neil_parker Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 Looking for some opinions here on a new film scanner. I am finally replacing my ancient Minolta Quickscan 35. I am considering primarily the Super Coolscan 4000 and the Canon 4000 film scanners, another possibility would be a Minolta. I know that the Nikon is perhaps the best choice for slide scanning, although the canon seems to have advocates also, but the majority of my scanning of current work is color neg, primarily fuji 800 that I use for concert and night club shooting. I also have a huge archive going back to the 70s that is about 2/3 B&W and 1/3 Kodachrome. So the new scanner must work well with all these films. My big question is will I get satisfactory scans with the canon (and save $500!), or will the Coolscan be worth the extra in the long run. I know the Ice is helpful with E6 slides, but not useful with B&W and Kodachrome, Canon's FARE I think will work with most films, maybe? Basically this is a large investment for me that needs to work with many films, I welcome input on scanners and third party software such as vuescan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 If you can wait till late June or early July , I would. That is when Minolta will be selling the Dimage 5400, a 5400ppi scanner that will have firewire connectivity (Firewire makes a huge difference in the time it takes to complete the scan and get in on your computer), true 16 bit/channel (AKA 48 bit color depth, Canon and Nikon's 4000ppi scanners are 14 Bit/channel, which Photoshop interprets as 16 bit/channel info). Calumet issaying the pricewill be $899.95. <P>If you are doing a lot of film, you will really want Firewire, even if you have to buy a Firewire board for your PC.<P> Supposedly the Minolta scanners in general, because they use a dfferent light source, do a better job than the Nikon or Canon, but until the 5400 have capped out at 2800ppi. better in terms of less flare and haloing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil_parker Posted May 8, 2003 Author Share Posted May 8, 2003 VERY interesting Ellis, I will definitely consider that. I have been generally satisfied with my older Minolta and its software, though being appx 6 years old it can't compare with the current scanners. I prefer firewire if possible, or SCSI, but as an interesting aside, I tested my Epson 2450 (boy is that a slow scanner:)) with both USB and Firewire and found that firewire was less than 10% faster, more a limit of the scanner I imagine than the connection. Full native 16 bit capability would be great, Adobe supposedly will improve Photoshop's 16 bit handling in it's next version Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles_miller Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 I agree with Ellis. I sold my Nikon 4000 ED a little over two weeks ago, and already the new owner is looking for good (third party) software for it. If the new Minolta lives up to its promise, it could mean a lot less time will be required to get an image from it looking right, compared to the Nikon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 Everybody knows that films shot in Canon cameras have to be scanned in Canon Scanners, and film shot in Nikon cameras have to be scanned in Nikon scanners. What will he do with a Minolta scanner if he doesn't shoot with Minolta cameras? ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl smith Posted May 9, 2003 Share Posted May 9, 2003 Actually Ellis I've found that both Minolta and Canon benefit from a better light source than the Nikon. It has been my experience that the worst halos and flare occur with the Nikon scanners. What would make me suggest checking out the new Minolta would be the true 16 bit capability as well as the ability to use the scanhancer products which I have seen good results from. The added resolution is moot personally because film will almost never reveal that much more detail to a CCD sensor. Under some circumstances a drum scanner can pull out more, but even that's a stretch at times. Considering the resolution (comparing to the Minolta Multi Pro) the Canon is just as sharp on the whole. I have generally found that for the resolution offered, minolta's dedicated 35mm scanners produced smoother results that aren't always as sharp as some other scanners. But because noise is low on the smoother scans they hold up well to enlarging. If I needed one now and wasn't going to be scanning a lot all the time I'd get the Canon still and add a SCSI card. Noise is even lower on SCSI and the scanner speeds up quite a bit. Otherwise I'd wait and see how the new minolta fares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_kiefer Posted May 9, 2003 Share Posted May 9, 2003 My first scanner was a Nikon LS-2000 and my current one is the Minolta MultiPro. I've never had any problems with halos with either. Both provide dynamic range and sharpness that seems quite consistent with their specifications. The biggest advantage of the Nikon Coolscan line is that the light source is in fact "cool" in that it does not need to heat up. It is presumably easier on your film and does not change chracteristics with continued use. Having said all that. I would agree with the posts above recommending waiting on the Minolta 5400. You'll see the grain on film long before you notice the pixels with that puppy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil_parker Posted May 9, 2003 Author Share Posted May 9, 2003 >Noise is even lower on SCSI and the scanner speeds up quite a bit. That gave me pause... Carl, are you suggesting that SCSI will give lower noise on a scan than firewire or USB, why would that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jemini_joseph Posted May 9, 2003 Share Posted May 9, 2003 I've tried Minolta Elite II. There are plus and minus points to that. Plus is the dynamic range. It's much better than my Nikon LS-30. I'm not sure how good is this compared to coolscan 4000 or Canon 4000. They say it's 16 bit scanning. I'm not sure. Anyway it brings out allmost every details in the slide. I found three negatice things. One the picture is not as sharp as my LS-30. This can be because of the autofocus problem. I didn't try the manual focus. Second and more important thing was the film tray problem. It just frozen couple of times with no reason. I had to reboot the computer to make it function again within a weeks time. I thought the build quality was not that good. Third was the color. None of the slides (I've tried velvia and provia 100F) showed the right color. Nikon software is showed the color close to the slide. (This is again close to. I guess nothing is perfect). This might not be a problem if you have photoshop. You can tweek it. But I found it takes lot of time to get one slide scanned. But Nikon scan 3.1 most of the time I just the autolevels in photoshop. Sometime I may to adjust the curve instead of autolevels. That's all. The only compaint I've about my LS-30 is the dynamic range. I lose lots of shadow details. But I take birds in daylight mostly with privia 100F. So I don't have lots of slides that I cannot scan. So I've returned the minolta. Elite II for 719 is still the best price I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beau 1664876222 Posted May 9, 2003 Share Posted May 9, 2003 The upcoming Minolta has already had the effect of pushing down the Nikon's price, to the point where it makes less sense to buy the Canon. The big argument for the Canon used to be that it was half the price of the Nikon, and even then Nikon led the market. Now the Nikon only costs around $200 more than the Canon. Obviously, if the Minolta turns out to be the new king, even the current "bargain" price will have been too much to pay for the Nikon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl smith Posted May 9, 2003 Share Posted May 9, 2003 Obviously not Neil. However the Canon does display even lower noise on SCSI than it does when on USB. Many users who have switched can confirm this. <br><br> As far as the price difference between the Canon and Nikon narrowing, even if the two cost the same, there are major differences between the two that make one more appealing than the other. The Nikon is faster and in some instances can have lower noise. The Canon comes stock with a holder for four mounted slides and has much more DOF. The Canon is also sharper and FARE has almost never affected sharpness in my experience using the scanner. I cannot say the same for <i>any</i> of the over 10 nikon scanners I use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hique Posted May 9, 2003 Share Posted May 9, 2003 Just check the photo.net founder's pictures to check the Nikon sharpness. It seems that the Nikon scanners are the sharpest out there (but also the most expensive). What about polaroid 4000 dpi scanner, seems a good deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl smith Posted May 9, 2003 Share Posted May 9, 2003 The only way you'll have a truely good feel for the sharpness of the scanners is to test both on Vuescan with no alterations running. Which I have. And you'll see many places that the Canon is clearly sharper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suchismit1 Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Go here for details. <br>http://www.dimage.minolta.com/elite5400/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now