Minolta DSE 5400 vs. 5400 II on Kodachromes

[thomas_kolbo]

I have not seen a good comparison of these two scanners with examples

regarding Kodachromes. I have a larger number of them (architectural

work) frome the 70's on up to about 1983. Presently I shoot mostly

Astia 100 and Provia 100 which for architectural work leans to Astia.

 

I ahve seen some discussion, mostly unanswered questions regarding the

intensity of the light source between these two scanners in regard to

sucessfully scanning Kodachrome. Some think the white led source is

too week to be of value. Once a decision is made, I plan to use the

newer Silverfast Suite and Wolf Faust IT/8's for profiling for the

Fuji films and obviously Kodak for the old chromes.

 

As well, I have seen comments regarding the construction of the 5400II

suggesting is is a much lighter sort of cheesier plastic version with

the obvious new light source and new scanning algorithms that make for

speed and not much else.

 

Are there any experienced scanners out there that have used both in

the Kodachrome environment and perhaps have comments aobout build

quality etc. Don't tell me to buy both and check for myself...maybe

spending $1900 for a Multi Pro would eliminate all the confusion?

[nigel_nagarajan]

I suspect you haven't had any answers yet because it is hard to find people who own both

versions of the 5400. I have the newer model, but it is my first dedicated film scanner so I

would not call myself "experienced" yet. The only thing I can say is that the 5400 II produces

better scans than my Epson Perfection 3200 with the transparency adaptor. But then you

probably knew that . . .

 

If there is something specific about the 5400 II that I can help with, please let me know. I

think it is a very good scanner, but I can understand why people hesitate between this model

and the 5400 mark I.

[mattb1]

I have a 5400, the first version. It can scan Kodachorome, but you can not use ICE on it. Once in a while you find a few frames that ICE will work, but only a few. Contrast and colors are way off when you use ICE. Only the Nikon 9000 has the new version of ICE that supports Kodachorme. Depending on how well your slides were stored, that may be a significant factor. At the resolutions that the 5400 and 9000 scan at the tiniest dust specs show up larger than life. And dust spotting a digital file can take anywhere from 5 to 50x the scan time.

 

I also have a Nikon 9000 and it dos pretty well with Kodachrome, but I have not scanned a whole lot of Kodachrome on it. I?ve been spending my time on it scanning my MF slides.

 

The 9000 also allows you to increase the intensity of the light source (leds), the 5400 in contrast turns up the sensitivity of the CCD. So the 5400 can have more 'noise' for darker slides, but usually not a large problem.