Minolta 5400 or Coolscan V

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert Gee
  • Start date Start date
R

Robert Gee

Hello,

I plan to order a scanner to scan my K25/K64 and E6 slides.

Which is best for that please. The Nikon is 600 and the Minolta 650 €
 
Robert Gee said:
Hello,

I plan to order a scanner to scan my K25/K64 and E6 slides.

Which is best for that please. The Nikon is 600 and the Minolta 650 ?
Click to expand...
It is really a matter of choice. Do you prefer a LED light source or a Cold
cathode fluorescent tube.

The Nikon uses LEDs for the light source (four, a red, a green, a blue and a
IR).
The Minolta 5400 uses Cold Cathode.
The Minolta 5400 will not scan APS film.

Nikon is a bigger name in the photography world than Minolta, If name brand
means anything to you.

Since I have had experience with a Minolta Scan Dual IV scanner (low end), I
think if it were me choosing, I would buy the Nikon. Because maybe better
tech support and a bigger photography manufacturer.

On the tech support, I have no knowledge of Nikon tech support, but I have
had experience with Minolta tech support. Minolta tech support does a bad
job of responding to email, the phone tech support is lousy also, but better
that email.

If it would help, you can look at what I have posted about the Minolta Scan
Dual IV.
http://www.carlmcmillan.com/dimagescandual_iv.htm
 
Thank you for your answer. I'm pretty confident and i would prefer to read that
we advise me to choose the Nikon for the reason you have mentionned. But i've
read many reviews and especially the one by photozone.de that made a comparison
of coolscan vs 5400 (fluo). I know also the 5400 have been replaced by a led one
(5400 II) and about Kodachrome i have no more element to choose a one or
another. So i try to gather comments around the world to help me to decide. I
think i will also try to send samples to volunteer that can help me scanning 2
Kodachromes and one E6 on their personnal 5400/5400 II/coolscan V and send me
the digital raw files to help me to decide.

Regards

R
France.
 
Robert Gee <[email protected]> said:
Hello,

I plan to order a scanner to scan my K25/K64 and E6 slides.

Which is best for that please. The Nikon is 600 and the Minolta 650
Click to expand...
Well in terms of their ability to scan K25/64 there is nothing special
to chose between the Nikon CS-V and the Minolta 5400, they both have ICE
and neither version works particularly reliably with that media. No,
the difference is much more generic than that. The Minolta is simply a
much better product than the Nikon CS-V - it has higher sample density
at 5400ppi compared to 4000ppi and more colour depth at 16-bits per
channel compared to 14-bits. Even if these differences did not exist,
most of the key features that would make me chose the Nikon are not
available in the CS-V, such as multiscanning and bulk media support. The
only "feature" that the Nikon offers over the Minolta is a simpler
motorised film strip feeder - which is likely to be of no value at all
in your circumstances. With the prices being so close, this decision
really is a "no-brain-er" - Minolta.
 
Hello,

I plan to order a scanner to scan my K25/K64 and E6 slides.

Which is best for that please. The Nikon is 600 and the Minolta 650 €
Click to expand...

If I was you I'd look to see if there is still a new, if not used,
5400. I've got one and it's great and because of the new II version
of the 5400 you should be able to get v.1 cheap.

Then again, someone who uses Nikon will no doubt give you the opposite
advice.

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
 
Kennedy,

Yours is just about the first positive post I have seen on the Minolta 5400.
Almost all I have seen have been very discouraging with respect to build
quality, with many posters throwing up their hands in frustration and going
with a CS 5000. I suppose it is possible that the only people who post are
those who are unhappy and there may be a large number of satisfied 5400
users out there, but it does raise caution flags for me. I would love the
extra resolution, but I don't want to have to go through two or three
machines to find one that works.

My own inclination right now is to go with a CS 9000, partly for reliability
and ruggedness and partly for the quality of its scans. I realize we are
talking about a very large difference in initial cost. However, with 35 to
40 thousands slides to scan, and adding more all the time, the difference in
average cost per scan becomes trivial.

I do agree the CS V is not a serious machine. Limiting it to one at a time
scanning was a really dumb decision by Nikon.

regards,

Chris Luneski

--
There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good
photographs. -Ansel Adams

(e-mail address removed)
Alamy: http://tinyurl.com/5alew
MyLoupe: http://tinyurl.com/7xwd5
Stock Connection: http://tinyurl.com/5uqjm
 
Chris Luneski said:
Kennedy,

Yours is just about the first positive post I have seen on the Minolta 5400.
Click to expand...

You surprise me - there have been plenty of positive posts about it in
this forum, some in this thread!
My own inclination right now is to go with a CS 9000, partly for reliability
and ruggedness and partly for the quality of its scans. I realize we are
talking about a very large difference in initial cost.
Click to expand...

Not only in cost - the CS-9000 is a completely different format of
scanner. Those considered so far are 35mm format scanners. The CS-9000
is a 120 format scanner, a much larger machine.
However, with 35 to
40 thousands slides to scan, and adding more all the time, the difference in
average cost per scan becomes trivial.
Click to expand...
In which case, your choice of the CS-9000 seems very unwise. For less
cost you could get a Nikon LS-5000 and a bulk feeder, which will be
invaluable for scanning large volumes of slides.
I do agree the CS V is not a serious machine. Limiting it to one at a time
scanning was a really dumb decision by Nikon.
Click to expand...

