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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Scanning negatives | android | Digital Photography | 86 | March 16th 18 08:31 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 02:32 AM |
Scanning 126 and 110 negatives | Terry Tomato | Film & Labs | 7 | March 14th 05 11:06 AM |
Lab for Scanning Negatives..... | ron | 35mm Photo Equipment | 3 | October 14th 04 05:30 PM |