Scanners: Nikon 5000 ED vs. Konica Minolta Dimage 5400 II

[jay_bees]

I have a Nikon 5000 ED that I am fairly happy with (as far as desktop scanners

go). It has some issues (poor shadow detail, CCD flare). I use it pretty

successfully with Silverfast profiled with IT-8 targets. I scan mostly Kodachrome.

 

I have been offered a Konica Minolta Dimage 5400 II. I have heard that some

people really like this scanner. My questions are:

 

(1) would I see any benefit from the KM scanner as compared to the Nikon? The

resolution is 5400 ppi vs. 4000 ppi. That about shadow detail? CCD flare? colors?

 

(2) What would be a fair price for this scanner now that it has been off the

market for more that a year?

 

Thanks.

[roger_smith4]

I wouldn't turn to new hardware to solve the above problems.

 

Shadow detail with dense Kodachrome may be solveable with blended exposures- new versions of Silverfast support this I believe. Noise seems much better with this scanner than others I have seen scans from- if you do single pass multisampling you get basically no noise without alignment problems that you get with multipasses.

[wolf_weber]

Jay, depending on the file sizes U need to obtain, U might want to stick to the Nikon. Several reputable experts have shown the Min. model to drop to 2900 dpi (ppi) after only one scan. At that value it certainly is a good scanner. If U can live with the smaller file.

[john_brewton]

I never heard of the drop in scanning resolution before. I believe it's bs. I've used a 5400 (first series) for almost three years. I got decent scans, I always scan at 4000 dpi, but after trying a demo version of SilverFast and buying it, I got much better scans still using the same 4000 dpi. OTOH, I had a problem early on with my 5400 and I can state quite firmly that the service from Minolta absolutely sucked. I understand Sony is still servicing the 5400 with the same people as before (gulp!). I've attached a sample scan FYI.<div></div>

[jtk]

It's sad to hear Sony may have hired Minolta's people. Even if Sony fixes a 5400II, failures must occur again unless they replace the junk moving parts with something better.

 

Nikon's focus is far better, corner-to-corner, than Minolta's.

 

If I was buying now I'd go with 5000 instead of my V for one reason: ability to scan uncut rolls. Someone else, used to intentionally under-exposing Velvia or Kodachrome may prefer 5000 because it multi-pass scans.

 

While one of my two 5400II's functioned it did scan as well as my Nikon with several color films. Same grain resolution comparing Minolta's alleged 5400ppi with Nikon's alleged 4000ppi, though Minolta produced 135mb Vs Nikon's 120mb.

 

Fair price for 5400II would equal the price of its used USB cord.

[jay_bees]

Yikes! Sounds like I better stick with my Nikon 5000.

[large_formater]

The Nikon 5000 does much better on negative and E6 slide than Kodachrome, BTW.