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
==============================================
|