KM vs Nikon film scanner

[jon_d1]

Having resolved one problem re. a KM film scanner in another thread I

was wondering what the balance of experience/opinion is with KM vs

Nikon film scanners.

 

I've lined up the KM 5400 II for purchase, based on a combination of

the price and positive reviews comparing it favorably with the Nikon

5000 (which costs twice as much). My budget can't stretch to the

5000, but does anyone have any advice/opinion on which of the KM 5400

II or Nikon V is the better option?

 

If you have either a positive or a nagative opinion of either scanner

could you briefly explain the reasons why.

 

Thanks again for any comments.

 

Jon

[Ed_Ingold]

The KM and LS-5 are comparably priced. If you don't need whole roll feed or automatic slide feeders, why spend for the LS-5000? The Nikon takes film strips directly, whereas the KM requires holders. That's a big PITA. Nikon also has a big budget for lenses - including the ones in their scanners. I think KM aims a little lower.

[marcos_rodriguez]

Jon,

 

I have a KM and am not entirely happy with it; however, having not been able to personally compare it with the Nikon, I cannot tell with absolute certainty which one is better. I can tell you, though, what I don't like/hate about the KM:

 

? LOUSY scanning software --will clip your highlights and shadows even on perfectly exposed film or slides. The Minolta Scanning Utility is so bad, in fact, that the only solution I found (especially for negatives) was to scan "raw" (16bit linear) and then process the files in either SilverFastHDR or VueScan.

 

? Painfully slow if you dare to tweak the exposure settings: a full res, ICE-on scan can take up to 20 minutes per frame. It doesn't matter if you have a top-of-the-line, super-fast computer, if you tweak the exposure settings you'll triple your scanning time, period.

 

? The film and slide carriers. Although reasonably well built, they're plastic and bound to break eventually, something which you won't have with the Nikon.

 

Good luck,

 

Marcos Rodriguez / http://www.aukeramen.com

[jon_d1]

Thanks for the information Marcus.

 

Can you clarify, do you have the 5400 II or an earlier KM model? From what I have read I thought KM had resolved some problems of earlier machines (specifically the clipping of scan edges and the quality of the film holders) and the 5400 II is supposed to be a step up.

 

Jon

[jon_d1]

Sorry, 'Marcos'!

[alan_chan4]

I am a Minolta scanner user, but mine is the 1st generation Scan Elite. The only issue I have is streaking problem (when using Vuescan) which exists mostly on the blue channel. This problem costs me much time to fix in Photoshop. There are many other KM users have experienced similar problem with 5400 & 5400II. So, if you will be using Vuescan, better go for the Nikon. However, 5400/5400II should be able to extract slightly more details than V/5000ED. Your choice.

[jon_d1]

Thanks Alan.

 

I've now waded through most of the relevant old threads. I'll be using the scanner exclusively with 35mm negatives, and the results need to be good enough for stock agency submission at reproduction sizes of up to A3, so minimizing grain/pixellation is important.

 

Some users in other threads have said that Nikon scanners produce slightly better color from negatives, but others seem very happy with their KMs. I think, as some people have mentioned, it's a bit of a coin toss. In terms of potential bang for the buck I think I'll probably stick with my original plan and go for the KM 5400 II.

[seandepuydt]

Let us know how your purchase works out for you.

[jreades]

Unless there's a reason that only the LS5000 will do, then why not look for either a new LS5 or a used LS4000?

 

Broadly speaking, the latter will give you the same features (except the shadow controls and the slightly higher resolution) for about $500, the former will give you the shadow controls minus the bulk-feed/firewire options of the 5000.

 

I bought a used 4000 a few months after the 5000 came out (and had appropriately depressed the cost of the 4000) and couldn't be happier.

 

jon

[jon_d1]

Thanks for the comments, Jon. But as I mentioned in the original post, my budget won't stretch to the CoolScan 5000 (LS-5000). I'm weighing up the CoolScan V ED (aka LS-50 ED) against the KM 5400 II. I agree with some comments on other threads that the build quality of the Nikon is much better, but I'm encouraged by various reviews and comments on the performance of the 5400 II. For me the 16 bits (vs slightly odd 14 bits of the LS-50), extra dpi for insurance and bit more speed sound good. Just hope it functions OK out of the box!

[ilkka_nissila]

I wouldn't get an LS-4000. Nikon scan combined with that doesn't scan negs well, ICE is old version, and the scanner has DOF problems with mounted slides and film strips (in the film strip holder).

[Ed_Ingold]

Don't underestimate the loading issue. You will find that scanning is an enormous time hog at best. Loading strips into a holder is a trick - keep the film straight, align the space between frames with the crossbars, keep the ends neatly tucked between leaves of the holder - all the time wearing cotton gloves to avoid leaving fingerprints. Compare this to simply feeding the end of the strip into a slot in the Nikon. In engineering terms, loading is called "external" time, which is non-productive - which will quickly get under your skin.

 

14 bits vs 16 bits is a non-issue - merely marketing hype. In fact, both scanners produce 16 bit files. I think Nikon is being more realistic.

 

Extra resolution may be more smoke and mirrors. At 4000 ppi, the Nikon scanner exceeds the resolution of any color film. At 5400 ppi you get much larger files (80% larger) without significant gains in detail.

 

The KM claims to scan in 25 seconds, the Nikon in 40 seconds - HAH! Most of the scan time is taken for Digital ICE and other processing (You can't live without Digital ICE), which is proportional to file size. In the Nikon, figure on 4 to 6 minutes per scan (from personal experience), depending on processor and IO speed. That's a long way from published "facts". I can only speculate on the real KM scan time - perhaps a user can fill in the details. If file size is a gauge, then the times would nearly double.

