Minolta 5400 or Coolscan 5000

[openshutter]

I am currently shopping for a new scanner to replace my Minolta Dimage
Scan Elite. I have been looking at both the Minolta 5400 and the Nikon
Coolscan 5000. Can anyone relate to me any experiences using either
scanner? Does anyone have an opinion about how the two compare to one
another? I'd greatly appreciate any input that you can offer. Thanks!

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

I am currently shopping for a new scanner to replace my Minolta Dimage
Scan Elite. I have been looking at both the Minolta 5400 and the Nikon
Coolscan 5000. Can anyone relate to me any experiences using either
scanner? Does anyone have an opinion about how the two compare to one
another? I'd greatly appreciate any input that you can offer. Thanks!

You'll get excellent scans from either of these units. The main
difference, apart from the higher nominal resolution of the Minolta, is
scan speed and flexibility. Like most of its predecessors, the Nikon
has been designed to minimise the scan time without compromising scan
quality. It also supports a range of optional bulk film adapters, such
as uncut roll film and batch slide feeders, again reducing the time that
the user has to pore over a hot scanner waiting on the job completing -
just fill it up and go off to do something else until it is finished. On
the other hand, the Minolta is considerably lower in price, so if time
is not a problem then it is probably the one to go for.

 

[DavidTT]

You'll get excellent scans from either of these units. The main
difference, apart from the higher nominal resolution of the Minolta, is
scan speed and flexibility. Like most of its predecessors, the Nikon
has been designed to minimise the scan time without compromising scan
quality. It also supports a range of optional bulk film adapters, such
as uncut roll film and batch slide feeders, again reducing the time that
the user has to pore over a hot scanner waiting on the job completing -
just fill it up and go off to do something else until it is finished. On
the other hand, the Minolta is considerably lower in price, so if time
is not a problem then it is probably the one to go for.

I'm in about the same boat, and want to replace my Polaroid ss4000 with
either a Minolta 5400, a Nikon 5000 or a Canon 4000. I hope that one of
these will produce slide scans that are better than those from the
ss4000 in the following ways, in order of priority:

- full frame scans (the ss400 can do this)
- sharper focus edge to edge
- better shadow details
- less flares (halo around light subject against deep shadow
background). The flares are supposed to be due to dusty mirrors. The
implication is a scanner designed to minimize dust collection inside.
- multisampling support
- native sw at least as good as the ss4000's (not saying much)

I don't use this scanner for business, so scanning speed is not an
issue. The cost difference of a couple of hundred dollars is not as
important as getting the best scanner for my purpose.

Thanks.

 

[Wilfred]

- full frame scans (the ss400 can do this)
- sharper focus edge to edge
- better shadow details
- multisampling support

To my knowledge, both the Coolscan 5000 and the Elite 5400 can do this,
although I'm not so sure about how the focus compares to the ss4000 and
to what extent it depends on how it is controlled (e.g. selection of
focus point, manual vs. aoto). Don't know about the Canon at all.

- less flares (halo around light subject against deep shadow
background). The flares are supposed to be due to dusty mirrors. The
implication is a scanner designed to minimize dust collection inside.

The Minolta 5400 has a spring-operated door that protects the interior
against dust if the scanner isn't used. Don't know about the other two.

- native sw at least as good as the ss4000's (not saying much)

I don't know the native SW of the ss4000 so I can't say anything here.

 

[Bruce Graham]

snip etc. etc.

Hi David

I have the Canon (for about 2.5 years) and I have been happy with it for
my purposes, however, both Minolta and Nikon have continued to develop
their scanner lines and have produced newer models.

If you absolutely need multisampling (without multipass) then you can't
look at the Canon (or the Minolta?).

Some people say Nikon is not noted for edge to edge sharpness as focus is
a bit more critical due to a wide aperture lens used to gain scan speed
and to compensate for the lowish effective intensity of the LED light
source (each colour turned on in turn which slows things by a factor of
3).

I wonder if you will do much better than your Polaroid, but I have no
direct experience of them, just from what I have read here. Can you just
clean the mirrors and keep going? There is a detailed explanation on
the web for DIY cleaning the SS4000 mirrors.

Are you confusing overexposure halos with dust?

Have you tried the long exposure option in Vuescan? - that usually (but
not always) works for me in reducing slide shadow noise.

