Minolta. That's just me - and many photo magazine editors and columnists and so on.

 

ALL will probably do you well, just get started.

 

Pick one solution and go with it and tell us what YOU find.

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

The Minolta I'm sure is a fine scanner if you get a good one, but there are so many reports of problems with banding and other issues on photo.net that I'd just take the Nikon - even if there is a problem if a Nikon scanner, at least Nikon will service it and not say it's "within factory standards".

 

The LS-5000 will scan a 35 mm negative in a little more than 30 s at 4000 ppi with ICE on my laptop and on a high-end PC it should be faster. It will also take a whole roll in a suitable accessory, so you can have it do it in a short time but you'll definitely have some disk space problems if you do that often! I scan individual frames.

 

High quality scanning may have used to be a "slow" process but that's ancient history by now. A Kodak HR 500 scanner will scan hundreds of high-resolution images in an hour (according to Kodak) and I've had enough scans made with it that I know that it is really, really high quality (at least for slide scans). I prefer scans from it to modern Imacon scans, which says something about the quality. However, it costs $40000.

.

 

Previously posted: "...The Minolta I'm sure is a fine scanner if you get a good one, but there are so many reports of problems with banding and other issues on photo.net that I'd just take the Nikon - even if there is a problem if a Nikon scanner, at least Nikon will service it and not say it's "within factory standards"..."

 

A SMEAR campaign from someone who has apparently NO EXPERIENCE of the product they are denigrating? Hmmm ... this must be the unedited Internet! =8^o

 

Ya know, that's the problem with being the best selling - there are also more NUMBERS of problems, even if the PERCENTAGE is less. And with the Internet, there's more opportunity to share our problems - with the hope of resolving our problems.

 

I fully expect MORE problems to be discussed on the Internet because that's what we come to the Internet for - to find free resolutions to our struggles. Those with happy working gear tend NOT to write in and say, "my gear is happy and working, and I need no help!" So complaints on the Internet are NOT indicative of anyone else's potential experiences.

 

Note that I only said the Nikon was more expensive than the Konica Minolta, and having extensive experience of both, I chose the less expensive gear. I do not feel the need to denigrate the Nikon.

 

How many Konica Minolta scanners are in use versus Nikon scanners?

 

"I don't know," you might say ... neither do I!

 

Also, how many Konica Minolta scanners are sold to ANYONE versus the Nikon name taking it into the existing Nikon "professional" environment?

 

"I don't know," you might say ... neither do I!

 

Sadly, if any manufacturer sells a gazillion products to the non-qualified buyer, of course there will be greater risk that uninitiated consumers may not know how to best argue the many, many choices available within a sophisticated product. Maybe having your film scanned at WalMart is simpler, if simplicity is your only goal. ;-)

 

I put it to you that complaints, even supposedly "wide spread" on the Internet are meaningless regarding your chance of getting a "good one" versus a supposedly "bad one". And, mere complaints do not make a "bad one" since the problem may have been inappropriate choices made by the uninitiated consumer, not the gear itself.

 

Complaints are a statistically unknown minority of user's experiences, and may say more about the user than the product used.

 

You cannot convince, with your specious unreferenced comments, the many, many satisfied users of Minolta and Konica Minolta scanners - including many photography magazine editors, columnists, reviewers and photojournalists, along with many, many photography professionals - that their successful experience is null and void because someone else claims there are a unspecified number of unspecified problems reported somewhere unspecified on the Internet. Give us a break!

 

Questions?

 

Konica Minolta Photo Imaging U.S.A., Inc.,

Camera Division,

725 Darlington Avenue,

Mahwah, NJ 07430 USA

 

- Digital and 35mm cameras, scanners, binoculars, consumer and professional film and single-use cameras, color print paper, inkjet paper and minilabs

 

Phones: 1-800-285-6422 or 1-201-574-4000

 

Dealer Info: 1-800-MY-KONICA = 1-800-695-6642

 

USA Assistance (toll free): 1-800-808-4888

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

<blockquote>

<p>>> Previously posted: "...1600x1200 is still large for slide shows and viewing on screen or on the TV..." <br>

