What seems to be the trend is that people buy the Nikon 8000 second hand or
new Once their project is completed they sale it.


"gA" wrote in message
news:iRkkh.526945$5R2.192515@pd7urf3no...
Thank you all for providing answers. It's obvious, by the sanples, that
the Nikon 8000 produces the best quality. However, I feel a little
uncomfortable spending all that money (approx. $750 CAD) for one-time
conversion. I won't be taking any more slides and once the conversion is
over, I will find out that the project was indeed an expensive
proposition. Cheers,
- gA

David J. Littleboy wrote:
wrote:
I am not ready to dismiss the flatbed scanner yet.
yes, Nikon has the popular vote to be one of the best if not the best.
I would like to compare some sample gallery of 40 years old slides
scanned with an Nikon and Epson perfection 4490.
That would confirm that the dedicated scanner is the best tool for the
job or it may shown some interesting results for the Epson flatbed
scanner?

Here's what I got comparing _someone else's scan on a 4800 ppi Epson_
with my scan on a Nikon 8000 (which is a 4000 ppi scanner for medium
format) of the same slide.

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078324/original
http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/40078325

There's a world of difference _when viewed at full resolution_, both in
terms of highlight detail and shadow detail.

This is a recent Provia 100F slide taken with one of the best medium
format lenses ever made (the Mamiya 43/4.5 for the Mamiya 7). Remember,
YMMV. (In particular, some people think the Epsons can do better than
this, although I don't.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan