Digital BW, The Print

> 
> Is the Nikon 4000 state of the art?  Anything cheaper?  Essentially what
> you're saying, as I understand it, is that for considerably less than two
> grand I can the best setup available for 35mm lightroom work.  (I shoot
> Leica and Contax, and have been known to use a tripod.)
> 
> Sorry for these neophytic questions...
> 
> 
> 
> Douglas Cooper
> www.dysmedia.com

Douglas,
To my knowledge the specs of the Nikon 4000, et al have not been topped yet
in a 35mm standalone. There is a Microtek Artixscan(?) that is similar, as
well as a Polaroid. Not sure if those have Digital ICE though, which to me
is a big plus for color or the C41 black & white films. See the archives
from a couple months back for a more detailed discussion of these scanners.

I've been very pleased with my Nikon in almost 2 years of use now. That's
not to say that everything is perfect right out of the box, but with a
little practice you can get quite a lot out of the scanner. While drum scans
are technically "better", 99% of the time I find them a lot of money for a
very small improvement that is IMO not worth it. Put it this way--if I get a
bad print these days, I can't blame it on the scan. ;-)

Doug