A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Scanning Negatives II



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 16th 18, 02:40 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Scanning Negatives II

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.
  #12  
Old March 17th 18, 08:18 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
RJH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 228
Default Scanning Negatives II

On 15/03/2018 17:36, nospam wrote:
In article , RJH wrote:

Probably an altogether lower league to the recent post, but what's the
opinion on this*:

https://www.lidl.co.uk/en/Non-Food-O...rticleId=11482


junk.


OK! I was intrigued as this:

https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/silvercrest-negative-digitiser.581177/

loosely suggests half-decent results are possible. But the sample files
are too low-res to be of much use, and I'd agree with your/others
interpretation of the specs.

if you want to go the cheap route, get a slide copier attachment (or
build one, it's not hard) and use it with your digital camera which is
going to be way better than what's in that piece of ****.


Thanks, I'll look into it.


--
Cheers, Rob
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Scanning negatives android Digital Photography 86 March 16th 18 09:31 PM
scanning old negatives Phillip Helbig[_2_] Digital Photography 23 May 29th 15 06:49 AM
Help scanning negatives, please! iamcanadian 35mm Photo Equipment 12 December 3rd 06 03:32 AM
Scanning 126 and 110 negatives Terry Tomato Film & Labs 7 March 14th 05 12:06 PM
Lab for Scanning Negatives..... ron 35mm Photo Equipment 3 October 14th 04 05:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.