"hassy_user" writes:

I know this is the old Polaroid, but I've never had the opportunity to
use one or see the output. In the past I have had access to a Nikon
8000 with good results, but now it's time to buy my own.

Has anyone done a rigorous comparison? Let's pretend a used 8000, new
9000, and new 120tf are all the same price - I'll make the $$$
judgement based on the quality differences. I don't care about
scanning speed or ICE gizmos - just straight-up scan quality. Thanks
in advance.


James Hutchison posts MTF data he

http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2004/scanner_test_results.html

LS-8000 #1: MTF50: 26.92, CA: 0.26
LS-8000 #2: MTF50: 19.52, CA: 0.465 [mine]
LS-8000 #3: MTF50: 18.7, CA: 0.592

Microtek 120 #1: MTF50: 18.4, CA: .894
Microtek 120 #2: MTF50: 18.1, CA: .768
Polaroid 120: MTF50: 17.95, CA: 1.27

[CA = chromatic abberation, smaller # = better]
------------

You'll see scan snippets from both models on my scan-snippets site.

These two scanners use different light sources and that will
explain most of the difference in their apparent sharpness.
120tf uses the more traditional cold-cathode (ie., diffuse)
source while LS-8000 uses LEDs, which act more like a
point source (see: Callier effect.)

There's a price to be paid for that: the Nikon, while giving
sharper scans, will also show film grain and defects that
the Polaroid (Microtek) will hide.

With regard to ICE, all I can say is: don't discount it.
When I bought my LS-8000, I assumed it was a scam
and that I'd be have it turned off most of the time. I was
100% wrong on that score. It's turned out to be a lifesaver.
I spend almost no time retouching scans. The LS-8000
snippets on my site are all done with ICE turned on.

Personally: I've owned three film scanners that were
either branded as Microtek or OEM'd by Microtek.
All are now gone, but the Nikon remains.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
scan snippets
www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis