Nikon 5000 and minolta 5400

[biomed]

Does anyone know of any reviews comparing these 2 scanners? I'm

looking for a 4000dpi (or higher) scanner with multi-pass scanning

and these 2 scanners fit the bill. If anyone has used or tested both

scanners I'd appreciate their comments and impressions.

 

Thanks.

[jack paradise]

French magazine Chasseur d'Images ran a comparative test in its December 2003 issue (no. 260). The tests were done with each scanner's own scanning software. (Minolta Dimage Scan version 1.1.1 and Nikon Scan version 4.01)

 

Here's what they said:

 

The Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 USB 2.0, the Scan Elite Firewire 400 IEEE 1394, the Nikon Coolscan 5000 and the Nikon Coolscan V were tested. All in all, these are the best 35mm film scanner in their class. Image quality is very near that of real professional scanners. (read: drum scanner) However, they overall rated the two new Coolscan scanner equal, above the Minolta 5400.

 

The older Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 ED has been outclassed by these three three newer scanners.

 

Nikon Scan software is much improved over previous version. The Minolta software has user scripts, missing on the Coolscan. Both offer ICE with the Coolscan having DEE, a function that lets the user adjust both the highlights and shadows independently.

 

The Minolta 5400 has the fastest preview times, but is slower of the three doing the actual scan. And when ICE is activated, the difference is even higher. The Coolscan 5000 is faster than the Coolscan V.

 

While the input resolution of the Scan Elite 5400 is higher, its real resolution (output) is about the same as the new Coolscan.

 

Scanning b&w films in RGB mode, the Coolscan (Nikon scanning software) preserved both highlights and shadows with the result that the scan appeared softer in terms of contrast (not resolution or sharpness) and demanded more post-processing.

 

With the same b&w film, the Minolta 5400's scan (Minolta scanning software) had much more contrast but tended to blow out some highlights, which could not be recovered with post-processing.

 

This time, they gave the advantage to the Nikon's for scanning b&w negative.

 

The Coolscan's sharpness is as good off-center as it is in the center of the image. Without multi-sampling, the Nikon digs deeper into the shadows and does not have a color cast. The Scan Elite 5400 needs multi-sampling to open up the shadows.

[jack paradise]

About the Nikon Coolscan LED (5000/V): (As per Chasseur d'Images test)

It's sharp enough to show the structure of the film which may lead to a pepper effect. They recommend to go easy on the USM (UnSharp Masking) which is almost unneeded!

 

On the Dimage 5400, the image appears smoother with the Grain Dissolver but needs USM.

[biomed]

Thanks Jack for your posts. They are very helpful. I appreciate it very much.

 

Thank You.

[markus_biedermann]

Fotomagazin (german) rates the minolta better for color negative film. Good overall color

performance and they also claim it works at best speed of all testet scanners (been 7 in

the test).

[jack paradise]

To clarify my point on the Coolscan speed vs the Minolta 5400:

The Minolta 5400 has faster preview than the Coolscan but it actual scan is slower. If you add the time of the preview + the scan time, then the Minolta is faster.

 

But, and there is a but, turn on ICE and the Minolta starts dragging its feet. It then becomes at least twice as slow as the Coolscan for the total scan time.

[neil_swanson]

I've had a 5400 for a few months now and only scan B&W, real B&W and very

very little C41 B&W. If you want it to work well get the Vuescan software.

 

I had some TMZ 3200 negs the Minolta software just couldn't deal with at all.

Way blown out highlights. These are negs I'd have no trouble with at all in a

wet darkroom. Vuescan had no trouble at all. I scan TX and Agfa APX100 no

problem at all and the detail is fantastic. Ilford XP2 scans are cake and I

never use the clean up features the 5400 offers.

 

I tend to set white and black points and brightness for a very even maybe

almost flat looking scan. The Vuescan preview I think is very accurate. I need

very little PS work to get what I want.

 

I've tried multipass scans and never seen a difference over one pass with the

the scanner exposure options set right. The 5400 also has a preset high/low

speed scan option to get highlight and shadow detail but maybe it is my negs.

I just don't seem to need it.

 

I can't compare any speeds vs other scanners as I've never owned any other

scanner. I'm on a G4 1ghz with 1gig RAM and use Firewire.

[matthias_leuenberger]

I have been heavily using the Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 for 2 years now and I am very happy with it. None the less I am considering to switch to the new Minolta 5400 because it - apparently - does a better job with color negs (almost all of my stock). My Nikon very often produces quite grainy results, which was also confirmed in a test of the new Nikon 5000 (German Foto Magazine). Due to the higher resolution, the Minolta got a better rating here... Can anyone confirm this claim?

[jack paradise]

Seems the Minolta 5400 scanner has a negative holder which allows curvature of the film, resulting in less than adequate sharpness off-center of the image. This would be adequatly taken care of if Minolta offered a negative glass holder.

 

This was reported in the dec. 2003 issue of Chasseur d'Images magazine and they said this could be remedied with sharpness filtering (unsharp masking). Today I received an email from a friend in Europe who says he has noted the same problem with his Minolta 5400 scanner and it's apparent even on 8x10" prints. He also says that making a custom mask for the unsharp masking is time consuming and he's hoping that Minolta will come out with a glass negative holder.

[guoming_shou2]

My choice is 5400. Just remember to manually focus. Selective point AF is no match of manual focus, though one may guess they work in the same way. The knob on the scanner can be very easy to use, depending on the sensitivity of your fingers.

 

Also, 5400DPI is a plus. Here is a link showing this:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/scan/se5400/se5400.htm

 

Maybe I can say this: if one can get every bit out of 5400 then it is sligthly better than Coolscan V/5000. But to use 5400 well is tricky. And depending on one's luck a 4500 can have problems...