Header banner

<< Previous Thread Scanners... Next Thread >>

Subject: Scanners...
Date: 2012-09-16 08:26:29
From: bob_karambelas
Interesting... Plustek is on the verge of shipping their Opticfilm 120 scanner. I'm sure it's purely coincidence that Nikon found some Coolscan 9000's to refurbish. Both B&H and Adorama have CS 9000 refurbs for less than $2K. Mildly tempting; if anybody is interested, they probably won't last long.
Subject: Re: Scanners...
Date: 2012-09-16 13:04:49
From: John Thurston
On 9/16/2012 6:26 AM, bob_karambelas wrote:
> Interesting... Plustek is on the verge of shipping their Opticfilm 120 scanner. I'm sure it's purely coincidence that Nikon found some Coolscan 9000's to refurbish. Both B&H and Adorama have CS 9000 refurbs for less than $2K. Mildly tempting; if anybody is interested, they probably won't last long.

Well, I tried buying the Pacific Image 120 scanner last year. It was a
disaster. Two units DOA, two months down the drain. I don't think I'll
be kicking the Plustek football.

I can't find any refurb coolscans from either of those vendors. Can you
supply links?

Does anyone else have a coolscan they're done with?

John Thurston
Juneau, Alaska
Subject: Re: Scanners...
Date: 2012-09-16 14:37:22
From: bob_karambelas
Well, they've both disappeared. Saw it on both sites this morning, added it to my wish lists, so I'm fairly sure I wasn't hallucinating. Apologies for the alarm... if somebody's really interested, might be worth keeping an eye on those sites the next week or so to see if they reappear.

The Pacific Image scanner was an OEM product that was liked by nobody, but Plustek seems to be putting a lot of effort into their 120. A company rep has been on some of the film forums providing updates; they originally planned to use a Kodak sensor, but delayed when Kodak sold that division. Sounds like quality will be comparable to the Nikons.

One interesting thing is that they use a lens to magnify the image (and double the advertised resolution), and that apparently adds enough DOF to avoid the need for autofocus.

But yeah, I'm going to wait for some reviews.

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, John Thurston wrote: