I wrote a review of the Pacific Image XA for 35mmC
- Thread starter SaveKodak
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 47
- Views 8K
brennanphotoguy
Well-known
I see me.
10 characters.
10 characters.
Red Rock Bill
Well-known
good write up........would be interested in your opinion of the 2 1/4 scanner..thanks,Bill
SaveKodak
Well-known
I'm not sure I want to write a full review because of the time consuming nature of doing so, but I can tell you I really like the PF120. It's fast, easy, and produces great results with Vuescan. If you look at my website, many of the images were scanned that way, particularly in my portraits gallery: www.sperryphoto.com.
I use the same approach I outlined in my review of the PIXA. It's my 'enlarger', and when you work thoughtfully and with care, you get excellent results. More than a match for something like an Epson P800 anyway, and that's good enough for the price and most home users.
borge
Established
For the readers in Europe: This scanner is called Reflecta RPS 10 M here.
It's 100% the exact same scanner, just different branding, and a lot more expensive.
It's 100% the exact same scanner, just different branding, and a lot more expensive.
H
hamish_gill
Guest
A "review" is underselling it! It's a really insightful post! Thanks again Mark!!
Do you mind if I add a line about the reflector being the same scanner - you've had comments on the post, on here and I've even had 2 emails telling me so
Do you mind if I add a line about the reflector being the same scanner - you've had comments on the post, on here and I've even had 2 emails telling me so
stompyq
Well-known
nice review. Looks like a very good scanner and a viable replacement for the coolscans
SaveKodak
Well-known
Please do!
SaveKodak
Well-known
If you read my review you'd see that I specifically argued against relying on automation with this scanner. Treat it like an enlarger and you can set your own alignment every time, and get very high quality results. If you want perfect automation get a Nortisu or Frontier.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Two thumbs up on your enlarger analogy for work flow. - That's pretty much how I use my, knock on wood, Minolta Elite 5400.
Huss
Veteran
Nice review.
But I just don't have the time and patience to deal w/ scanning. I prefer to pay the $$ for dev and scans at the same time. No matter how hard I squint these consumer scans do not match the pro scanners.
And I have seen too many horror stories like the good Dr's above to make me want to reconsider.
Frankly I find it bizarre that new machines on the market cannot match up to discontinued ones from a decade ago.
But I just don't have the time and patience to deal w/ scanning. I prefer to pay the $$ for dev and scans at the same time. No matter how hard I squint these consumer scans do not match the pro scanners.
And I have seen too many horror stories like the good Dr's above to make me want to reconsider.
Frankly I find it bizarre that new machines on the market cannot match up to discontinued ones from a decade ago.
SaveKodak
Well-known
I'm not sure how manual alignment could be "****y" when all you do is quite literally look though a window at the film and use left/right buttons to center the frame. Are you wearing a blind fold?
SaveKodak
Well-known
Well obviously scanning is for people that have the time and patience. I would still refer back to my analogy about enlargers. They are quite difficult to use and require a lot of time and expertise to make sing. What you put into scanning relates directly to what you get out of it. I'm not sure what "pro" scanners you're referring to. I think I illustrated quite clearly that the XA outputs "pro" level results. Is there a specific problem with an image you could describe that a "pro" scanner would improve?
Mr. Fizzlesticks
Member
Just get a Nikon 4000. Ain't even close.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Nice write up/review.
An image of the actual device would be a good addition.
Seems odd to not include one... just sayin
An image of the actual device would be a good addition.
Seems odd to not include one... just sayin
SaveKodak
Well-known
As someone who has used the Coolscan V, 5000, & 9000 extensively, I can tell you that my scans are essentially indistinguishable when it comes to a finished product. Can you point out something specific that would be improved when it comes to the images I posted? I'll wait.
SaveKodak
Well-known
My office is just messy. It's something I'm working on.
Huss
Veteran
The images in the review seem so flat and almost hazy. Even the ones taken in bright sunlight. I know it's not the gear you are using - the Zeiss and Nikon lenses or the Fuji Superia film because I use that too. So the only thing it could be is the scanner.
I use, pay someone else to use actually!, the Noritsu and Frontier scanners and the results are knock out. It's worth every penny to me as I sell those images. One sale pays for an awful lot of pro dev and scanning!
It's not really a matter of patience for me, but time. I don't have time to photograph, try to get a worthwhile scan, then process and print. And everything I've seen suggests that the weak link - in time and results - are these consumer scanners.
As you have said, it requires a lot of time and expertise to make it sing. In this day and age frankly that is not acceptable. There is no reason whatsoever that a killer state of the art scanner cannot be made that is plug and play. The only reason we don't see it is because 'we' accept the limitations in frankly ancient hardware and software.
With film use and interest taking off again, perhaps someone like Nikon will step up to the plate and make a current version of the Coolscan. Or even a modern Pakon. If it was that capable back then, with film profiles built in that worked and that speed, imagine if that had modern computing power and bumped up resolution.
Mr. Fizzlesticks
Member
They say a scanner is only as good as the person operating it. So that explains a lot, since you got snooty.... Of course, the scanner could just have sucky color. Which is it? you or the scanner?
Ranchu
Veteran
Well, what the ****. Thanks for the review. Not sure why everybody has such a sandy vagina.
Similar threads
