Minolta Dimage Elite II Vs Nikon LS4000 ED which is better?

Hi friends

 

1) Minolta has Dynamic Range of 4.8 and Nikon has only 4.2. Does

this mean Minolta will have

better shadow details? Or is there any other deciding factor?

 

2) Is Dynamic range a mechanical thing in the scanner or digial

factor?

 

3) With my Nikon LS-30, if the slide is slightly under exposed, it

won't work at all.

Allmost impossible to get something out of it. I guess the

dynamic range is only 3.2

With 4.8 dynamic range will I get better result? Or is that a

problem with all under

exposed films. They look fine in a projector.

 

4) Is there any other deciding factor for quality? Accornding to

Imaging-resources.com reviews

Nikon LS4000 is the only desktop scanner that professionals can

use. They didn't say anything

bad about Minolta dual elite II. Then what other factor will be

there? I know Nikon is 4000 dpi

which will give me bigger file.

 

 

Thanks a lot

I can only answer the first part and even that I'm not

entirely sure about, so I hope one of the experts here

will correct this if it's wrong.

 

I believe that a dynamic range spec of 4.8 should be

dismissed as though they didn't publish any dynamic

range spec whatsoever. 4.8 is the log of 65536

(2 to the 16) which just means it's the theoretical

difference between the brightest and darkest values

that are possible to express using a 16-bit binary

number. Just because the numbers are big enough to

express that much information does not mean the

hardware is capable of obtaining all of that from

the film or that it's good information rather than

noise. They're not telling you what their scanner

can do at all. They're really just telling you that

it has 16-bit outputs.

 

In my line of work, we call this "specmanship" in

order to avoid the big L word.

The Dmax figures are little more than blowing smoke. Ignore them and don't let yourself be confused. What matters more is experience with these scanners. Shadow detail with both of these is quite good. However you're spending more than 2x as much for the Nikon over the Minolta. If you want 4000dpi, fairly good shadow detail and incredible sharpness I would suggest you consider the Canon FS4000US. In most ways it is the equal to the Nikon, and if you're scanning old mounted slides, the canon will me much better with warped slides due to its greater DOF.

 

Dynamic range is a product of the scanning system.

Joseph,

 

have you looked at the Canon FS4000US ?

 

Carsten

 

http://www.cabophoto.com/

Thanks Sam,Carl and Carsten.

Wow, what Sam said went on top of my head. I forgot all my mathematics

I've learned in school allmost 13 years back.:)

So from what you are saying 4.2 is the log of 2 to the 14. Right?

Then there should be a difference in the scanning also. But from

imaging-resources review page's ample pictures you cannot see that kind of

difference. That means the hardware may not be really capable of 4.8

I have read good reviews about the Minolta. That's whY I'm considering

this.

 

I know Size also matters. Like Carl said I just wanted to make sure

we will get the difference of double the money if I buy Nikon.

I haven't heard a lot good things about Canon except the size.

imaging-resources.com scanned the same slide with most of the desktop scanners

here. If they didn't play much and that's what you can get from these

scanners then Canon is not so good in color and shadow details.

 

Carsten, did you use to scan your pictures in your web site? The pictures are

excellent!

 

Please see these. See the "Musicians II" sample picture scanned with all these

scanners. Minolta and Nikon are good in shadow details. Canon is not so good.

Even Nikon Coolscan IV is better than Canon. I'm not sure that they didn't make

any mistake

 

http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN1.HTM

 

From these reviews I feel like if it's not Minolta, it should be Nikon.

Because now the difference between canon and Nikon are only 200 dollars.<div></div>

Jemini,

 

I think you are on the right track in focusing on dynamic range. However, everyone will tell you that the number printed on the box is misleading for a variety of reasons (which the others have explained well). Unfortunately, the only way you can be sure how a scanner performs is to try it yourself.

 

A couple of weeks ago I was deciding between the same scanners you are looking at. I ended up going with Canon FS4000US, but I was disappointed with it and returned it a couple of days later. I can't tell you whether the others are better, but I was not happy with the shadow details that it produced. This was a big deal to me, since most of my good slides contain a lot of subtle shadows.

 

A number of people on photo.net were very helpful and recommended that I use a third-party scanning software called Vuescan, which apparently is very popular with people who know better. I did try it, but in the end I decided I would wait for the next generation of film scanners that are able to produce truer scans without too much fiddling.

 

The moral of the story is you should be aware that, right now, the process of getting scans out of your slides is an art, completely separate and apart from the art of taking pictures. Unless you're prepared to devote a lot of time to it, you're likely to be disappointed.

