Final verdict on a filmscanner please

[fernando lopez]

Thanks to all who replied to my earlier post in the Leica forum. This

is about filmscanners. I've almost made up my mind and shortly I will

go for either the Nikon Coolscan V ED or the Minolta Dimage Scan

Elite 5400 II. Since my main lens is a Leica Summicron 50 f/2 I need

the best of the two that I can get. Why should I go for either of the

two? The largest prints I ever make are 20x30 cm. Your responses will

be valued and a purchase decision is made upon your advise. Thanks a

lot. Constructive advise pls.

[fernando lopez]

And one more thing: do these scanners also work with AMD processors?

[drjedsmith]

Leon,<BR>

Good choice on either. I have used inferior scanners before this, and they do not compare. With either of these beasts you will be somewhat happy.<BR>

What film(s) will you be scanning the most? I had the Nikon Coolscan V ED for a while here. Color films, it was very good. The ICE is fabulous. However, I just sold it on Ebay because it did not do well with B&W films, and I was not happy with the way its light source handled them. I used it to scan many rolls, and it's not just operator error; it's just the way it is. The V just does better with color film, and not so good with B&W.<BR><BR>

I have the (first version) of the Minolta 5400 coming now, as it has a built in diffuser, and will work better for what I want to do with it. It is slower than the Nikon, though.<BR><BR>

The Minolta 5400II is just as fast (possibly a couple seconds faster - splitting hairs here) as the Nikon, but they dropped the diffuser out to do it...that's why I'm not getting the II version.<BR><BR>

I have read a post from someone that owns both at a shop - he gives a very slight edge to the Minolta 5400 in large (ie 13x19 and up) enlargements over the Nikon V, but other than that, I think you're looking at apples to apples. They are really that close.<BR>

Jed

[drjedsmith]

Oh yeah, one more thing, don't worry about the AMD. They are completely compatible. For what its worth, I have a prety decent P4 Prescott core, but assuming you have some version of an Athlon, it's actually a better chip in a lot of ways than my P4. (Now wouldn't that start a flame war on some forums!) :-)<BR>

Jed

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Both can produce nice results. But make sure you compare build quality.

 

Robert

[jpursley]

As noted above, neither scanner clearly performs better than the other.

 

In your shoes I'd buy whichever is cheaper and spend the money saved on resources/books to get the most out of it. Scans from my 5400 have improved by several orders of magnitude over the years as I've learned to use its full potential. Buying some books/guides/targets/etc to speed up that learning would be well worth the expense.

[jtk]

Don't get the 5400II, it's unreliable in the extreme.

 

The Nikon V accepts Scanhancer diffuser, if you feel Minolta 5400's diffuser is a good idea you need the discontinued 5400 or the Nikon because the 5400II does not have a diffuser and will not accept a Scanhancer.

 

Minolta's 5400ppi does not contribute Vs 4000ppi with the same scanner or with Nikon, it it's not sharper, however it does make bigger files.

 

Nikon does beautifully with B&W using Vuescan software, but Nikonscan software awkwardly requires an extra step to make fine B&W: scan as positive and invert in Photoshop. I've used both with Nikon V, prefer Vuescan, though initially it seems less friendly. My 4000ppi scans are usually intended for my largest print size, 12X18" on 13X19." Nikon V scanner's sharper than a condenser enlarger, grainy film is grain sharp.

[jtk]

....I've timed both 5400II and Nikon V with Ice. Both take 2.5 minutes per scan at 4000ppi.

 

Minolta 5400II weighs HALF as much as Nikon V. The plastic case comes off with two screws..open and look inside. Nikon's metal case requires nine screws. It's a quality thing.

[dean_erger]

Leon, from all my research, I concluded that either scanner will provide very good scans. You can find people who like one vs the other, but you'll never find a definitive answer to which is best. Based on all that I've read, the quality of the scans from these scanners is very close, and the skill of the operator probably accounts for a far greater difference in any two scans that the scanners themselves.

 

The opinion of one person who owned a large format Nikon and a Minolta 5400 (original version) was that over all he preferred the Nikon, except when making large prints (16"x20" and larger), where the Minolta clearly showed more resolution. For the size prints you intend, 4,000 ppi vs. 5,400 ppi is irrelevant.

