DiMage 5400 Repair?

[Dave Jenkins]

Does anyone know of someone who can repair Minolta-Dimage 5400 film scanners? Mine makes great scans and has served me well for nearly 20 years, but now the film carrier advance is getting a bit sketchy.

 

[inzite]

junk it and start digitizing with a digital camera, macro lens and light pad + negative lab pro. You'll save alot of time doing it this way and the image quality will be much higher.

 

[Doug]

I would be interested too, in knowing where to get a Minolta scanner serviced. But, Dave, you have had the benefit of using your scanner for 20 years and enjoying the results.

 

[bjolester]

My Minolta 5400 had some transport mechanism problems many years ago, where the machine would pull in the film holder, drive the film holder to the innermost position, and then spin endlessly. The normal start-up procedure was not possible to achieve. I contacted the last remaining Minolta film scanner workshop in Europe, which was situated in Bremen Germany (RTC Solutions), and they suggested I clean the frame just inside the flap door in the very front of the scanner with a soft brush, there is a sensor there that recognises when a film holder is inserted. This simple fix restored my scanner back to normal working condition.

To the OP: These days I am not aware of any workshops that are able to repair the old Minolta film scanners. I guess that 20 years of use is pretty decent for a consumer device like the Minolta 5400, maybe your scanner is simply at the end of its lifespan? "Camera scanning" seems like the easiest way to digitise film in 2021.

 

[jdriffill]

I'd also be interested in getting a Minolta scanner repaired, this one a Scan Dual II. The film holder is not transported evenly when scanning. It sticks from time to time. The scanner is 20 years old, so maybe finding anyone to repair it is too much to hope for.

 

[ASA 32]

Precision Camera in Enfield, Connecticut, serviced my Multi Pro scanner some years ago. I think at that time they were a factory authorized service for Konica-Minolta scanners. I was told at the time that replacement parts were no long available. Also, there was and maybe still is a Yahoo group for folks using those scanners. There were many posts related to parts, repair and service. Good luck!

 

[das]

Wait, what? A digital SLR with a macro lens produces higher quality results than a dedicated 5400 dpi scanner? This is news to me.

junk it and start digitizing with a digital camera, macro lens and light pad + negative lab pro. You'll save alot of time doing it this way and the image quality will be much higher.

 

[bjolester]

Precision Camera in Enfield, Connecticut, serviced my Multi Pro scanner some years ago. I think at that time they were a factory authorized service for Konica-Minolta scanners. I was told at the time that replacement parts were no long available. Also, there was and maybe still is a Yahoo group for folks using those scanners. There were many posts related to parts, repair and service. Good luck!

The Yahoo MultiPro group has been terminated by Yahoo. Many of the group members have migrated to:


https://groups.io/g/multipro

 

[inzite]

Wait, what? A digital SLR with a macro lens produces higher quality results than a dedicated 5400 dpi scanner? This is news to me.

totally if you use the camera digtizing method correctly. the only thing you lose out is auto dust removal but I always make sure my negs are dust free when i digitize so it's not an issue at all. Use that method along with negative lab pro is a total game changer.

 

[das]

Yeah, 5400 dpi is 39 megapixels. All but the highest end digital cameras are not getting there, especially when you put a negative through another camera lens, which may have its own distortion and optical imperfections. And a high end digital camera capable of at least 39 mp costs double and sometimes triple or quadruple what a dedicated scanner of comparable resolution. I'm not saying that one cannot get very good results using a digital camera, but it's not entirely correct to say that it's better than a Minolta 5400.

totally if you use the camera digtizing method correctly. the only thing you lose out is auto dust removal but I always make sure my negs are dust free when i digitize so it's not an issue at all. Use that method along with negative lab pro is a total game changer.

 

[inzite]

Yeah, 5400 dpi is 39 megapixels. All but the highest end digital cameras are not getting there, especially when you put a negative through another camera lens, which may have its own distortion and optical imperfections. And a high end digital camera capable of at least 39 mp costs double and sometimes triple or quadruple what a dedicated scanner of comparable resolution. I'm not saying that one cannot get very good results using a digital camera, but it's not entirely correct to say that it's better than a Minolta 5400.

IMO there's alot more to it than just a resolution or megapixels. Technology has came a far way since 2005. A d800e these days cost between 500-800 usd so i would say it's pretty realistic and not an overkill for people on average income. Add a few more bills and get a macro lens and you have a killer digitizing source. and i forgot to mention that i used to use a 5400 back in the days as well, great for the time but there are much better options now.