 

Some of the better scans I was able to produce with the Canon are posted here on photo.net. If you want the specifics, here are the pluses:

 

4000dpi

 

both USB 1.1 and SCSI ports

 

includes an APS adapter, which the others charge a lot for

 

excellent auto focus (people say that Nikon has a problem with this on slightly warped mounted slides)

 

good dust and scratch reduction

 

On the negative side:

 

it was very slow with USB, and people say not much faster with SCSI

 

4000dpi is not as useful as you may think. it usually doesn't give you better scans, just bigger ones (which is good for enlargements and not much else). It also is VERY slow and makes huge files.

 

As I said before, I was not happy with its rendition of subtle details in the shadows.

 

Btw, a comment on the quote from Imaging-resources.com: I would not trust anyone who says that X Scanner is the only desktop scanner that professionals can use.

Hi Naji

 

Thanks for the input in right time. You know why? I saw couple of Canon FS4000US condition 10 ( I believe it�s refurbished) in B&H. It�s only 650. I was thinking about it seriously. Now I know why they are so cheap. Yeah, I know 4000dpi matters only for enlargements. I can go up to 16X20 with 2900dpi if I print it at 150dpi. I�m not sure what dpi most of the professional labs printing these pictures. So even if 4000dpi is an attraction that way, quality is higher priority for me since I�ll be printing most of my pictures at 8X12 size. Using my old LS-30 scanner shadow details are really bad. Because of the same reason I cannot scan or print a lot of my pictures. Some of the pictures look better when it�s slightly under exposed. Most of the skyline pictures are useless now. They look nice with projector.

 

I know probably I won�t get what I�m looking for. I�ve noticed that not many Nikon 4000ED is coming in ebay. Even if they come, they are not very cheap. I believe this is an indication that this is a very good scanner. I haven�t seen any Minolta at all. I know it�s fairly new scanner and may be bit early to get into eBay. Still it�s around 8 months since this is been out. If it was a bad scanner this is enough time for people to get rid of it.

 

Again if I really wanted to see how it�s like, I may have to buy it and try it. I think B&H won�t take the software back. Does that mean we cannot return scanner if we open the software?

 

Can you please tell me where did you buy the Canon and return it?

 

Thanks again

Jemini, Check your e-mail, and happy scanning!

The resolution needed for output varies on the system. Inkjets are good with 300dpi files, and some of the optical systems require 200dpi. <br><bR>

 

I've used extensively for over a year the: Nikon 4000, 8000 and IV, Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II, Dual II, Multi Pro (4800dpi scanner), various flextights and flatbeds, Canon 2710 and 2720 and the Acers (such as the 2740). So in general I consider myself in a pretty good position to judge the relative quality of each based on my experience.

<br><br>

You're right in considering the Nikon 4000 for its fairly quick scan times, good shadow detail and bulk loading ability if you ever needed it. However it is horrendous for running mounted slides that have warped as it has very little DOF. ICE on this scanner can soften images from very little to quite a bit. The negative feeder can sometimes cause disasters and needs to be taken care of.

<br><br>

The Minolta Elite II is a nice unit in its own respect. I don't find it as sharp as the Canon or Nikon 4000 units (not talking spatial resolution), but shadow detail is pretty good with this too. I wouldn't say its any better than the Nikon.

<br><br>

The Canon, which I happen to own and use a lot is the sharpest desktop scanner I've ever used. It isn't fast, however with SCSI it can catch up to the Nikon 4000 on some systems. It's quality is very good with tremendously accurate color. Shadow detail is sometimes behind that of the Nikon and a little behind the Minolta. However with proper scanning techniques and tweaking Vuescan, it can be made to pull out as much as is worth obtaining. Ultimately if this scanner can't pull it out you did a poor job of exposing your film most likely. This is true with many desktop CCD scanners. If your film isn't very well exposed they'll have trouble with it. With properly exposed negatives I wouldn't turn back from the Canon. <br><Br>

 

So which is best for you? Depends on your needs and how well you control exposure. Tricky negs can be scanned with the FS4000, it just takes practice. I've got a general overview of the Canon and Nikon scanners, mostly focusing on the Nikon 4000 in comparison to the Canon 4000 <a href="http://www.rit.edu/~cgs2794/comparison.htm">here</a>.

"The Dmax figures are little more than blowing smoke".

 

Yesss, because of signal bleed between CCD cells or signal bleed between the adjacent sensor cells!

 

Use a top quality 50mm prime lens and take a 35mm color slide of an object like a white car or a car with a large white area. Arrange the shot so the the background around the car is much darker. Develope the slide and check it with a loupe to insure there is no visible flare in the slide. Then have the slide scanned to a TIFF file using each of the scanners you are considering. Look for a "halo" towards the edge of the TIFF image, around the bright areas. THEN you will see! THEN you will understand! THEN you will know!

Charles

Thanks for the response. But can you please tell me which will be better in this case? I'm not much curious about Canon right now. Do you have any idea about Minolta or Nikon?

