G
guyg
Noel,
I am also looking at the 3200 as a proofing scanner. For scanning to produce high quality prints I use either an Imacon or a drum scanner. I don't want to spend $2500+ for a proofing scanner but $400 for the Epson might be worth it to "see" what I've got in my images. In regards to my comment about the 8000 untouched, I mean a raw scan with no adjustments and no sharpening. I do all that in PS. So the 3200 scan after I sharpen it is about as good (so far) as a scan on the 8000 before I sharpen it. Nikon would have done something really wrong if their 8000 wasn't better than a $400 flatbed scanner. For proofing I don't need the extra quality.
Guy
I am also looking at the 3200 as a proofing scanner. For scanning to produce high quality prints I use either an Imacon or a drum scanner. I don't want to spend $2500+ for a proofing scanner but $400 for the Epson might be worth it to "see" what I've got in my images. In regards to my comment about the 8000 untouched, I mean a raw scan with no adjustments and no sharpening. I do all that in PS. So the 3200 scan after I sharpen it is about as good (so far) as a scan on the 8000 before I sharpen it. Nikon would have done something really wrong if their 8000 wasn't better than a $400 flatbed scanner. For proofing I don't need the extra quality.
Guy