Minolta 5400, Nikon Coolscan V or Coolscan 5000

[edith_beerdsen]

One more question about scanners. I'm looking for a film scanner and

I'm asking your advice. After some research, I have the following options:

<br><br>

<table>

<TR><TD> <b>Scanner</b> </TD><TD><b>Price</b></TD> <TD>

<b>Resolution</b> </TD><TD> <b>Dyn. range</b> </TD><TD> <b>bits</b>

</TD><TD> <b>speed</b> </TD><TD> <b>ICE?</b></TD></TR>

<TR> <TD> Minolta 5400 </TD> <TD> 740 Euros </TD> <TD> 5400 dpi </TD>

<TD> 4.8 </TD> <TD> 16 </TD><TD> slow </TD> <TD> ICE (?) </TD </TR>

<TR> <TD> Nikon Coolscan V </TD> <TD> 800 Euros </TD> <TD> 4000 dpi

</TD> <TD> 4.2 </TD> <TD> 14 </TD><TD> faster </TD> <TD>ICE4 </TD> </TR>

<TR> <TD> Nikon Coolscan 5000 </TD> <TD> 1300 Euros </TD> <TD> 4000

dpi </TD> <TD> 4.8 </TD> <TD> 16 </TD><TD> very fast </TD> <TD>ICE4

</TD> </TR>

</TABLE>

<b>considerations</b>

<ul>

<li>Both Nikon Coolscan 5000 and the Minolta scanner have a high

dynamic range and 16 bits, the Coolscan V doesn't. On the other hand,

I've read that the dynamic range is a very arbitrary number,

determined in a different way by each manufacturer, so that you cannot

really compare the Minolta scanner with the Nikons. <li>The Minolta

5400 has a higher resolution. On the other hand, 4000 dpi is fine for

most applications. <li>The Minolta scanner is slow and I have a LOT of

negatives and slides to scan.

<li>All three scanners have ICE software (I understand that this is

absolutely essential), but the Nikon scanners have ICE4, which is a

newer, and according to some people on this forum much better, version.

<li>Nikon's technology is supposed to be very good, about Minolta's I

don't know; there isn't a lot of information in their folder.

<li>Nikon Coolscan 5000 is very expensive and actually above my

budget; the other two are comparable in price.

</ul>

<br>

<b>In short</b><br>

All three scanners are probably very good, but each of them has its

own advantages and disadvantages. Who can give me advice? What should

be determining?

<br>

Thank you!

[marshall]

Actually, those dynamic range numbers are determined in a very specific way (the bit depth of the A-D converter chip); it just doesn't have any real relationship to the resulting scans, which are limited by the un-spec'ed range of the CCD.

[beau 1664876222]

The Minoltas are available all over the place and their price is going down. The Nikons are out of stock everywhere and almost impossible to get your hands on. What does that tell you?

[mendel_leisk]

Consider the film holders also. The Minolta can scan 4 slides unattended, whereas the Nikons require you to feed slides in one at a time.

 

I think the higher priced Nikon only will accept a very expensive slide batch loader, which holds up to 50 slides. Verify on Nikon site, or someone here may clarify.

 

The Minolta has film holders, whereas with the Nikon you feed bare strips in the front of the scanner. I've read of problems with frame alignment with this latter approach. The Nikons do come with a strip holder, but it is described as being for curved film. Again, someone here may clarify.

 

Personally, I'm used to Minolta holder (have Scan Dual II at present).

[edith_beerdsen]

True enough, Beau, but then again, red cars are popular, but does that make them any better than cars with a different color? I agree with you that there must be a reason why a lot of customers choose the Minolta scanner, but ther reason might well be 'paper'-specs (resolution, nr. of bits and certainly the price). Even if the specs are much better, if the Nikons make better scans, that's the scanner to choose!

[edith_beerdsen]

Mendel, yes it is true that the Minolta scanner can take 4 slides (or 6 negatives) at the same time, while in the Nikon you have to feed them one by one, unless you have the expensive extension ($500!) which lets you scan 50 slides in an automated way.

 

This is also a matter of consideration. On the other hand, the majority of my old photographs are negatives. Then again, currently I shoot only slide film, so in the future this might be of more importance.

[beau 1664876222]

Edith, I think you misunderstood my point. The Nikon is hard to find because it's the one most people want. That's called the market talking, and what the market's saying is, "the Nikon's better."

 

I went through this comparison a few months ago and the decision to get the Nikon was a no-brainer for me.

[mike_zallini]

The operator, film holders and scan software are all bigger factors than the small differences between these 3 scanners if speed is not your PRIMARY concern.

 

Before getting the Minolta 5400 I had a Kodak RFS3600 which most people consider a dog but I took the time to get good at scanning and I got great results from that scanner. In fact, there are a few scans that I made with the Kodak that I've re-done with the Minolta and I have a hard time making them look as good as the original Kodak scans.

 

Mike.

[robert goldstein]

Minolta claims that the 5400 has a *measured* dynamic range of 3.8. How this compares to the Nikons' is anybody's guess. I can only report that in my own experience, the 5400 is extremely good at revealing highlight and shadow detail. The fact that the Nikon scanners seem to be harder to find than the 5400 could merely reflect the facts that they are newer and that Nikon has much better brand recognition amongst consumers than Minolta.

 

The only drawback to the 5400, IMO, is its slow speed scanning negatives when ICE is engaged. With slides and 16bit linear mode, it is quite fast. Also, I find it hard to believe that ICE4 is a major improvement over ICE3, at least in terms of removing dust and scratches.

[joe4peace]

Edith,

 

I faced the same dilemma as you, which scanner. I bought the Minolta. Primarily because most reviews said that it did the best of many scanners as far as Kodachrome was concerned. This came from 3 weeks research. Also there were many raves from many people as to it's scan quality, but the choice between the 5000 and the Dimage for most reviewers was scanning speed. If you do a lot of scanning Nikon is the choice whereas if you want the best scan possible but at the cost of extra time then the Minolta would be the choice. As far as me and my 5400.---It's great.

[bobmichaels]

Allow me to pose a 4th alternative. A used scanner at 25% the price. Something like a Scan Dual II or III or an older Nikon.

 

Try a cheaper one, see if scanning is for you. Find out if just maybe those scans are really good enough. If you later decide you really need one of your chosen 3 models (which I doubt) they will probably have dropped in price by what you paid for the initial used one, so you're out nothing.

 

Personally, I love my $1,900 Minolta MultiPro which I need for MF. But do I end up with better prints using 35mm than the prints I got from scans with my old Scan Dual II? Not really. I paid $300 for the SD II several years ago and sold it for $125. But the MultiPro dropped in price by $1,200 during that time.

 

Many people buy very good 35mm scanners, don't use them much, then sell them for peanuts several years later. But they are still very good scanners. The trick is to benefit from their actions and not risk making their mistake. Are the newer models better? yes, but not by much. Not the difference in prime vs. zoom lenses for example. Or Zeiss or Leica glass vs. the rest of the world.

[grahams]

The primary reason people who have done their homework buy the Nikon instead of the Minolta 5400 is because of the Minolta driver software. It is prone to be "clunky" and is not custom written for the 5400, it is the same driver as written for the Scan Dual range, just modified. The Minolta 5400 becomes a dream to use with VueScan or Silverfast software, but that adds to the cost.

 

This is not a problem with the Nikon supplied driver software. Still, I wouldn't swop my Minolta 5400 for anything......and I'll just put up with the driver.

[edith_beerdsen]

Graham, this is a very useful reply. The drivers are indeed a matter of concern for me, as I will use the scanner on a linux computer. Probably with Vuescan, as this has a linux version that should work with either scanner.

Suppose you do work with Vuescan; does it make any difference (software-wise) whether you use it with a Minolta or a Nikon scanner?

[robert_k1]

There is no industry standard on how a scanner's dynamic range should be specified, allowing the manufacturers to make liberal claims. I would ignore it.

 

The quality of a scanner's native sw can be a concern, but is not a critical factor if you scan raw, or use a third party sw. BTW, there are discussions in the scanner newsgroup that VueScan does not support the 5400 well.

 

If you need to scan a large number quickly, then the scanner's speed, feeder and noise reduction are concerns. But there are other sw available for noise reduction after a scan, making a scanner's ICE, etc. nice but not essential.

 

If you are really budget driven, then consider the Canon 4000, or even the older Polaroid 4000 or 4000+. They are available at $200 to $400 used.

 

If your objective is to get the highest quality scans, you should pay attention to a couple of other essential factors:

 

Focus: Nikon's Coolscan 4000 is known to have a shallow dof, resulting in uneven sharpness across a scan. You cannot fix an out of focused scan in PS. Nikon never claims that the V or 5000 has fixed this problem.

