Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 II

Discussion in 'Digital Darkroom' started by jack paradise, Feb 20, 2005.

  1. Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 II

  2. "The Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 II not only offers 42.2 Megapixel resolution by adopting a high performance 5400 dpi 3-line color CCD" ... so it uses the same technology as in Nikon Coolscan. Curious to see how it will perform on b&w scanning...
  3. Having owned the Nikon Coolscan V, I can say that this scanner is excellent with b&w negatives. I've made prints to 15"x22" from Ilford FP4+.

    But, as with all things, you learn to shoot and develop film for scanning. Overexposed and overdevelopped film makes for poor scanned images. Underexpose and underdevelop a bit will work best for scanning.
  4. Sorry, last sentence should have read: use a lower iso speed and underdevelop. Scanners like lower contrast images.
  5. The next important question to be answered is this: how well does the new 5400 II perform with Kodachrome --- better, worse, or about the same as its predecessor?

    My Nikon Coolscan 5000 does very well with the latest E-6 and color negative films in the ISO 100 range, but my historical Kodachromes require a lot of tweaking and post-scanning cleanup work.

    If the new 5400 II performs as well or better with Kodachrome as does the previous model, then it is time to add a Minolta scanner to complement my Nikon. (And to complement my collection of 1960s Minolta SRT-101 cameras, too. Which are still my workhorse cameras.)
  6. og


    "...a high performance 5400 dpi 3-line color CCD": so it uses the same technology as in Nikon Coolscan.
    Where does this conclusion come from? Minolta Scanners use Cold cathode fluorescent lamp + 3 lines CCD (for Red, Green, Blue) whereas Nikon Scanners use Several Leds (Red, Green, Blue, IR) with one or more CCD lines depending on the model. There is absolutely no hint of any change from previous Minolta scanners on this topic.
    The one thing I noticed here, though, is the absence of "Grain Dissolver" in the text... Strange.
  7. "25 seconds per frame" - is that on full resolution ? Are they telling us the full story ?

    If it is correct then I will kick myself as I only just bought Mk.1 !
  8. I check here:


    New white led light source and no mention of grain dissolver. Would still be better for b&w? Need to wait for the first test.

  9. Looks good, but it appears that they have dropped IEEE 1394 connection.
  10. "25 seconds per frame" - is that on full resolution ?
    I suppose 25seconds/frame should be compared with the 5400 I's 60 seconds/frame (16bit no ICE 117Mb) - i.e. the II is supposedly about two times faster and with a bit higher resolution.
    The hardware data seems to be the same between the two devices, except maybe "white led" vs. "fluorescent lamp" and 40 more pixels per line giving 5328x7920 vs. 5232x7800.
    The computed dynamic range seems to be the same 4.8, so I'm interested to find out about the actual.
  11. Concerning the grain dissolver:
    The 'old' 5400 has Digital ICE (NOT ICE3) and it has the mechanical grain dissolver to 'dissolve' the film grain.
    The 5400-II, however, has ICE4 which includes GEM to handle film grain.
    So the grain dissolver is probably gone: partly because of this, the scan times are faster.

    And as for dynamic range 4.8: that doesn't mean anything because this '4.8' is a theoretical value, directly related to the 16 bits of the AD converter.
    What is important is the 'measured' or 'tested' dynamic range, which for the 'old' 5400 was specified by Minolta to be 3.8 - see this comparison table http://www.minoltaeurope.com/pe/digital/comparison/v_scan_e.htm
    We have to wait and see which 'measured' value turns up for the 5400-II.

    So, as for the major differences between the 5400 and the 5400-II (just from reading the specs):
    - ICE plus GrainDissolver has been replaced by ICE4
    - Light source: "Cold cathode fluorescent" has been replaced by "White LED"
    - IEEE1394 / Firewire appears to be gone
    - the 5400-II has much faster and combined Index-plus-Preview-scan
    - the 5400-II has approx. 2x faster final scan
    (see http://konicaminolta.com/products/consumer/digital_camera/dimage/dimagescan-elite5400-2/02.html
  12. There was mention at the Europe site that you can use custom ICC profiles, which will make it very attractive for Velvia users...
  13. "....So, as for the major differences between the 5400 and the 5400-II (just from reading the specs):
    - Light source: "Cold cathode fluorescent" has been replaced by "White LED"...."

    Look at this thread for info regarding light source affecting b & w scanning http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AKZC

    The "old" Minolta scanner is supposed to be the best choice for B & W film scanning due to Minolta's fluorescent light source!

    I hope the new scanner performs well with B & W!
  14. When we are supposed to read the first full reviews ?
  15. Also the algorithms for scanning are supposed to be on par with what is used in color
    mini-lab type of gear for better colors reproduction.
  16. Forgot to mention that 100% negative frame scanning is supposed to be possible.
  17. Does anyone have a clue how the image quality on B&W films will compare with the older Canon FS4000US? Speed issues and specifications aside, is the Minolta unit capable of superior results?
  18. I found a place that sells them. Granted, I've never done business with this site and not sure where they are. I'm waiting for full reviews.

  19. The minolta scan elite 5400 II is also available at adorama

  20. I bought the 5400 II for $620 tonight. I went to a camera show in quincy, MA brought together by a campany called Camera company. Ck out there site "Cameraco.com". It was a show where they brought all there venders together. I think they gave me this price since I bought a 35mm 1.4g lens and the 5600d flash. Once I get it up and running I will let you know. I don't have anything to campare it to.
  21. So how is it? Did you try any b&w negatives?

Share This Page