Have a look at the scanner bake off below.

http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2004/scanner_test_results.html

the SS4000 performs at the upper end of scanners tested. It is sharp,
has competitive chromatic aberration and has a good to excellent
signal/noise ratio (better than the Canon and I think the Minolta,
similar to the Nikon from a quick look).

I'm sure the test has its limits, but I think it shows that the SS4000 is
a competitive scanner in basic scanning performance terms.

I have not tried Silverfast, that may be another way to spend money if
you keep the SS4000! (free demo download to try).

Also, if you are scanning old Kodachromes, you can't really use ICE and
if you are scanning new E6 slides, you probably keep them clean anyway,
so no need to waste time with a second IR pass (I know it happens on the
first pass with the Nikons).

Just some thoughts.

 

[DavidTT]

To my knowledge, both the Coolscan 5000 and the Elite 5400 can do this,
although I'm not so sure about how the focus compares to the ss4000 and
to what extent it depends on how it is controlled (e.g. selection of
focus point, manual vs. aoto). Don't know about the Canon at all.

There is no manual focus on the ss4000. Do both the Coolscan 5000 and
the Elite 5400 be focused manually? Has the Coolscan 5000 fixed the dof
problem found on the Coolscan 4000?

 

[DavidTT]

Hi David

I have the Canon (for about 2.5 years) and I have been happy with it for
my purposes, however, both Minolta and Nikon have continued to develop
their scanner lines and have produced newer models.

If you absolutely need multisampling (without multipass) then you can't
look at the Canon (or the Minolta?).

Some people say Nikon is not noted for edge to edge sharpness as focus is
a bit more critical due to a wide aperture lens used to gain scan speed
and to compensate for the lowish effective intensity of the LED light
source (each colour turned on in turn which slows things by a factor of
3).

I wonder if you will do much better than your Polaroid, but I have no
direct experience of them, just from what I have read here. Can you just
clean the mirrors and keep going? There is a detailed explanation on
the web for DIY cleaning the SS4000 mirrors.

Are you confusing overexposure halos with dust?

Not sure what you meant by overexposure halos. In the ss4000 scans, the
halo is around a bright subject against a deep shadow background. That
halo is not on the film. After cleaning the ss4000's mirror, the halos
diminish some but still exist.

Have you tried the long exposure option in Vuescan? - that usually (but
not always) works for me in reducing slide shadow noise.

I stay away from third party software because it is difficult to tell if
they offer any additional scanner hardware control not available on the
native software, or if they make software changes after the scans are
captured. For VueScan to provide a long exposure option on the ss4000,
the scanner would have to have such a hardware capability, and VueScan
would somehow know how to control it. This is never spelled out by
Polaroid or by VueScan.

I prefer to scan raw and edit in Photoshop.

Have a look at the scanner bake off below.

http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2004/scanner_test_results.html

the SS4000 performs at the upper end of scanners tested. It is sharp,
has competitive chromatic aberration and has a good to excellent
signal/noise ratio (better than the Canon and I think the Minolta,
similar to the Nikon from a quick look).

I'm sure the test has its limits, but I think it shows that the SS4000 is
a competitive scanner in basic scanning performance terms.

Interesting test. The ss4000 was the first 4000dpi desktop scanner, and
is a great value these days. Too bad Polaroid can't seem to market,
support and continue the product.

I have not tried Silverfast, that may be another way to spend money if
you keep the SS4000! (free demo download to try).

Also, if you are scanning old Kodachromes, you can't really use ICE and
if you are scanning new E6 slides, you probably keep them clean anyway,
so no need to waste time with a second IR pass (I know it happens on the
first pass with the Nikons).

I try to keep my film clean. With no bosses or customers breathing down
my back, I can afford to spot the scans manually.

Just some thoughts.

Thanks a lot.

 

[Wilfred]

There is no manual focus on the ss4000. Do both the Coolscan 5000 and
the Elite 5400 be focused manually?

The Elite 5400 can be focused manually. Don't know about the Coolscan.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

(e-mail address removed) wrote:



The Elite 5400 can be focused manually. Don't know about the Coolscan.

