Hi,
The article discusses the limitation of this testing. See it as something intended for folks using this class of equipment.
Regarding the scanner the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro is not identical or similar to the Polaroid scanner you mention. To begin with it has almost twice the resolution 4800 PPI vs. 2500 PPI. A lot of optical deficiencies of the Pentax lenses show up in my scans, even at 3200 PPI, lateral chromatic aberration is most prominent. So I cannot agree on the scanner being an
obvious limitation. I also made pretty much perfect 70x100 cm prints on Durst Lambda from my scans.
The article you refer to uses 2400 PPI resolution, so that's about half of what I have. There has been three scanners in the same group as the Minolta, the Polaroid Sprint Scan 120, the Nikon Coolscan 9000 and the Minolta. All of these wre CCD based MF scanners. The article you refer to does not list any of them, probably because neither of these scanners can handle largeer than 120 format film.
The major issue with the Minolta scanner, in my humble view, is that it is nowhere near it's theoretical DMAX of 4.8, it's probably closer to 3.5. The images I show here are pretty much enlarged, if we assume that your monitor resolution is about 100 PPI, the image you see would be something like 120" that is about three meter wide, did you ever enlarge to that size?
Yes, drum scanners using photomultiplier tubes would probably have better D-MAX and possibly better resolution. Finding a capable lab may however not beeing easy. Also, I made about 20 scans for the article. Would I find a good lab doing drum-scans at 100 USD each just this test would put me back something like 2000 USD, about 60% of the cost of my Alpha 900 DSLR.
This article has some very good comparisons:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml , it is from 2006, so it does not cover the latest generation of DSLRs or MFDBs, and it includes 6x4.5cm and 4x5" Velvia but not 6x7 cm. This is part of the reason I made this test (the dollar note is about the same scale as in that test). The reason I made this test is mostly that I have both equipments.
I have no argument pro or contra film vs. digital just presenting my experience. For that reason I'm not referring to other articles.
Best regards
Erik
Unfortunately your comparison is as much about the scanner and your scanning skills as the Pentax camera. The scanner is such a huge part of this that it becomes the deciding factor. Look at this comparison of scanners. It is not perfect but it is the only scanner comparison out there. Scanner Comparison. If I remember correctly the Minolta and the Polaroid are the same scanner? The best scans can't pull everything out of a transparency but to truly do justice to the Pentax you would have to get a first class drum scan (not an Imacon scan). For example I could do a similar test with my Hassleblad and my Canon 5D2 scanning the film on an Epson 750 and an Imacon, but I know that neither of these scans are the best so the scan would make the Pentax look worse than it could. So my comparison would be limited by my available scanner and not a valid comparison to anyone else unless they scanned the film on the same scanner with similar scanning expertise.