home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.sys.amiga.graphics:5677 comp.sys.amiga.hardware:14335
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!mips!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!udel!sbcs.sunysb.edu!csws2.ic.sunysb.edu!mrubino
- From: mrubino@csws2.ic.sunysb.edu (Michael N Rubino)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.graphics,comp.sys.amiga.hardware
- Subject: Re: Scanners
- Message-ID: <1992Aug20.215505.28401@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: 20 Aug 92 21:55:05 GMT
- References: <1992Aug17.172149.8267@CERIS.Purdue.EDU> <64320@cup.portal.com>
- Sender: usenet@sbcs.sunysb.edu (Usenet poster)
- Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
- Lines: 24
- Nntp-Posting-Host: csws2.ic.sunysb.edu
-
- In article <64320@cup.portal.com> pk-asdg@cup.portal.com (Perry S Kivolowitz) writes:
- >
- >The JX 320 costs more than the EPSON ES300C - but gives you more.
- >If you are driven by cost, the EPSON is an excellent value. If
- >you can afford more, the Sharp is an excellent scanner. Note that
- >the Sharp will require Pro ScanLab II (now listing at $495) to
- >provide the hardware connection to the scanner. The EPSON
- >interface costs less as it is software (well, we do include a
- >special cable) only.
- >
- >Both are supported by ADPro.
-
-
- What advantages does the Sharp have over the Epson? I played with the Sharp
- for a few minutes today and have been using the Phovos 300C (Epson clone) for
- quite some time. My brief encounter with the Sharp left me unimpressed. I
- didn't have time to do any head-to-head comparisons, but I'm sure Perry has.
- So how do they compare on speed, image quality, build quality, etc.
-
- --
-
- - Mike
- mrubino%csws1.ic.sunysb.edu@sunysb.edu <--- use this address for email.
-
-