Minolta 5400 II vs. 5400 - Kodachromes Scan Comparison

[thomas_kolbo]

Since there are no real hard core reviews of this product out there

yet, has anyone managed to make comparisons of K64 scans between the

two units? There seems to be some favorable commentary for the 5400

in this regard, but considering the new white led light source in the

5400 II, I am wondering. This question was prompted by an email

conversation with Eric at Scanhancer who suggested that the product

was not incorporated into the new model and if it were to be added as

a slide carrier insert, it might not work well (ie. Nikon 5000 led

light source is weak for the product) due to the less intense source

of light.

 

Also, has anyone seen some analysis of build qualtiy. Being a German

perfectionist, I usually check what a product weighs as some measure

of that. It seems, the metal in the 5400 has been exchanged for a

thorough girding of plastic in the new model.

[bill_tuthill]

I'm sorry I don't have much to offer, but given the poor shadow detail

of <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BeoK">Matt Kennedy's slide scans here</A> the II looks bad for dense chromes.

<P>

Thomas, I don't see what difference weight makes. It's not as if your

scanner does anything besides sit there on a desk.

[thomas_kolbo]

The issue of weight in some electronics equipment, particularly those with moving parts is indicative of how much plastic crap is in there. Plastic and nylon gears can buck and chatter and otherwise don't stand up very well. I've been around long enough to witness this kind of cheapening in such items as Sony's portable cassette players. Back in the late 70's and early 80's for example, Sony made a very slim stereo cassete player/recorder with features that didn't come on competitors units until nearly 10 years later. It cost $270 and was extremely heavy (just over shirt pocket size). If you look at similar products now, externals and internals are simply plastic and considered throw away devices.

 

In terms of the scanners we are considering here, I was simply wondering how Minolta could cut 2 1/2 to 3 lbs out of the design and not cheapen things up (just look at the introductory price). The implied larger question, due to the lack of any in depth review, is directed to quality and longevity. If one is anticipating scanning several thousand slides.......?

[george_bourke]

Reply to Thomas regarding cheapening and weight reduction:

 

First, my background is I'm an electrical engineer (not for any photographic company). Second, the assumptions I am making (to illustrate a point) are based on postings I've read on this board concerning changes to 5400 II vs 5400 (white LED vs fluorescent light tube). Third, I've never taken apart either scanner so what I am putting forth is conjecture based on over 20 years experience in manufacturing electronic products.

 

Don't judge modern products by weight (alone). There could be many reasons for a weight reduction that would yield a more reliable and more rugged product. For the example of the 5400 II vs 5400, a white LED would be quite a bit lighter, cheaper, have a longer life, and require less power to operate. A mean lifespan for most semiconductor devices (which an LED is) would be at least 50,000 hours of operation. A side effect of the lower power requirement of the device is that power supply components would be smaller, lighter, and cheaper as well. Also, dissipating less power would require less or no heat sinking in the device which would also cut weight, cost, and size. Something else that may have occurred that would reduce cost is more automation in the assembly of the process...from an owner standpoint this is most likely good as it yields a more consistent product...the only downside is that it sometimes produces a product that can be a real bear to work on manually (such as should it ever need repair...HP, when they automated the assembly of their monitor cases by making them fastener-less cut the case assembly time down to about 90 seconds but made them nearly impossible to take apart). Also, careful selection of materials MAY make the product FEEL less rugged but have exactly the opposite effect in reality...if you doubt this, get a 1/8" sheet of Lexan and a 1/8" sheet of any metal of your choosing and take a sledge hammer to both of them...I think you'd be quite surprised at the results.

 

So don't rule out a product because it is lighter and cheaper...that MAY be a very good thing. (Of course, they could have just screwed it up to save a buck for executive bonuses, too!)

 

George

[jtk]

The reason to avoid the 5400II is the negative carrier transport mechanism, which is fragile. Otherwise it's a fine machine, I've owned two. Call Minolta service in the US and ask.

[thomas_kolbo]

John,

 

Just for the record, the 5400II has not been out there that long, so I would suspect your experiences have been very negative (no pun intended). If you were to reconsider, would you go back to the 5400 instead. The reason I mention this is that I've seen many posts where there have been comments suggesting the slides carriers are well made and a cut above those from other mfrs. I would think if Erik at Scanhancer got his hands on the 5400II and tore it down, we could get a good analysis of the build quality of the 5400II.