The UK magazine Professional Photograhper did a comparative test of the:
CanoScan 2700F
Microtek 35T Plus
Minolta Quickscan 35 Plus
Nikon LS20 Coolscan II
Polaroid 35/LE
Olympus ES10
in its October 1997 issue. Their comments included "The Olympus is an
inexpensive, simple unit capable of reasonably good results within its
limitations. The 1770 dpi resolution limits the image size for repro
somewhat, and there was evidence of noise and patterning in the deepest
shadow areas. .... The chief problem is speed, or lack of it. The
Centronics printer interface is much slower than SCSI, taking 11 minutes to
produce an 11MB file."
In enlargements from test scans, the Olympus is very clearly the poorest
performer of the six tested - though the cheapest as well. The Canon,
Minolta and Nikon scanners led the field.
The same month, What Digital Camera compared:
Epson Filmscan 200
Fuji AS-1
Fuji FV10D
Microtek 35T +
Minolta Quickscan 35 Plus
Nikon Coolscan II
Olympus ES10
Again the Olympus did not do well, though this seemed to come down largely
to "very sharp scans that suffer from poor exposure (easily corrected)".
The Nikon came out top for high-res scanning and the HP Photo Smart for
general use - it was reviewed separately in the magazine. (N.B. This is a
much more "consumer" oriented magazine than Professional Photograhper). The
Minolta was panned because of the amount of effort needed to produce a good
scan.
Mike Bloor
-------------------------
Seratel Ltd.
Mulrany, Westport,
Co. Mayo, Ireland.
Telephone: + 353 98 36244
Fax: + 353 98 36244
-------------------------
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|