[jreades]

Uh, everywhere I wrote LS5 I *meant* to write LS50...

 

And I *wasn't* suggesting the LS5000 (I read the question closely enough to realise it wasn't an option) -- I was trying to say: what are the features that you require from you film scanner and can you get most/all of them with a cheaper scanner such as the LS50 or LS4000 since it seems like you're a *bit* leery of the KM scanners.

 

For what it's worth, I have to admit to not having scanned mounted slides with my 4000 (I just develop and run through in batches of 6 since I can't be a**ed to use the roll feeder) so I can't comment on the apparent DOF issue, but I've certainly never noticed issues with negatives or felt like the ICE on the 4000 was underperforming in some way.

 

jon

[robert_m3]

I'm into my second thousand of scans with a Coolscan V and remain delighted with it. I

couldn't live without ICE. I still have a small amount of APS to scan and will eventually

pickup the Nikon APS adapter and get those done, too. It does such a good job that I've

never shot more film as I have in the last year.

 

Nikon Scan actually works well for me, and while I looked at Vuescan I found it didn't do

anything more for me.

 

I also run my scans through NeatImage in Photoshop, excellent results.

[robert_m3]

Just a follow-up to Edward's comments: Film loading is very easy with the Coolscan, and for

me that's the only time cost since I do other things while the strip is scanning. I get my

negatives cut in strips of 6 to minimize the time I touch the scanner. It typically takes 2.5 to

3 minutes per scan, including ICE.

[jon_d1]

Thanks again for the additional comments.

 

Jon - Sorry for any mix-up - the different models names around the world are sometimes confusing. You're right, I may be becoming a bit leery of KM! Having done pretty thorough reading I was set on KM before reading some of the very negative comments on this forum from people who seem to have direct experience of using one (or not, as the case may be, if they really do lock up as much as some people have suggested).

 

As for the batch scanning and loading issues, I'll likely be scanning only selected color and occasional B&W 35mm negatives from strips of 6 - not every shot is a winner. I anticipate working my way through about 500-1000 negatives initially. Does the easier loading of the Nikon constitute enough of a time saving to make it worth buying over the KM?

 

Jon

[jreades]

Having never worked with a Minolta scanner I can't really comment, but the Nikons are certainly easy to load -- I've only ever had the slightest bit of difficulty with badly-curled negatives that a friend asked me to scan for him. The rest of the time I just stick in vaguely in the direction of the feeder and it grabs the strip and pulls it in.

 

My only word of warning is that, unless they've made significant improvements with the LS50 over the LS4000, these scanners are *noisy*. Not "what did you say dear? I can't hear you over the scanner?" loud, but surprising noisly given the relatively low number of moving parts inside.

 

Like everyone else who has commented here, I generally do the scans *while* doing something else (listening to the iPod, vacuuming the living room, reading The Economist, whatever) since it's terminally boring to wait for it to scan all six frames at a medium-high resolution (circa 10-12 minutes total). I've only ever had to re-scan a couple of frames (out of hundreds) because the automatic focus/balance didn't do a good job.

 

Cheers,

 

jon

[robert_m3]

>Does the easier loading of the Nikon constitute enough of a time saving to make it worth buying over the KM?

 

I think only you can answer that based on how you value your time.

 

Bottom line, I've never seen a report of a dissatisfied Coolscan V user, and my personal experience has been positive. You might be fine with the KM. You will be fine with the Coolscan. It's your money, your time, your call. Good luck!

[ilkka_nissila]

Film strip loading is trivial and quick with the Nikons using the SA-21 and the film flatness is near perfect.

 

The scanners are noisy with default settings but if you use multisampling they become quite quiet. I use 4x multisampling on Nikon Scan and it just doesn't make any distractive noise to me.

[jtk]

If you know someone with a Minolta, ask them to show you what's inside...two screws at the back: easy. Or simply look at the respective weights of the machines, including Nikon's specialized film transport mechanisms (you'd prefer Minolta if you were backpacking it). Build quality and engineering are, um, different.

 

Nikon V takes about 2.5 minutes for a 4000ppi scan with Ice, as did my Minolta II while it operated. Same-same. Physical handling/frame alignment takes much more time and can be frustrating with both machines.

 

Both have Ice..Nikon offers a higher level, but hopefully you won't need that, I never have. Both are excellent with E6 and negative color...Nikon may have the edge with Kodachrome but with B&W I think it wants Vuescan (as may Minolta?). With Vuescan Nikon's wonderful.

 

I've just scanned a bunch of mounted Velvia...Nikon's slot-load is ideal for my demands, but Minolta's multi frame holder would be a convenience if I wanted to ignore the scanner for 10-15 minutes and demanded that it keep working on slides...I didn't test the reliability of that system. Nikon's strip film alignment is motorized, hands-off, fussy until you learn how it works, whereas Minolta uses a plastic holder that'd be unfit for an enlarger, requiring manual fiddling. Neither system is perfect with multiple frames of strip film, even when initially properly aligned...each frame requires attention. Nikon's autofocus is excellent, as is it's selective focus point system...Minolta's mirror-ball manual focus knob is cute but does not rival Nikon's selective focus.

 

Buying either, I'd buy only from Amazon or KEH or comparable, never from a local vendor, due to relative ease of return (I wouldn't want to debate with a retail clerk).