Digital darkroom...

[berci]

Which one would you go for?

The budget is tight but I could squeeze out the 5400 II, however I am not sure if I really need it.

Anyway, is there a big difference between the 5400 and 5400 II?

Or apart from the smaller dpi would I have the same quality with the Scan Dual IV?

Printing is an issue, I would like to print images bigger than A4, every now and then, but not much bigger.

I am submerged in GAS.

 

[Biber]

I'd try to get a used SE5400, any version. I have one myself and I'm very pleased with it. I chose it because of the higher resolution so I never compared it against the SDIV (and the SE5400II wasn't out then), but I have friends who own the SDIV and from what I've seen it's a good scanner too.

 

[dcsang]

I've got the older Scan Elite II (pre Konica/Minolta Merger) - it's still kicking and keeps providing me with decent B&W scans using VueScan.

I've been considering an upgrade but that may/probably won't happen until next year at which point I'll probably bite and get the Nikon 5000 ED.

Cheers
Dave

 

[djon]

If a 5400II works it's a good scanner, rivaling Nikon V. But they often don't work and Minolta's support is not well intended.

I owned two before I gave up and replaced by a wonderful Nikon V.

Minolta 5400II's manual focus override is a mistaken concept. Nikon's autofocus flexibility is much better. Minolta's film holder is enlarger style and cheap plastic.

If I had to have a Minolta with Ice I'd get the older 5400 (though Nikon V is at least five times faster)..or if I was mainly doing B&W with silver film I'd get the IV because Ice doesn't work with silver film (does with C41 B&W)..and the IV is a cheap, good machine.

 

[jaapv]

I've got the 5400 II and it works and has worked perfectly with no mechanical problems at all. I use Vuescan with good results, but the difference in practical use to the Minolta software is only slight, so it might not be worth spending money on Vuescan. I had a Nikon before the Minolta and I prefer the look of the Minolta scans. But the filmholder, though perfectly fine in use, does look a bit cheap compared to Nikon's metal ones.

 

[djon]

My first II worked for a half dozen scans of several types of film....I tested immediately.

While it worked I got excellent scans by default from C41 and E6. I've subsequently compared Nikon scans...they seem equal, both amazingly good by default.

From brief experience, I'd say Minolta's application is better than Nikon's with B&W, which is a big reason Nikon users will want Vuescan. Nikon's fine with E6, C41, and distinctly excellent with Kodachrome. Both machines do well with Ice.

Minolta requires delicate film holder insertion technique. Thats' what Minoltas "service" knumbknuts said over and over.

Nikon doesn't use an enlarger-style filmholder or any manual positioning...everything is positioned by electronics and motor.

It's interesting that Nikon V weighs about three times as much as a 5400II.

 

[jano]

From brief experience, I'd say Minolta's application is better than Nikon's with B&W, which is a big reason Nikon users will want Vuescan. Nikon's fine with E6, C41, and distinctly excellent with Kodachrome. Both machines do well with Ice.

What is it about the nikonscan b&w's which doesn't look right?

 

[djon]

"What is it about the nikonscan b&w's which doesn't look right?"

According to many (not all) users, Nikonscan (in Nikon V and 5000) tends to exaggerate grain and produce a constellation of white spots that become evident at 8X10 and larger.

There's a very reliable Nikonscan workaround: scan the negative as positive (like a slide), then invert in Photoshop or Elements. That works very well, however I don't like the extra step and it may/does lose some very fine detail in highlights in that inversion (maybe that wouldn't happen with subtle adjustments).

Vuescan doesn't have this grain/white spots issue at all.

As well, Vuescan's "slight grain reduction" option works wonders with fast film while seemingly losing no sense of sharpness.