There's no way to know unless you do a s/n test/assesment of
the individual scanner. Most manufacturers base Dmax on bit
depth, which is unrealistic. MY guess is it's 3.0 or less
(probably closer to 2.8.)

Not really. But scanners are electronic with
inherent noise.

At that price not going to give 48 bits or 4+ Dmax..

A scanner that does a 4.0 Dmax costs _thousands_ $$$
because _all_ components are high end, not just one or
two.

Just out of curiosity, what would the *real* d-max be - based on
signal/noise ratio (guess)?  So scanner D-Max is a different thing than
the D-Max we use in darkroom arts?  Also...  I think this scanner is
considered a middle-weight scanner (it's in the $600 range).  Cnet gave
it a really good review. (one of the main reasons we're considering it
was what they had to say about it)

Here's microtek's page on it if you're curious.  You might be able to
gain more info from the specs than me:
http://www.microtekusa.com/smi900.html

I apologize for the multiple replies. Just wasn't
thorough enough. The claim of a 4.2 D-max is likely
based on the claim of the bit depth. Truth/reality
is, the Dmax is _pragmatically_ always based on the
signal to noise ratio of the scanner, not the bit depth.
And as I say, no CCD flat bed can achieve a 4.2 Dmax
and no inexpensive flat bed can process 48 bits.

You can't afford $200? I saw a speedmaster on ebay...

Problems: 1. calibration; 2. signal to noise ratio;
3. negative densities are not linear. Densitometers
are not like scanners and software. You never need
to upgrade and if you have/can afford a scanner and
computer you can afford a visual densitometer...

No such thing as a 48 bit scanner. And certainly no
flat bed or CCD scanner can achieve a 4.2 D-max. 4.2
is in fact, ludicrous. 4.0 is a max density, and only
a drum scanner can do that. Don't fall prey to
marketing hype RE scanners.

The _quality_ of a scanner is measurable by it's _price_.
I never saw a microtech scanner that could come close to
a quality flat bed scanner, let alone a drum scanner.
Cheap scanners have ceap components. Even if you somehow
have 48 bits, the other cheap components can't handle it...

I've been reading about the zone system and I'd like to start
experimenting with it... the only problem is I can't afford a
densitometer to do my calibrations.  Is there point in trying to use
the zone system without calibrating?  What about using a scanner as a
densitometer?  We are thinking about getting a microtek scanmaker i900
where I work - which boasts 48 bit / 4.2 max density.  So I would have
access to that, but I don't know much about the technicals of scanners
- if 4.2 is good enough or not.  I think it would work for negative
scans since there is no glass, but I'm not sure about scanning prints.

Also, I shoot purely roll film right now...  can I just substitute
development adjustments with contrast filters?  Or does it not work
that way?