nikon 5000 vs. minolta dimage 5400 II

[mhahn]

I know this, or a similar type of question, is asked fairly often, but assuming I could find a minolta dimage 5400 II,

should i get that or a nikon 5000?

 

Does the minolta's 5400 dpi produce better scans than the nikon's 4000 dpi?

 

Are there factors other than the dpi of the scan which might result in the nikon's producing better scans?

 

Do they both scan full-frame negatives?

 

Wish I could figure this out . . .

 

Thanks for any input you might have into this question.

 

Martin

[ronald_moravec1]

From what my research shows, the MK ones makes fine scans, when it works. Lots of plastic and fragile. get the Nikon

[ronald_moravec1]

You did ask about the 5400 -2, not the original. My original 5400 is a fine machine, but the -2 is the plastic version.

 

The 5400-2 I see being sold are all refurbs. I stand behind what I said about -2 .

[robert_k1]

My 5400 original is still going strong after five years' normal use. It is slow, but produces great slide scans for me with a good workflow. I can scan 100% of a frame with a full frame slide holder. The 5400 dpi also allows me to crop significantly, and still print at 360 ppi without unsampling.

 

Before making a decision, check the following links. Some Nikon users reported flares in their scans, but no Minolta users had reported this problem. I own many Nikon equipment, and would have gotten a Nikon scanner if not for the flares.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IGyN

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001A4q

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004EWS

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00A2Sh

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CTcF

 

http://www.vad1.com/photo/dirty-scanner/

 

http://www.pearsonimaging.com/ls5000cleaning.html

 

This member apparently was aware of the flares:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00H558

 

Here's what he ended up with after buying a Nikon:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HCnM

[jtk]

Flare from parts of the motorized carrier can occur when your film is excessively dense (eg 2 stop over-exposed color neg, 1 stop under-exposed Velvia), Nikon's virtue is that it's a fine, highly reliable piece of engineering and construction, whereas 5400II was trash in every respect save it's OK software (speaking as a former owner of two bad 5400II).

 

Robert K noticed no Minolta 5400II user reporting flare, which comes closer to supporting the point that they never functioned than that they didn't flare. Amazon stopped selling them because most were returned with mechanical jams or bad electronics.

 

You can't repair them usefully because the mechanism is made entirely out of junk plastic. The cheap plastic case is a clue. If you're a machinist you might recreate the mechanism out of proper plastic (eg nylon), and that might work, Minolta's corporate values precluded quality, since they knew they were going out of business.

[mhahn]

I was actually about to plop down my $1,150 for the Nikon 5000, but I was going buy it from Adorama, and they are

currently listing it as out of stock. Then I noticed that KEH has been listing a Minolta 4500 II for sale on its website

for the last several days (if someone would hurry up and buy it, my dilemma would be solved).

 

The Minolta scanner is half the weight of the Nikon, so it must be flimsier. It's just that 5400 dpi that makes it sound

tempting (that, and the laudatory reviews it received).

 

I wonder if Nikon is about to debut a new scanner . . .

 

Martin

[neil_parker]

The 5400 v1 makes fantastic scans even from kodachrome, and at least mine has been reliable and seems well made.

 

However it is slowwwwwwwwww

 

The v2 has the bad rap, but it's a lot faster.

 

Hard to get minoltas repaired any more if at all, and no one is developing driver/software for them except maybe

vuescan.

 

Get the nikon while they're still made, nikon is more likely to stop making altogether than bring out a new one.

[jtk]

Martin, I scanned the same highly detailed slides and negatives with 5400II (the one of my two that briefly worked) and Nikon the V that Amazon urged on me as the replacement for the second...could see no difference except for Minolta's larger file (from 4000ppi vs 5400ppi). I think the limiting factor is the film, since the dye clouds (like grain) seemed identical. Both V and 5400II scanned @ 1.5 minutes with Ice. Minolta's software may have been more comfortable, fwiw. The original 5400 is over 10X slower with Ice, but it arguably offers something subtle in the scan (I'm not convinced), the result of its built-in diffuser.

 

Using 35mm Astia and Nikon V, 12X18 prints are amazingly detailed, beautiful, with no hint of digital process except for the fact that they are sharper in corners than 50mm enlarging lenses could have been. I'm sure 5000 would be as good, and would be more operationally speedy.

 

In the end, Minolta=bad, Sony=good. It's too bad Sony didn't modernize the original 5400 and buy back all the IIs.

[robert lee]

Aside from very high quality scans, I like the real life operational speed of the 5000. A DIY patch will remove

the 6 frame limit from the SA-21 feeder and let it scan an entire roll of film at once. This is awesome if

you're shooting new film - just ask the lab to return the film uncut, or don't cut the film in the first place if

you develop yourself.

 

Scanning can become a totally hands-off operation. Load the scanner and come back in a half hour to 36, 21MP

TIFF files on the computer.

[johnclinch]

I own the older Minolta and it works just fine for me

 

The 5400 dpi is a bit of a myth (like the 12MP pint and shoot)

 

Yes it will produce a large file. But with my slides and negatives I don't think I was getting more detail from the higher dpi

 

I almost always use it at 2,700 dpi to give files about the size of a 10MP camera

 

They print very nicely 12" by 18"

 

My hunch is that the Nikon will be equal int the ability to record fine detail

[rishij]

<p>Just so you know, there's a lot more information on Velvia slides that none of the Nikon scanners can pick up. One can tell this by simply looking at the film under a microscope and/or scanning on a newer Imacon. Haven't tried the Minolta, but I'm in half a mind to go and try to find one.</p>

<p>I have some resolution test charts shot on Velvia & Tmax, kind regards to Mauro for providing them. An Imacon 848 can resolve much much more than either a Nikon LS-4000, LS-5000, or LS-9000 (I have access to all of these).</p>

<p>I'll try and, in the next few days, come back and post 100% crop comparisons so you can see this for yourself.</p>

<p>Also, anyone know where I can find a Minolta Dimage 5400?</p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

Rishi</p>