 

Carl,

Thanks for the comments. Still I'm scared of Canon. I remember I read bad about Canon comparing Nikon and it was written by a Canon person.

I'm not sure why. Might be because he doesn't know how to use it.

If B&H allow me to return it if I don't like it then I may get one and see myself...

Amongst other things Charles. Sounds like you've had experience with bleed problems? ;) The only scanners I've ever really seen that problem (and I've heard of other people having this problem) is the Nikon 4000 bleeding in harsh contrast lines. To some extent I've seen the Coolscan IV do it too. That amongst a few other things have been bummers for the Coolscan 4000. No scanner is perfect, it's all about compromises. Drum scanners aren't perfect either, look at all that messy oil and calibration they need. And they're big!

Carl,

 

Yes, I use VueScan to scan E100S slides, save 110 meg files in Ektaspace, and convert in PhotoShop to Adobe RGB space for cropping, touch up, and final sharpening. I get smooth, glowing, detailed, three-dimensional, luscious images....but with enough bleeding so that it is not worth the effort for many slides. The Nikon 4000 is truly a great machine, except it is absolutely crying for a better sensor, IMHO.

 

Cheers,

 

Charlie

Ooops, i realive my grammatical err in my previous post. :)

 

Yeah, I agree with you Chris. A better sensor would improve things drastically. I also believe a redesign of their scanning path could yield improved DOF and make the scanner more effective for warped film. I would also rather see it with traditional film "trays" like the Nikon 8000, Canon scanners and the Minoltas.

Talking about VueScan.. It's much better than Nikon scan in most of the cases.

But the red is not so good. And sometimes evening pictures comes real bad.

With Nikon all the pictures are eually good or equally bad. But VueScan sometimes

it's really good and sometime it's not even acceptable. So I use VueScan 90% of the

time and Nikon 10% of the time.. Good thing is VueScan support all these scanners.

This is very interesting. Carl, can you tell us more about your experience with the scanners. Can you rate them in terms of dynamic range alone? Is there any hope of getting a significant increase in dynamic range over the next 6-12 months? I am jealous of all those people with consumer digital cameras getting better-looking images on the screen.

 

You mentioned that the Nikon 4000 has a non-traditional film holder. How so? Is focus a huge problem with this scanner on mounted slides?

 

Finally, your comment on the scanners having an easier time with "properly" exposed negatives is consistent with the little bit of experience I had with the Canon 4000. When I scanned negatives that were done with a P&S camera, there was no problem at all. As you know, P&S in automatic mode give "proper" exposure, in that every millimeter will be nice and bright.

 

But the scanner did not handle the hand-metered chromes nearly as well. I don't like calling them "improperly" exposed. They have the moody look I want, both on the light table and when I get Cibachromes and R-prints made.

Naji

I agree with you. I would like to get that moody look. I belive there's nothing like properly exposed. Sometimes we need over exposing and under exposing. I would like to get those details...

The best desktop scanner I've used in terms of Dmax and Drange is definately the flextights. Of the more "traditional" desktop scanners, the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro (4800dpi for 35mm) is probably one of the best. However I don't much care for their software. Many of the other Minoltas are similarly excellent. The Nikon 8000 is good, however you have to use most of them in Super Fine Scan mode because of sensor manufacture errors to avoid the horrendous banding problem they're known for. The Nikon 4000 and IV are also very good, and so are several of the higher end Polaroid scanners.

 

The Canon FS4000 has been the biggest question mark, however it is not far off from the Nikon 4000 in useful detail. It does a very good job with well exposed film as you know, but for dense slides, you need to use Vuescan for the best control and you can use lock exposure along with a few other tools.

 

For mounted slides, unless you use a bulk loader (which doesn't help with warped film) you can only load one mounted slide at a time. This is annoying but since I don't mount my slides often, it's not a very big problem. Their flim strip holder includes an option for a flimsy thing to use for holding film flat, the other option is the strip loader which can handle a strip up to 6 frames long. It works well most of the time and holds film flat, however it does run the risk of eating film and I've had this happen a couple of times with perfectly flat and uncurled film. The Canons, Minoltas and Nikon 8000 basically all use hard plastic trays to hold strips of films and several mounted slides. It isn't a huge problem but I prefer the trays to the holders for the Nikon 4000.

Carl,

 

As far as I can tell, the situation with LS 4000 scanners is very complex. Their optical depth of field is very shallow, probably since they must keep the infrared channel in focus too. Since autofocus for LS 4000 scanners is very critical, they use a collimated light source to highlight the grain, so the autofocus will have something to focus on when there is no image detail. Then they offer GEM to reduce the grain, although GEM processing is slow and does not work equally well for all emulsions. So depending on the emulsion being used, the LS 4000 will give quite different results in terms of the way grain appears in the final image.

 

Also, in my experience, all scratch and dirt removal methods based on software use of the infrared channel worsen the dynamic range of, or similarly degrade, the digital image. I don't know if this is true only with LS 4000 scanners, or with some of the others too. But there seems to be some sort of exclusion principle, such that an image can have good dynamic range with no automatic defect removal applied, OR it can have a fair dynamic range with strong automatic defect removal applied. But the collimated light source used in LS 4000 scanners seems to "pop" dirt and scratches as much as it highlights grain, so a heavier amount of defect removal is needed. I am dissapointed in LS4000 images when ICE is used.

 

In summary and in essence, I am agreeing that a less expensive scanner than the LS 4000 could provide very desirable performance too. And I am hinting that if the time it take to pass through GEM software is included, the LS 4000 is actually a slower scanner than one which does not need GEM. Also I suspect that the scanners which use a diffuse light source would not rely on software defect removal as heavily as the LS 4000, and therefor their effective "DMAX" figures would tend to be nearly the same.

Carl,

 

Perhaps we can help the Nikon (or any) scanner designers out a little bit?

 

On their next models, we want a collimated IR illumination source to perform defect and dirt detection. But we want a diffuse RGB source to keep the scanner from "popping" all the nasty grain, dirt, and defects into the visible image channels. DUH!

 

Also, we want an improved depth of field so the autofocus isn't as critical and so it doesn't depend on collimated light. Actually, some moderately-priced scanners seem to have this feature already, don't they?

 

Also, cut a deal with Hamrick to include at the very least some of his algorithms for color management. And be sure to allow saving TIFF file images in Ektaspace. Retain the "egg hunt" user interface if you must, but also include a truly professional user interface in the box.

 

Oh yeah, an even better sensor, perhaps using hybrid technology, would be a very nice, even if high-priced, option.

 

So, am I just a dreamer, or will competition get evem more improvements off the shelf and into the hands of consumers? I believe there is plenty of technical room for improvements in desktop scanners. As always, it will be a challenge for all of us to not be hypnotized by marketing sophistry to the point where development of further improvements is abandoned.

Amen Charles. Think they're reading? I had over a years use of the Nikon 4000 before I bought a Canon 4000. And I've never looked back. It's too bad though, but flaws are flaws, and while no scanner is perfect, the Canon did more for my needs.

Thanks a lot guys. I've got a lot of responses. Much more than expected. I can see the Canon is equally respected. Now I'm in Newyork. I've visited B&H yesterday and talked to one of the salesperson. He told me for Minolta the optical Dynamic range is only 4.2 (what ever that means). You will get 4.8 when you do 16 bit scan which is a sadwich of mutiple scans. This explains why Minolta scan is not better than Nikon. I think the quality is relative. I may have to test myself to know if this is what I want. B&H told me I can return it within 7 days if I don't like it. That's a good news too. So I may get it and try it. I can do a comparison scan between Minolta and Nikon LS-30 (dynamic range is 3.2) I'll post couple of images here. That may help some of us.

 

Thanks again

You probably won't be able to return it if you've opened the software. I believe that's illegal. :)

 

I'm not sure what the guy at B&H said. Doesn't make sense from where I'm sitting. In fact a true Dmax of 4.2 is awfully high, but it also doesn't speak anything for the Drange (how wide a range of density the scanner can actually see usefully). The Minolta is most likely in the mid 3.something for an actual Dmax. As are most desktop scanners. Scanners with the ability for multi scannning or sampling can help. For every two scans you're supposed to be able to gain 1 more bit of useful data, for 4 scans you gain 2. It really doesn't work out that nicely and sometimes it doesn't seem to make a difference. Regardless, multiscanning and multisampling are ways to stretch a scanner for tough pieces of film. Vuescan allows you to do this with some scanners that weren't intended to, although generally any scanner with ICE (or FARE) should be well suited since they have to scan more than once anyway.

Carl

Thanks for the comment. I heard the same thing about returning software. That's why I specifically

asked him about the return policy if the software is opened. If he says OK and I remove the softare

from my machine it should be OK I guess. I have no reason to keep the drivers on my computer if I

don't have the scanner. If this is a real legal problem then how can we sell used scanners with the

software? Anyway it's a difference issue.

 

I'm really confused about the DMax again. from what you said the Dmax will be somewhere mid 3.

I happened to see an article about Dmax in digital cameras and scanners. That guy also said the

Dmax is somewhere near to 3.5 He mentioned the Dmax for a slide is 3.5 and that of a negative

is below that. (what ever that means). So what's the reality? Which one is the best?

 

VueScan allows me to do multiscan using my ls-30 scanner. I couldn't see any difference in the image

quality except it took half an hour to finish 6 scans. Now the biggest problem I'm facing is the

ICE. Some of my slides are scratched. I couldn't see any usefull tips to do the ICE. Nikon softare

allows this and the results are amazing. Is this something to do with the scanner or just software?