akavalun Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 What is the difference between the minolta DIMAGE scan elite, and the minolta DIMAGE scan elite II? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendel_leisk Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 Do you mean the Scan Elite 5400 I and II? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finepics Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 I think the Scan Elite was a lower res scsi upright scanner and the Scan Dual II was a horizontal higher res USB 1.0 upgraded model. You should be able to find out more from a google search. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 speed and perhaps quality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akavalun Posted April 26, 2005 Author Share Posted April 26, 2005 I'm sorry, yes i meant the 5400 and the 5400 II. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 The II is far faster than the original...count on 2.5 minutes with Digital Ice on color negs and chromes (but that doesn't include handling and pre-scan). Same as Nikon V. The original is reputedly better with B&W due to the diffuser, which evidently can't be retrofitted to the II. On the other hand, the II does a beautiful job with color negs and chromes (though not nearly as well as Nikon V with Kodachrome fwiw, presumably due to Nikon's more advanced version of Digital Ice). Some say the original is better with Kodachrome than the II. Make your own evaluation of II Vs original Vs NIkon V up close and personal. There are disputes about the merits of new Vs old Minolta software and the possibility of using Vuescan with the new one. It's possible in my experience, but not particularly helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendel_leisk Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 The II has a different light source, supposedly more "directional", and similar in behavior to the Nikon scanners. Also, the "grain dissolver", which diffused the light souce, has been discontinued. GEM software is include, in it's place, I guess. Time per scan is significantly decreased, mainly as a consequence of these changes, I would think. I have an original 5400, for about 6 months now, and am quite satisfied with it. Check out the "specifications" on either of these pages, for the official statistics: Elite 5400 I page: http://konicaminolta.com/products/consumer/digital_camera/dimage/dimagescan-elite5400/index.html Elite 5400 II page: http://konicaminolta.com/products/consumer/digital_camera/dimage/dimagescan-elite5400-2/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham_sheppard1 Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Also, the original has a Firewire connection whereas I don't believe the II does. I have had the original for about 18 months, and admittedly I am not a heavy user of it but it has been good so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lyle_aldridge1 Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Sorry if this confuses things, but it appears that some people have the two scanners confounded. I have no actual experience with the II version, but have been using the original F-2900 Scan Elite for years. Mine is SCSI-2 only. No Firewire -- that's on the II. And unlike what's said above, the F-2900 seems pretty fast to me. I run it under Vuescan with the "infrared clean" activated, and get a full frame, full-res scan (slide) in 48 seconds. It scans even faster at lower ppi, giving me a clean 1410 ppi frame in 23 to 26 seconds.<p> Comparing the two on the <a href="http://kmpi.konicaminolta.us/eprise/main/kmpi/content/cam/cam_category_pages/DigitalFilmScanners"><u>KonicaMinolta website</u> </a>, it looks to me like the major differences are the form factor and interface. Both have the same native resolution, 2820ppi. The original (F-2900) is an "upright," while the Elite II is horizontal. The F-2900 original is SCSI-2 only, and the Elite II is USB 1.1 or Firewire. With the USB 1.1 connection, I'd expect it to be LOTS slower than the original with SCSI. With the firewire, I don't know, but this forum has seen many threads with users reporting tremendous increases in speed by going to SCSI over firewire with other scanners.<p>My impression, admittedly not much more than that, has been that Minolta got a <b><i>slower</i></b> machine in general when it put out the II, but that they thought there was demand for the more common USB and Firewire interfaces. SCSI had a bad rep, which I personally have found to be undeserved as far as scanners go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lyle_aldridge1 Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Looking again at the website, I notice that K-M <i>claims</i> nearly identical speeds for a full-frame from the two scanners, apparently using Firewire for the II. The other difference that many might consider significant is that the F-2900 has 12-bit max color depth, while the II is 16-bit. So the F-2900 can produce "pseudo 16-bit" under Vuescan, while the II is apparently putting out true 16-bit. I try not to stretch and beat scans enough for that to make a perceptible difference, but opinions obviously vary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lyle_aldridge1 Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Guess I need to read more carefully to spot changes in the question from the original poster. Missed it completely -- Sorry, folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now