Nikon Coolscan V vs Minolta 5400

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fausto
  • Start date Start date
F

Fausto

Both scanners cost similar prices. It would be interesting to have more
information about features.

Does anybody who has used both of them can tell us his/her experience ?.

Thanks.
 
Olaf said:
Oh no, not again ...!
Click to expand...
=========================================
Olaf, I read the thread a month ago re these two scanners. However I
noticed it degenerated into an argument about whether the Coolscan V
cropped during the scan process or scanned the entire image, whether it
was a Nikon design flaw or that term was inaccurate, and it came off as
one person's attempt to stamp his authority here and always get the last
word in. While I was looking for a review of the two scanners, I was
disappointed to not find much that I would call helpful. Is "Coolscan V
frame size (was Minolta 5400)" the thread you're referring to?

Jerry C.
 
=========================================
Olaf, I read the thread a month ago re these two scanners. However I
noticed it degenerated into an argument about whether the Coolscan V
cropped during the scan process or scanned the entire image, whether it
was a Nikon design flaw or that term was inaccurate, and it came off as
one person's attempt to stamp his authority here and always get the last
word in. While I was looking for a review of the two scanners, I was
disappointed to not find much that I would call helpful. Is "Coolscan V
frame size (was Minolta 5400)" the thread you're referring to?
Click to expand...
This question has been asked several times. Just look for almost any
thread which says "which scanner" or Minolta v. Nikon, or... you get
the picture :)

I had this choice a while ago and bought the Minolta. I preferred it
when I read the specs and did a bit of research. Other people have
done the same thing and bought the Nikon. There really *isn't* a
*best* scanner. They both have advantages and disadvantages.
 
Olaf, I read the thread a month ago re these two scanners. However I
noticed it degenerated into an argument about whether the Coolscan V
cropped during the scan process or scanned the entire image, whether it
was a Nikon design flaw or that term was inaccurate, and it came off as
one person's attempt to stamp his authority here and always get the last
word in. While I was looking for a review of the two scanners, I was
disappointed to not find much that I would call helpful. Is "Coolscan V
frame size (was Minolta 5400)" the thread you're referring to?
Click to expand...

I suspect the problem is that not many people have both scanners in
order to be able to do a proper head-to-head comparison so that may be
why there aren't numerous replies with comprehensive info.

Because of that, perhaps, you may be better off posting two messages
and asking about each scanner individually. Of course, most replies
you would get then may be "it's great!" or "it sucks!", neither of
which is very useful. Sort of a catch 22...

If it helps any, when I'm about to make such a purchase I go to the
manufacturers' sites and compare technical info, which is presumably
what you already did. In general, I also make sure I don't buy brand
new products but consider only something which has been around for
about 6-12 months - and by then the above mentioned technical specs
are no longer "statement of intent" but closer to reality. This has
the twofold advantage of a more reasonable price (I let other people
pay the development cost) and by then most (big) bugs have been worked
out (again, I let early adopters do the debugging).

Don.
 
Jerry C. said:
=========================================
Olaf, I read the thread a month ago re these two scanners. However I
noticed it degenerated into an argument about whether the Coolscan V
cropped during the scan process or scanned the entire image, whether it
was a Nikon design flaw or that term was inaccurate, and it came off as
one person's attempt to stamp his authority here and always get the last
word in. While I was looking for a review of the two scanners, I was
disappointed to not find much that I would call helpful. Is "Coolscan V
frame size (was Minolta 5400)" the thread you're referring to?
Click to expand...

LOL.

There really isn't a good all-around test of the Coolscan V online yet.

Bart van der Wolf has a great page dated 2003 comparing the 5400 with
some older Nikon scanners, but the N5000 and Coolscan V are too new:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/scan/se5400/se5400-5.htm

Here is an interesting comparison of the 5400, N5000, and Coolscan V,
with some Coolscan IV images included, in Norwegian:
http://www.akam.no/art.php?artikkelid=8227

Here is a good single-image two-spot comparison of the 5400 and N9000:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=415297
 
Olaf Ulrich said:
Oh no, not again ...!
Click to expand...

LOL, I'm guilty too. :) FWIW, I think Don's probably right: there
aren't enough people with experience with both machines to offer a
definitive comparison. When I tried to do the research a few months
back, it was difficult to find many in-depth sites that had reviewed
scanners from a year ago or more, let alone the more recent Nikon and
Minolta offerings. Has this improved since then?

Regards,
false_dmitrii
 
Back
Top