"Progressiveabsolution" wrote:

The more 5D photos I look at online the less impressed I am.

That's odd. The sample images at dpreview knocked me out (as do everything
that comes out of the camera). Are you looking at full 12.7MP images or
downsampled images?

The Nikon
9000 was compared to the V750 and the differences were subtle.

Yeah, that's what people said about the 4800 ppi Epsons too.

rant
It's _really_ hard to get full quality from these scanners, because the film
has to be perfectly flat, and it looks to me that a lot of people aren't
getting sharp scans from their Nikon 8000/9000. I'd never pay anyone to do a
scan on a Nikon 8000/9000 because there's no way I could afford to pay
someone competent the amount of time it actually takes to do it right. I
don't make a scan with the 8000 without measuring focus at at least 5 points
across the frame and verifying that I can manually set the focus so that the
whole frame is within +/- 15 focus units. Most people will tell you it's not
worth spending that much time. At which point, you're wasting your time.
/rant

And the
wetmount kit seemed to show greater improvements that never were
compared go the Nikon 9000. Asked which the reviewer would get, they
said the V700 because the differences between all three are so subtle
and the V700 is the least expensive. But at what sized print can these
"subtleties" be made more obvious. I really could not see much
difference between the 9000 and V750 in the enlargements done. Another
test with the 8000 and V700 showed there was very little difference
between those two as well. The 8000/9000 give straight out of the box
results. The V700/V750 require a LOT of time getting results close
enough to the 8000/9000 to be negligable...I think it's more up to user
patience to learn than it is having to buy one scanner over another.
Even Rockwell, who isn't the greatest source, says the 4990 is 99% of
the Minolta Multi Pro which he says about the Multi Pro is better than
drum scans, etc.

Rockwell says a lot of silly things. Here's what I see comparing the Nikon
8000 and a 4800 ppi Epson.

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


I like the look of the Fuji, but don't think it's as impressing as what
I have seen from the better results of the Fuji vs. the better results
of the Kiev. The Fuji is also limited to one fixed lens unless you buy
the inferior lens that is a very short ranged zoom. But the Fuji is
very appealing with color and size...

There aren't any Kiev lenses that are anywhere close to the Fuji lenses.
Completely different classes of optics. Also, I only mentioned the 6x9
cameras. Again, I don't recommend 6x6 or 645 in this day and age.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan