Well yes, the expectations could be unrealistic, and I am especially desirous
of a scanner that does 4x5 (w/ 120 as an added bonus). I'll have to follow
this to see if Canon comes through.
Earl
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 11/12/2004 at 11:26 AM Mark Marr-Lyon wrote:
>Aside from the hardware problems, it seems to me that the review and
>especially the forum postings have suffered from expectations that are
>a bit too high. It'd be nice to have Minolta 5400 or Nikon Coolscan
>5000 quality in an under $400 flatbed, but I don't think that's too
>realistic. It is, however, as good as my current 2820 dpi film
>scanner, plus it can do medium and large format film.
>
>It is unfortunate that he got several bad scanners in a row, if they
>are actually bad; he could have a hardware or software failure in his
>computer too.
>Mine is still working fine and I'm quite happy with it so I hope it
>continues to do so. Otherwise, we'll see how good Canon's warrantee
>service is :)
>
>Mark
>
>On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 23:05:37 -0500, Earl Dunbar
><edunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Page 12
>(http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Scanners/Canon_9950F/page_12.htm)
> seemed to reveal a "problem". I was hopeful when I read the hype.
>>
>> Earl
>
>==============================================
>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|