>>Technically, no it isn't, because some screens ARE that large, and because almost ALL software can resize, and resizing DOWN rather than UP is clearer. <br>

>>Previously posted: "... 2000DPI give you an image that is ~ 2750 pixels x 1750 pixels - good for at least a 5x7 print or all these "digital" uses. For these reasons, I expect that scanning at 2000DPI will be sufficient..." <br>

>>So, is 1600x1200 to large, or is your recommendation of 2750x1750, which is even larger, better? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Peter is correct. Screens exist that are larger that 1600x1200 and the trend is to surpass this resolution at least at the high end of the display market. I should have indicated in my original post that HDTV will surpass this 1600x1200 threshold even though 1600x1200 is large today. Looking ahead to the time when we all have HDTV, the resolutions for TV-based (and probably projected) slide shows will look like this:</p>

<ul>

<li><b>720p</b> - 1280x720 pixels progressive</li>

<li><b>1080i/p</b> - 1920x1080 pixels interlaced/progressive</li>

</ul>

<p>In directly responding the the original question in this thread, we need to look at expected usages. Laine indicated that she is "not a photographer but a mom with a lot of photos and negatives" hence I speculated that making prints (4"x6" and 5"x7" sizes), sharing via email and the web, and displaying images on the TV or projected using a digital projector would be the common usages of the scanned images. My suggestion for a scanning of 2000DPI covers this range of usages well. I only quoted 2000DPI sizes as an example of a common scanning resolution and it is "large enough" (again, for most usages) -- another figure like 2700 will work fine here, too (I'm not trying to bias my answer on the Nikon scanner family over Minolta). My point is that you don't have to go to the highest available resolution to satisfy all uses. For most people (note that most contributers to this forum are not "most" people, rather they are highly technically literate photographers) this lower resolution will be sufficient because they won't have the very high resolution displays and they won't do intensive editing of the scanned images. Am I short changing these people by making this suggestion? I don't think so because to go along with the suggestion, I always push for proper storage of the original material and the understanding that some images may need to be rescanned at higher resolution if, for example, the person decides they want a large print of a high-quality slide. </p>

<p>Yes, there are benefits of scanning at a higher resolution for some films, some usages and some people. Just not for most films, most usages and most people. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> >> And it's ppi, not dpi. dpi is printer output. ppi is scanner input. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Peter is correct again of course. I use DPI in my writing here because it is more commonly used (if imprecise) and generally I have found it doesn't tend to confuse people who don't already understand all the technical details. Most people really couldn't care less about this technical babble. They just want to make prints and share their photos. If my use of DPI has annoyed anyone I apologize.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> >> If the goal is SPEED, the 5400ppi scanner may beat the 2000ppi scanner, even at 2000ppi or less, and what 2000ppi scanner has ICE? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed that scanner resolution and scan speed are not directly tied. A particular 5400DPI scanner may be faster than my 4000DPI scanner (both scanning at the highest resolutions). But generally speaking, on a given scanner, scanning at a lower resolution will be faster than scanning at a higher resolution because a significant part of the time is in doing image processing (e.g., ICE) on the host computer and moving data between the scanner and computer and onto the hard drive. Less data means shorter scan times.</p>

<p>Just because my car can go 150MPH doesn't mean that I must drive this fast. It is not a requirement to scan at the highest available resolution. Hence, I suggest picking any scanner with ICE and figuring out a reasonable comprimise between resolution, quality, scanning speed, storage costs (not just hard drive space - but including backup/etc.), ease of manipulation (60MB files are still painful to work with for most people) and expected usage of the scanned images.</p>

<p>All software can resize images down, but the pain of creating and working with large digital images can be a stopper for many people. It is a balancing act. This forum is generally loaded with people willing to take the burden and expense of large files, fast computers with lots of RAM, lots of storage space, large displays, color calibration, and complicated backup methodologies. And this is fantastic. I do this for much of my own stuff. Generally speaking, each one of these issues is a stopper for significant parts of the population (not that they are not capable of doing the same, just that their interests lie elsewhere). This forum is generally speaking a do-it-yourself crowd, which is great. I got a lot more satisfaction out of scanning my own collection of slides and negatives than if I had someone else do it. Looking carefully at each image during scanning meant that I took more time looking at each image (even the "throw away" ones) and remembering the context of the photo than if I had paid a service to do the work and just recieved a DVD in return (where I would quickly skip over the less interesting shots). However, the commitment to do it yourself is quite large, particularly for folks that are not yet well versed in digital imaging.</p>