 

I believe that John may have a bias against the Minolta scanner because he had a bad experience with the Minolta, but I think his experience is unusual. I don't fault John for his opinion. I may well have had the same opinion were I in his shoes.

 

I own the original version of the Minolta 5400. I haven't compared it to the Nikon. I like my Minolta. I suspect that for your purposes either scanner would be fine, and it would be splitting hairs to find much difference in them. In any event, if I were in your position today, I'd probably lean towards the Nikon. (I make very large prints, however, and I'm happy to have the 5,400 ppi from the Minolta.)

[dthompson]

Hi,

I went through similar research several months ago and decided on the Coolscan V ED. My decision was made partially on posts about Minolta's customer support, although I could not confirm and have no personal experience. I'm happy with my choice, and by the way, I made the same choice on my Leica lens. I have a couple of photos in my porfolio from this scanner. Both have had a little curve adjustment. Both were scanned rgb and converted to B&W with PS Channel Mixer. Ollie's photo had a light cord off the left of the table which was also removed.

I'm new to all this digital stuff, but I can still enjoy the darkroom and my Leica as I learn.

Good luck with your scanner selection.

[jtk]

"I own the original version of the Minolta 5400. I haven't compared it to the Nikon. I like my Minolta."

 

Dean's at least half right about my bias:

 

While I do think the current Minolta is a shameful piece of work, I know, from talking with people I respect, that the original 5400 (Dean's version) is an excellent machine.

 

It's perhaps 6X slower in color than both Nikon and the current Minolta (they scan with Ice in 2.5 minutes), but the old model's softer light source and diffuser may be advantages with some films in very large prints.

 

Minolta 5400II is quite different. It uses a different light source and won't accept Scanhancer diffuser. I know of one advantage over Nikon: the OEM software, which is one step easier than Nikon's OEM software for B&W. On the other hand, demanding Nikon users seem generally to rely on Vuescan anyway, as do many Minolta users.

 

Nikon V does accept Scanhancer diffuser, unlike (I think) the current Minolta.

 

If a current Minolta actually works (of mine did for a while) it rivals Nikon V: I've compared scans of the same chromes and negs using both machines and their OEM applications.

 

Scanhancer diffuser, and the diffuser in the discontinued Minolta, both work to eliminate "popcorn grain" which may become evident with some films in very large prints. Without the diffuser I get popcorn grain in large prints C41B&W, but I rarely use that anyway.

 

Compare the two machines physically. Open a new Minolta, peek inside. Two screws...you can do it with a Swiss Army knife while nobody's looking :-) Nikon's a little harder to open, 9 screws.

[carl_bretteville]

I've been using a 5400II since May and it has performed beautifully. The issues I've seen have been with VueScan and not the scanner it self. I'm scanning both B&W as well as colour negs and positives.

 

My PC's CPU is an AMD Athlon. It's got 1GB of ram and runs XPPro. The biggest prints I've made from the scans, so far, are A4 using an Eposn R800.

 

I've seen others being frustrated with the Minolta, my own experience is that it is a good scanner.

 

Cheers,

 

- Carl

[b_c3]

I have scanned thousands of frames on my 5400II and it has never let me down. I have compared huge prints with those from a friend's coolscan (believe it was the 5000)(both on the same epson 7600)and the difference is minimal, rather a matter of taste than one being scientifically better. In theory the extra resolution of the Minolta should be better than the Nikon's, but I cannot confirm this (of course I like to believe it). My experience is the Minolta makes the grain a bit softer if you really look for a difference.

I don't think a rating of a scanner based on the number of screws should be taken seriously. Minolta has perhaps the longest track record of all photographic equipment manufacturers in making scanners and other pre press equipment. I wouldn't buy their cameras but I sure do have respect for their scanners. This debate of plastic vs metal has been going on since the early nineties among camera users. Of course it makes equipment weigh less - but this does no way compromise its quality if cleverly used. Why should a scanner perform better if it weighs more or has more screws?

 

Honestly, I think the decision here should be based on speed and/or price difference.