Although many of us use digital regularly, an awful lot of us still like using film as well. There are others who really don't want a Nikon D600. I know $2,000 sounds like a lot of money for a scanner, if you think about it, it really is not that much. A lot of people have far more than that invested in their digital (or film) equipment and lenses. They are certainly a lot more fun, and a whole lot sexier than a scanner, but a top notch film scanner is just as important to those of us who want continue shooting film.
I just received some developed color film back from my lab, and I asked them to scan it for me. The scanning cost me a little over $100 and I didn't ask for the high quality scans. Being able to reliably do that at home is worth a fair amount to me. If I have the lab do that much scanning for me in a year that comes to $1,200 dollars in a year. At that rate I could have this scanner paid off within two years. After that it is only the cost of electricity (and memory). That is a relatively decent return on investment.
Now I shoot a lot of 35mm and medium format film. I like the fact that I can digitize these images but have the back up of a negative if I suffer some glitch with my computer. I also like printing color on an inkjet printer. So this was a very good investment for me if it works as advertised. For others this will not be a good deal. Maybe they shoot more large format, or maybe their lab scanning costs are not as high as mine have been, or maybe they just prefer printing in a darkroom.
But if this scanner does exactly what it says it will do, in my own humble opinion it is certainly worth every penny to me. As I said, everyone else will have to look at it and make their own decisions. But I do think it is a bit amusing that it seems OK to pay $2,000 for a new camera, $500 to $1,500 more for a couple of new lenses (or a hell of a lot more), but not be OK to pay $2,000 for a scanner that will provide an equal level of digital quality for all your 35mm and medium format negatives.