 

[randy stewart]

scanner resolution

scanner resolution

Wait, what? A digital SLR with a macro lens produces higher quality results than a dedicated 5400 dpi scanner? This is news to me.

Yeh, that would be news to anyone who bothers to do the math as well. The Minolta 5400 does an honest 5400 dpi. The currently in vogue method of using a full frame DSLR with macro lens, assuming a perfect light source and perfect alignment of camera sensor and film, with a good macro lens, may resolve 100 lines per millimeter. With those assumptions, the 5400 is resolving more than twice the detail of the DSLR. Further, the 5400 does not have the potential for camera vibration or surface glare off the film.

 

[Ronald M]

I have gone to D800e, 60 2.8 G, lume cube light. It will make 8x10 or 11x14 prints.
There are no scanners capable of better results at reasonable prices. Buy a drum scanner if you need better.
The problem with Nikon set up is the film holder is not too good and when scanning anything but two middle frames, it spins out of level. I made a fixture to cure it.
M10 Leica is way better than any film camera and iso 6400 is a snap. Even a properly used M8 is better at lower iso.
5400 software will not run on any Mac I own. Alternatives are problems.

 

[inzite]

I have gone to D800e, 60 2.8 G, lume cube light. It will make 8x10 or 11x14 prints.
There are no scanners capable of better results at reasonable prices. Buy a drum scanner if you need better.
The problem with Nikon set up is the film holder is not too good and when scanning anything but two middle frames, it spins out of level. I made a fixture to cure it.
M10 Leica is way better than any film camera and iso 6400 is a snap. Even a properly used M8 is better at lower iso.
5400 software will not run on any Mac I own. Alternatives are problems.

Totally with you there. Having used a 5400 back in the days and now digitizing with a d800e, its no comparison hands down, speed, quality and future proof. Focusing on just the on paper numbers/specs for theorectical resolution dont show the full picture - theres even a phone with 108MP too but doesn't mean much. If you already have a 5400 sure keep using it if you still can but if you need to spend money to fix one, definately consider not and try digitizing for once. 😎 Good Luck!

 

[Doddle]

The weakness of camera scanning is the light source. You will see so-so results for C-41 and E6 film on a LED pad, compared to what a Minolta 5400 or Coolscan 9000 (or drum scanner) can pull. Resolution of 35mm film caps out at around 24MP, any more just makes your grain sharper but doesn't resolve more detail. (effective highest DPI of the best scanners is around 24MP mark)
Watch this video to see why light sources matter - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1s-tVmug5g
OP, don't throw the scanner out even if its dead. The lens alone is worth a fair chunk of change on eBay (200-250 USD).

 

[titrisol]

Yeh, that would be news to anyone who bothers to do the math as well. The Minolta 5400 does an honest 5400 dpi. The currently in vogue method of using a full frame DSLR with macro lens, assuming a perfect light source and perfect alignment of camera sensor and film, with a good macro lens, may resolve 100 lines per millimeter. With those assumptions, the 5400 is resolving more than twice the detail of the DSLR. Further, the 5400 does not have the potential for camera vibration or surface glare off the film.

The Dimage 5400 was amazing no doubt!
It produced the best images of any scanner I had used

Goodluck finding a repairs man

In the mean time I found this:
https://manualzz.com/doc/1450918/minolta-dimage-scan-elite-5400-service-manual

 

[Doddle]

I have 2 dead 5400's. I never got round to trying to fix them, but with the service manual it shouldn't be too hard - the insides look pretty modular, like an old desktop PC. If nothing else then get that lens out, its really something else for macro photography.

 

[Jake Mongey]

https://www.facebook.com/groups/150357926308674/

There is a small facebook group for the minolta scanners but there is an EX Konica Tech on there who may be able to help. Unfortunately there doesnt seem to be as large as a facebook group for the minolta scanners as there is for the Nikons where Ive been able to do a few repairs on my coolscans with some great guides

 

[JohnBeeching]

I too have Minolta 5400 and have used it for about 20 years. It is still working and I dread its death. While I am sure that using a digital camera can do a decent job if properly set up, it is a complex combination of various components. A good scanner, like the 5400, is much more reliable and convenient to use.

 

[aldobonnard]

5400 software will not run on any Mac I own.

Both NikonScan and Minolta Scan work a treat on my MacBook Pro, in a virtual machine running windows XP (Oracle virtualbox). Better and faster than on a regular old PC because of the CPU power and GB's of RAM the Mac has. The only drawback of virtual machines is that the firewire port is not supported (some scanner only use firewire).