Negative Scanners

10/15/96

I am considering purchasing a negative film scanner and I have narrowed the

choices to the Polaroid Sprintscan 45, the Nikon LS4500AF or the LeafScan

45. The LeafScan 45 is no longer produced but I may be able to get a hold of

one of the last ones or a rebuilt one. I have used the LeafScan 45, but I

have no experience with either the Polaroid or the Nikon. The LeafScan

exceeds the performance of the other two (according to the specifications),

but is the cost justified? The Polaroid and Nikon are approximately half the

price of the LeafScan.

I would appreciate hearing your comments (advantages/disadvantages) if you

have used either the Polaroid or the Nikon, especially if you have

experience with the LeafScan for comparison purposes.

Thanks in advance.

David F. Teter

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Materials Science and Technology: Metallurgy (MST-6)

Mail Stop: G755

Los Alamos, NM 87545

ph: (505)665-0160 fax: (505) 665-0657

e-mail: teter@lanl.gov

David & all:

I have an interest in digital cameras - we sell the MicroLumina in

Australasia. However, I truly believe that a high resolution digital camera,

although more expensive, is a better solution than a scanner. I don't like

scanners, I've had too much trouble with scan lines etc.

Combined with a macro lens a digital camera can copy negs on a light

box beautifully, it can also "copy" prints, apparatus, people and record

microscope images. In short it's infinitely more versatile.

Jim Darley

Probing & Structure

(Microscopy Supplies & Accessories)

PO Box 111, Thuringowa QLD 4817 Australia

Phone +61 77 740 370 Fax: +61 77 892 313

A great microscopy site http://www.ultra.net.au/~pns/

David, if you have the money, I will definitely recommend you

purchasing the LeafScan 45. I have been using the LeafScan 45 for the last

two years, and I'm very happy with it. The resolution and reliability of

the scan are more superior than the Polaroid Sprintscan, and the Nikon

LS4500AF.

Ciprian A. Almonte

Rochester Institute of Technology

Biomedical Photographic Communications

Rochester, NY 14623-5603

Visit my web site at http://www.isc.rit.edu/~caa3045/

caa3045@ritvax.isc.rit.edu

OK, I'll jump in the middle of this. We have a digital camera also. We

have one of the referenced Film Scanners as well as three 35mm film

scanners. We also have flatbed scanners.

The bit depth,cost,dpi optical resolution, versatility and ease of use

of any of our scanners and others on the market outweigh any scan line

issues as well as the expense of getting the equivalent resolution and

bit depth of scanners.

John D. Warren

Southern Sales Manager "see what develops"

Digital Photographic Imaging Group

Polaroid Corporation

4525 Leonard Parkway

Richmond, Virginia 23221-1809

Office 804.254.1011

Fax 804.254.1013

Internet warrenj1@polaroid.com

To those who requested a summary of the responses to my post regarding a

comparison of the Nikon, Polaroid, and LeafScan 4x5 negative scanners, I

have attached all relevant responses to my post.

Since we will be pushing the limits in scanning TEM negatives for

quantification purposes, we have decided to purchase the LeafScan 45 since

it has the highest optical resolution and largest dynamic range.

In some of my discussions with others off the 'net', I was frequently told

that the Nikon is wrought with problems. A dealer told me that about 50% of

them are sent back to the manufacturer because they didn't work after

delivery. Nikon has supposedly stopped shipping the 4500AF and has begun to

redesign a new model. Polaroid has better reliability, but the dealer told

me that they are also coming out with a new model soon (how soon? he didn't

say). Keep in mind that the dealer that I spoke with about the Nikon and

Polaroid also sells the LeafScan and he may have simply been bad-mouthing

the Nikon and Polaroid in hopes of making a bigger sale.

I hope this helps.