Yes, all the Nikon scanners can be focussed manually. However, unlike
the Minolta which has a mechanical focus knob, the manual control used
by Nikon is software only. I can't think of any reason why anyone would
want the mechanical control, its not as if you can see the image change
focus in real time as you turn the knob, so the software adjustment
would appear to offer more control. The focus knob seems to be a
situation where Minolta have tried to be user friendly but got the
ergonomics wrong - but I could be wrong too, so if there is value in
that knob I am sure some Minolta users will explain what it is. ;-)

 

[Hecate]

Yes, all the Nikon scanners can be focussed manually. However, unlike
the Minolta which has a mechanical focus knob, the manual control used
by Nikon is software only. I can't think of any reason why anyone would
want the mechanical control, its not as if you can see the image change
focus in real time as you turn the knob, so the software adjustment
would appear to offer more control. The focus knob seems to be a
situation where Minolta have tried to be user friendly but got the
ergonomics wrong - but I could be wrong too, so if there is value in
that knob I am sure some Minolta users will explain what it is. ;-)

It's shiny, silver and looks cool? Oh, you mean for focusing...

Only psychologically in that it gives you a feeling that you're
actually doing something . ;-)

Oh, and sometimes it does make a difference...

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

It's shiny, silver and looks cool? Oh, you mean for focusing...

Only psychologically in that it gives you a feeling that you're
actually doing something . ;-)

Oh, and sometimes it does make a difference...

In what way does it make a difference? What immediate feedback is there
of the effect of the knob on focus or do you need to make a scan at full
resolution to judge the effect?

On the Nikon, for example, the software slider scale has a numerical
data window, which at least gives some indication of effect on focal
plane position as well as precision control. If that is all the Minolta
provides then I agree that the advantage of the knob is merely
psychological for technophobic users, but without some sort of real time
feedback it isn't even that.

 

[Wilfred]

In what way does it make a difference? What immediate feedback is there
of the effect of the knob

I still haven't decided whether I find this knob useful. Like Nikon,
Minolta also offers a software-controlled focus with a slider on the
screen. In both cases, with the knob and with the slider, a black bar
inside a white bar apears on the screen. The lengths of the bars
correspond to the accuracy of focusing. The white bar retains the
maximum value reached as you turn the knob (or slide the slider) and the
black one shows the focusing level that corresponds to the actual
setting. So first you fiddle with the slider/knob until the maximum that
the white bar displays doesn't change anymore, and then you fine-tune to
make the black bar match the white one.

on focus or do you need to make a scan at full
resolution to judge the effect?

No. I don't know what the bars exactly indicate, though.

 

[Simon Waldman]

I still haven't decided whether I find this knob useful. Like Nikon,
Minolta also offers a software-controlled focus with a slider on the
screen. In both cases, with the knob and with the slider, a black bar
inside a white bar apears on the screen. The lengths of the bars
correspond to the accuracy of focusing.

Yes... I have a DSE5400 and never use teh knob. On the few occasions
when I use manual focussing, I find it easier and more accurate to use
the slider on the screen. I think the knob is more of a marketting tool
than anything else.

No. I don't know what the bars exactly indicate, though.

I'm guessing that it must be the contrast in teh area being used for
focus. ICBW.

 

[Toby]

--snip--

I stay away from third party software because it is difficult to tell if
they offer any additional scanner hardware control not available on the
native software, or if they make software changes after the scans are
captured. For VueScan to provide a long exposure option on the ss4000,
the scanner would have to have such a hardware capability, and VueScan
would somehow know how to control it. This is never spelled out by
Polaroid or by VueScan.

You are making a mistake if you think that third party s/w is inferior. I
switched from Nikonscan to Silverfast for my ED 4000 and the difference is
great. Silverfast offers so many more options that it makes NS look less
than mediocre. Silverfast is much easier to use in most ways, and the
results are much better than anything I ever managed to achieve with
Nikonscan. In addition it offers advanced controls for color correction that
NS can only dream of, as well as preset film profiles that save a lot of
time.

I prefer to scan raw and edit in Photoshop.

You lose a lot of quality this way. You should get s/w that allows you to
get optimized scans into Photoshop in the first place. Doing the corrections
in PS later from less than ideal scans gets you gappy histograms and
sharpening halos, among other things.

You would be doing youself a service to download the demo of Silverfast and
giving it a try before passing blanket judgements. I have never used it but
I understand that Vuescan is also excellent, and much cheaper than the
LaserSoft product. I was a doubter but I would never use NikonScan again
after trying Silverfast.

