In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

The Reflecta X7 is 14 Megapixels, but costs four times more (£106.22 at
Amazon UK). Two seconds per photo, manual feed.

also junk, just slightly less so.

That's your opinion, not shared by others.

it's very easy to prove because quality can be objectively measured,
making it not an opinion, but an actual fact.

I'll play. How, exactly?

lab tests.

Did you actually test it and reported the results? Where is the link?

dpreview.com for starters.

most others will agree, because it really is junk.

No, they don't.

anyone who has experience with copying slides and negatives will tell
you it's junk.

common sense tells you it's junk. it's a cheap digital camera with a
housing to hold slides/negatives. cameras in the $50-100 price range
are junk. the sensors and electronics are low quality, as are the
lenses, which likely isn't even glass.

you're accustomed to junk, so you don't realize just how ****ty it
really is. you might think it's fantastic, but to everyone else, it's
not.

copying is ideally done with a film scanner, but that's a lot more
money. however, scanners are in very high demand, so it's possible to
buy a used scanner, scan stuff, then sell it for roughly the same
price, possibly even *more*, making the net cost free or even a profit.

absent a scanner, a copy attachment with an slr works quite well, but
that's because an slr camera and lens are *far* higher quality than a
$50 toy camera.

even a midrange compact digicam will produce better results, except
that most of those aren't designed for lens-mounted attachments.

the copy attachment is basically just a dark tube and can even be built
from household stuff (been there, done that, long ago).

a macro lens is *not* required, particularly with crop sensors, and
those who can afford full frame cameras (where the copy is 1:1 and
macro might sometimes help) can afford doing it properly with a
scanner. slrs have a slew of options, including extension tubes,
bellows and more, most of which do not cost a lot and unlike that
scanner, can be used for other purposes too.

I have only seen your opinion that it is, and several very detailed
opinions that it isn't.

bull**** you have. you only see what you want to see.

As I have your track record in sight, I don't trust anything you say in
vehement terms.

more ad hominem.