<p>Regards --</p>

<p>Steve<a href="http://www.pixmonix.com"><br>

www.pixmonix.com</a></p>

This is just hearsay, I've not experimented with this myself, but I have heard the Elite 5400 first gen scan times are the same for 2700dpi and 5400dpi (all settings such as ICE and GD being the same). The scanner apparently does the actual scan at 5400dpi in both cases, and downsamples the 2700dpi scan on-the-fly. Real efficient!

 

Laine, I don't think anyone will be able to "make it simple" for you. Scanning is an addictive sinkhole, with everybody experimenting and sharing. It is doable, but it will take time and trial-and-error. Lots of info on the net.

 

The scanner you mentioned is a good bet, not too big an investment, from a good manufacturer. The one bit of advice that comes to mind: take your time, experiment, don't be to quick to start burning "finished product", or jump into massive projects. Try this, try that, compare.

 

Asking questions is good. Equally good, trying things out, and noting the different results. Record your observations. They tend to blur, down the road ;)

Negative Scanner Worth the Investment?

 

.

 

Earlier on this thread: "...This is just hearsay, I've not experimented with this myself, but I have heard the Elite 5400 first gen scan times are the same for 2700dpi and 5400dpi (all settings such as ICE and GD being the same). The scanner apparently does the actual scan at 5400dpi in both cases, and downsamples the 2700dpi scan on-the-fly. Real efficient!..."

 

Peter Blaise responds:

 

And you know of another way to do it?

 

Or, if you think that ALL scanners don't down sample, let me rephrase my response:

 

A d y u k o f a o h r w y t o i ?

 

;-)

 

All scanners use ALL their sensors ALL the time and downsample when requested, otherwise, there'd be that dreaded gap-tooth scanning since the supposedly, which scanner elements are to be turned off, especially if they're in a bucket brigade single chip that outputs it's data en masse?

 

= = = =

 

Earlier in this thread: "... I use DPI in my writing here because it is more commonly used (if imprecise) and generally I have found it doesn't tend to confuse people who don't already understand all the technical details. Most people really couldn't care less about this technical babble. They just want to make prints and share their photos. If my use of DPI has annoyed anyone I apologize..."

 

Peter Blaise responds:

 

No need to apologize, jut be accurate!

 

Inaccuracy because you think people will not understand is OVER simplifying to the point of inaccuracy, and then begs the kind of questions like "what dpi setting should I use for emailing a letter or copying to my web page?" There is no need for that. Simplifying is enough. Over simplifying to the point of being knowledgeably inaccurate is inappropriate and counterproductive.

 

= = = =

 

Earlier on this thread: "... A particular 5400DPI scanner may be faster than my 4000DPI scanner (both scanning at the highest resolutions). But generally speaking, on a given scanner, scanning at a lower resolution will be faster than scanning at a higher resolution ..."

 

Peter Blaise responds:

 

My point is that at ANY equivalent output resolution, one scanner may be more responsive than another, and the higher resolution scanner may be the faster one in the comparison. My point is to NOT be afraid of the 5,400ppi scanner even if you are not planning on using it at 5,400ppi since even at 2,000ppi output resolution, it may still be a faster scanner than a 4,000ppi scanner is at the same 2,000ppi output resolution.

 

= = = =

 

Earlier in this thread: "... Laine, I don't think anyone will be able to "make it simple" for you. Scanning is an addictive sinkhole, with everybody experimenting and sharing. It is doable, but it will take time and trial-and-error..."

 

Peter Blaise responds:

 

Agreed 1,000%.

 

I have changes my scanning technique and storage and expectations almost daily as I dive into my own personal archives of negatives and prints, scanning and printing the equivalent of about 1 roll a day. And I haven't even downloaded iMatch form http://www.photools.com/ to start cataloguing my images yet! This is ENDLESS!

 

= = = =

 

Laine, since you may want to scan prints as well as film, may I suggest a flatbed scanner? I have both - flatbed scanners AND film scanners, and I use each for what they are best for.

 

Also, Epson has a "functional" all-in-one printer scanner that handles negatives and prints AND prints them for you even without a computer. Would that be an alternative? ~$180US. See

 

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=56291070

 

Let us know what you do.

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Pete Blaise peterbliase@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/<div></div>

You all are wonderful!The time and effort that you put into answering my question flatters me and tells me that you all are very serious about your work. I sincerely appreciate it.

 

Oddly enough, I still have no idea what to buy but I think I'll go with the a flatbed and if I have to, I'll just convince myself that in the 70's people were actually slightly green and all cars were orange.

 

Again, kindest regards to everyone and if it's OK, I'll drop by again and let you know what I discovered.

Peter, I've always liked Minolta products and have no need to smear them. If you follow the discussion here, you'll see that there are many such complaints and the very difference between Nikon and Konica-Minolta is that the former offers professional grade support, while some K-M users have had to get their scanner back as it was, with problems intact. As for the relative sales of these units, that's irrelevant. The point is that EVERY SINGLE buyer has a right to a scanner that works correctly. I've never had to pay for repairs of my Nikon equipment (and that's not because I have some special position), and I also haven't run into a problem that wasn't resolved satisfactorily.

 

Like I said, I use Minolta equipment and like the items I use. The main reason Minolta never rose to the Nikon and Canon standard is not in the quality of their products but in the quality of support.

.

 

Hi Laine,

 

Don't forget that the Epson CX7800 IS a flatbed scanner and is also ready for film and digital AND printing. Good luck - competition makes our choices almost impossible, eh? Well, at least it also makes our choices cheaper!

 

= = = =

 

Ilkka, I couldn't DISAGREE with you more:

 

You say: "... Minolta never rose to the Nikon and Canon standard ..."

 

I say: the Minolta SR T and X-700 and AF 7000 were the world's best selling cameras of their time, BEATING Nikon and Canon. *

 

Ilkka, I couldn't AGREE with you more:

 

You say: "... Minolta never rose to [high competitive] standard in the quality of support ..."

 

I say: sad, isn't it?

 

C'mon everyone, let Konica Minolta know you want MORE:

 

 

Konica Minolta Photo Imaging U.S.A., Inc.,

Camera Division,

725 Darlington Avenue,

Mahwah, NJ 07430 USA

 

- Digital and 35mm cameras, scanners, binoculars, consumer and professional film and single-use cameras, color print paper, inkjet paper and minilabs

 

Phones: 1-800-285-6422 or 1-201-574-4000

 

Dealer Info: 1-800-MY-KONICA = 1-800-695-6642

 

USA Assistance (toll free): 1-800-808-4888

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

 

= = = =

 

* PS - So, if Minolta sells more product, then the NUMBERS of "defects" and "complaints" will be greater, even if the percentage is equal or lower than the competition. That's the point of my sharing information about the overwhelming popularity of the Konica Minolta DiMage film scanners, especially among the editors and writers in photography periodicals. A few threads about "I can't get rid of streaking when I scan a blank frame in linear mode," and such means nothing, statistically. I wish Konica Minolta would learn to SWAP electronic gear as we do in the computer industry. That way, the customer cannot get the same old problems returned to them. Productivity wise, I can buy TWO Konica Minolta scanners and still get more done for LESS money than buying one (or two) Nikon scanners, so replacing a "defective" one at my own cost is not an issue. My own "smear" against Nikon? Not really. I've already said I have successful experience with Nikon scanners with no complaints - the 4000, 5000 and 9000. If I were scanning only one frame at a time, as some of my professional photography customers do, the Nikon is acceptable, and that's what many of them use, and I support them. Why did they buy Nikon? Because that's what they learned on at the local photography school when they tried to "go digital". If Konica Minolta sold to the schools, that's what the students would buy. "Marketing" is everything ... almost! And, by the way, there are many professional photographers in that group of "students", experienced FILM professionals who are trying to get back into the mainstream of the competitive photography marketplace.