So you will not be impressed at all with the "one at a time" limitations
of the CS-9000 either - it does not support a bulk feed option!
 
The first one uses fluo light vs the second using leds.
Many commenters argued the minolta tooked adavantage over the Nikon because of
the fluo light.
 
On the tech support, I have no knowledge of Nikon tech support
Click to expand...

My experience with Nikon's so-called "tech" support has been very
negative. They do have a web site where users can create a login and
post questions:
http://support.nikontech.com/
but responses to anything even remotely technical are really
appalling. This is based on a sample of 11 different questions.

Nikon can (sometimes) help with finding software on their site or with
which end of the power cable to plug into the mains, but any
"difficult" questions expose ignorance of even the most elementary
concepts. And that's from the self-appointed "third level" support!

Still, you can't beat the RGB LED light source so in spite if it all I
grudgingly threw even more money at Nikon when I got my second scanner
(first an LS-30 then an LS-50)... :-(

Don.
 
I know also the 5400 have been replaced by a led one
(5400 II) and about Kodachrome
Click to expand...

Do note that 5400 II has a *single* while LED while Nikons have 3
individual RGB LEDs. That's a very important distinction for a number
of reasons! The Nikon approach is far superior (better color purity).

To complicate the comparison the superior Nikon's light source is
countered by Minolta having higher resolution (5400 vs 4000) and
higher bit depth (16 vs 14).

However - and as always - there's a catch and you identified it:
Kodachromes! Generally, they are a nightmare to scan with Nikons. The
"Kodachrome" mode (I have an LS-50 a.k.a. Coolscan V) just doesn't go
far enough. When you run the A/B tests do try *dark* Kodachromes
because they challenge Nikons the most!

ICE doesn't work with Kodachromes, in general. However, it does work
on slides which are overexposed i.e. all the silver has been washed
out, or the uniform, low contrast, areas of the image. But any bits of
silver left in the film confuse ICE as does a transition from bright
to dark where dark, silver loaded areas, are mistaken for debris.

A time consuming approach may be to scan twice and then manually
"paint over" the ICE image with data from a regular scan to correct
areas where ICE fails. Sounds messy but beats having to correct the
*whole* image.

Don.
 
Robert Gee <[email protected]> said:
The first one uses fluo light vs the second using leds.
Many commenters argued the minolta tooked adavantage over the Nikon because of
the fluo light.
Click to expand...
Quite the opposite, the precise wavelength of LED light means better
colour purity than filtered white light, but that will be no different
with Kodachrome than it is with any other film emulsion.

There really does seem to be a lot of misunderstanding circulating about
this. The only particular issue with Kodachrome and scanners of any
type relates to ICE, since Kodachrome emulsion cannot be guaranteed to
be free of silver oxide, which is opaque at the infrared wavelengths
used by ICE.

Apart from that, Kodachrome presents no other particular problems to
slide scanners, although the density of Kodachrome does require a
sufficiently high dynamic range scanner to avoid losing the shadow
details. Both of these scanners have sufficient dynamic range for
Kodachrome.
 
Don said:
However - and as always - there's a catch and you identified it:
Kodachromes! Generally, they are a nightmare to scan with Nikons. The
"Kodachrome" mode (I have an LS-50 a.k.a. Coolscan V) just doesn't go
far enough. When you run the A/B tests do try *dark* Kodachromes
because they challenge Nikons the most!
Click to expand...
That is simply a dynamic range issue, and applies to both scanners.
 
Does anybody around the world has ever tested the 5400 vs 5400 II with
Kodachrome ?
Click to expand...

No, but the German Computer Magazin ct tested the Nikon Super Coolscan
9000, Nikon Coolscan V, Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 and Canon
CanoScan 8400F the ability to remove scratches and dust with the build
in ICE or FARE on Kodachrome.

In short, the Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 had the best result with the
Kodachromes. The Nikon Coolscan V had heavy artefacts like blurry or
lost details.
The 5400 had also no problems with the Kodachrome slides, although the
manual stated not to use the ICE with Kodachrome. The tester stated,
that the result was close to the Nikon Super Coolscan 9000.
And the Canon... well it had also his trouble with normal slides, let
alone with the Kodachrome.

And I had so far no problems with scanning Kodachromes with the 5400.

-Leonhard
 
Kennedy,

Yours is just about the first positive post I have seen on the Minolta 5400.
Almost all I have seen have been very discouraging with respect to build
quality, with many posters throwing up their hands in frustration and going
with a CS 5000. I suppose it is possible that the only people who post are
those who are unhappy and there may be a large number of satisfied 5400
users out there, but it does raise caution flags for me. I would love the
extra resolution, but I don't want to have to go through two or three
machines to find one that works.
Click to expand...
The you haven't read my post ;-)

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
 
Funny that - about 40minutes earlier, I didn't. ;-)
Click to expand...


LOL!

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
 
Back
Top