«

"gsum" <> wrote in message
news:40a9b2a5$...
> It is almost as good. I've done a direct comparison with a Minolta
> MF film scanner costing 8 times as much as the 3200 and the
> difference is marginal. The Minolta extracted slightly more
> information and had a bit if extra dynamic range. The 3200 is
> bargain of the year.

I'm surprised to hear that. I had the opposite experience with the 2450 vs.
the Nikon 8000: the Nikon 8000 killed the 2450. Night and day. Heck, Kodak
ProphotoCD 1800 dpi scans killed the 2450.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

No doubt the Nikon 8000 will be better but the original poster
only mentioned A4 and the Epson will do that from 35mm with ease.

I have produced 24x18 inch prints from 6x4.5cm slides using the 3200
and find that thay have the required resolution. The limiting factors
are film grain plus the lack of dynamic range of the 3200. The 3200
struggles with very contrasty or over-saturated slides but this can be
overcome by layering multiple scans in Photoshop if necessary.

I'm not trying to claim that the 3200 is perfect but it is very good for
the money if its limitations are acceptable.

Graham


"David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
news:c8cdrq$8hh$...
>
> "gsum" <> wrote in message
> news:40a9b2a5$...
> > It is almost as good. I've done a direct comparison with a Minolta
> > MF film scanner costing 8 times as much as the 3200 and the
> > difference is marginal. The Minolta extracted slightly more
> > information and had a bit if extra dynamic range. The 3200 is
> > bargain of the year.
>
> I'm surprised to hear that. I had the opposite experience with the 2450
vs.
> the Nikon 8000: the Nikon 8000 killed the 2450. Night and day. Heck, Kodak
> ProphotoCD 1800 dpi scans killed the 2450.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>

David J. Littleboy <> wrote:

> "gsum" <> wrote in message
> news:40a9b2a5$...
>> It is almost as good. I've done a direct comparison with a Minolta
>> MF film scanner costing 8 times as much as the 3200 and the
>> difference is marginal. The Minolta extracted slightly more
>> information and had a bit if extra dynamic range. The 3200 is
>> bargain of the year.

> I'm surprised to hear that. I had the opposite experience with the 2450 vs.
> the Nikon 8000: the Nikon 8000 killed the 2450. Night and day.

I agree. I had exactly the same experience with the Epson 3200 versus
the Nikon 8000. The Nikon 8000 is vastly better.

Andrew.