Toby

 

[false_dmitrii]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in message

- better shadow details

A recurring complaint with the SE5400 is shadow noise, usually bands
of light. Different people seem to have very different experiences
here.

- less flares (halo around light subject against deep shadow
background). The flares are supposed to be due to dusty mirrors. The
implication is a scanner designed to minimize dust collection inside.

Someone once wrote that the LS/Coolscan 5000 is worse at this due to
its lighting system.

That's what I've read. No first-hand experience, though. (soon, soon,
I hope... I don't think there's a single "perfect" scanner
available, just two extremely good ones with their own personalities.

false_dmitrii

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in message


A recurring complaint with the SE5400 is shadow noise, usually bands
of light. Different people seem to have very different experiences
here.


Someone once wrote that the LS/Coolscan 5000 is worse at this due to
its lighting system.

It may be what you have picked up, but it doesn't appear to hold any
water. If anything, the near collimated light source of the Nikon
should minimise this issue, but the problem is dominated by what happens
after the slide is illuminated (ie. the light path between the film and
the CCD) and, in particular, the number of optical surfaces where dust
can accumulate and act as scattering centres. The faster the optic, the
less that individual dust particles influence the scattering, so it
follows that susceptibility to this is also proportional to depth of
field. Since the Nikons have lower depth of field than most scanners
because they require faster optics to work with their light sources,
they should be less prone to the scattering problem for the same reason.
So I don't think you can attribute the problem, and any suggested
susceptibility of the Nikon scanners, to the illumination system, since
all the parameters associated with it seem to be in their favour.

That doesn't mean that the Nikons don't suffer, but more than anything
else it is basic design, sealing and the minimal use of outgassing
plastics that controls the problem. Of it were only down to the
illumination source, the LED system would win hands down.

 

[Hecate]

In what way does it make a difference? What immediate feedback is there
of the effect of the knob on focus or do you need to make a scan at full
resolution to judge the effect?

You need to scan at full resolution. I find I use it occasionally. or
most images, the auto focus is fine.

On the Nikon, for example, the software slider scale has a numerical
data window, which at least gives some indication of effect on focal
plane position as well as precision control. If that is all the Minolta
provides then I agree that the advantage of the knob is merely
psychological for technophobic users, but without some sort of real time
feedback it isn't even that.

What you do is select manual focus, then select an area of the image
on screen with good contrast, use the "focus meter" and mouse control
or the focus dial (the shiny silver thing on the front). Either way
you get the same result.

 

[Hecate]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in message


A recurring complaint with the SE5400 is shadow noise, usually bands
of light. Different people seem to have very different experiences
here.

It did happen, with early versions of the software (1.1 and 1.2) as
far as I know it was cured from version 1.3 onwards.

 

[Don]

Silverfast is much easier to use in most ways, and the
results are much better than anything I ever managed to achieve with
Nikonscan. In addition it offers advanced controls for color correction that
NS can only dream of, as well as preset film profiles that save a lot of
time.

It's a difference in design and target audience.

Both VueScan and SilverFast are "point-and-shoot" programs similar to
disposable cameras. OK for casual tourist but not for people who care
for quality or have an inkling of what they are doing. Nothing wrong
with that if that's what they are after, but...

What you are saying above is essentially: Hasselblad is garbage, Kodak
Instamatic is far superior - fixed focus, auto-exposure...

You lose a lot of quality this way.

Forgive me, but that is just plain nonsense. Exactly the opposite is
true.

By doing image editing at the scanning stage you irreparably *corrupt*
the image at the earliest possible stage and with the crudest possible
"tools".

If, instead, you scan as faithfully as possible you will have the
equivalent of a "digital negative". After that you can edit as much as
you want and still have the original untainted - should you change
your mind.

By "adjusting" the image at the scanning stage using the Preview
"keyhole" you are just irretrievably damaging data coming from the
scanner. Something which is often impossible to correct later and
certainly not without additional loss of quality.

Don.

 

[David Blanchard]

You would be doing youself a service to download the demo of Silverfast and
giving it a try before passing blanket judgements. I have never used it but
I understand that Vuescan is also excellent, and much cheaper than the
LaserSoft product. I was a doubter but I would never use NikonScan again
after trying Silverfast.

I have been testing Silverfast--both full AI and limited SE versions.
There is a significant price difference between the two and if SE can
do enough, it might suffice.

Which do you use? Thanks.

David