 

Multisampling: Some scans can benefit from this by getting better details and less noise in the deep shadows, something all scanners are weak at. If a scan fails to record the shadow details, it cannot be salvaged in PS. Multisampling is NOT the same as multiscanning.

 

Exposure control: The Nikons allow you to control the LED light source. Unsure about the Minolta or Canon.

[mattb1]

I think you have identified three good choices. I have the Minolta 5400 and the Nikon 9000. The software for the Minolta is indeed 'clunky' it doesn't provide nearly the same tools at the 9000, and seems limited in what choices you do have compared to the 9000. But, running under Linux you won't have either suite to use anyway.

 

That said, the Minolta is a good scanner. But, I'm not sure about the 5400 dpi figure; the 4000 dpi scans on the 9000 are extremely close to the same detail. I had expected a larger difference in detail.

 

The Minolta is MUCH slower than the Nikon at scanning. But, in a weird way it has an OK work flow. The options you select in batch mode are set for all frames in the batch. This allows you to load and leave it alone. The 9000, can't say about the 5000 or IV, on the other hand has you set the scanning parameters after previewing each frame. So, you end up with more interaction for a longer amount of time. This of course gives you a lot of control and better quality on the frames that require it. However, not all of my photo's are good enough to spend a lot of time working on them.

 

I know nothing about the 5000 or IV, so I can't say how they do with batch processing. But, if you have a large library of 35mm the optional loading mechanism would look very attractive to me, even at the extra expense. 4 or 6 frames in a batch is still a small batch size for large libraries.

 

The Minolta does have some problems with deep shadows. I've gotten some scans that show a distinct purple cast in the shadows. Still it gets pretty good detail in shadows.

 

If you want to see some IT8 target scans from my two scanners and one bad real slide scan, they are in folders in my photo net area.

 

I don't regret buying either scanner, but I can't say that for other scanners I have purchased in the past.

[robert_chiavarini]

The Nikon depth of field (DOF) problem has been mentioned and dropped a couple of times. It seems to me that you can have the best resolution in the world but if the edges of the image focus differently than the center, you have a REAL file problem that can't be corrected. Look at the following:

 

http://www.users.on.net/~julian.robinson/photography/ls2000-focus.htm

 

Granted, this is an LS2000 but as mentioned above, there is nothing in the crosstalk that has said this has changed in more recent models. Some think the problem is the low light output of the LED's.

This would require a larger aperture therefore less depth of field. Any comments? Any problems with "edge out of focus" with film vs slides?

 

Bob C

[randall_pukalo]

Popular Photography has a great review of the 5400. They said it "rocked their resolution tests" with the highest resolution of any sub $5k film scanner they had tested.

Here is the link:

http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=976

 

They also reviewed the Nikon 9000. You can see the review on their site. They concluded it was a great scanner, but unless you need to scan med format, you should consider the Minolta 5400 for much less $$$. Oh ya, It didnt match the Minolta's resolution.

Yes, there are many attributes other than resolution, but the Minolta pretty much has it all. That is why I just bought it ;)

[bill koenig]

It's my understanding that the Nikon doesn't give the full frame of what it scannes, you lose a little bit around the edges, where the Minolta 5400 gives full frame.

[edith_beerdsen]

Thanks a lot to all people who replied to this question. You have provided me with a lot of information, so I could decide which scanner to choose. Today, I've finally made the decision and ordered a Minolta 5400.

 

Thank you once again!

Edith

[oskar_franklin]

check this resolution test and compare separation of the smallest lines and you will see that the minolta resolves the smallest details

http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2004/scanner_test_results.html

[david_bolduc]

I've had the Minolta 5400 since it first came out. I paid $829 at B&H and thought it was a bargain then. Now it costs only $649, and at this price it is a no-brainer. If you want to spend another $450, then the Nikon 5000 is another great machine. I use my 5400 primarily for slides, and I'm just about done scanning 2000 slides which represent 40 years of family photos. This process has taken me months. To accomplish such a large task, I scan a dozen slides with ICE whenever I'm browsing the internet. In this way, I hardly know or care if each one takes about 5 minutes. Well, hope you like your scanner as much as I have.

[rishij]

<p>Does anyone here know where I can get my hands on a Minolta 5400 (either I or II, but preferably the II)?</p>

<p>Or would anyone here like to sell theirs to me?</p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

Rishi</p>

[rob_johnston4]

<p>Hello Rishi,<br>

I just bought a virtually brand new one. but paid over £700.00<br>

Only scanning about 60 slides. you interesting in it when I'm done?<br>

Rob</p>