tajart
ancien
i'm seeking opinions on the km 5400 and 5400-II scanners.
i think the difference between these two is the light source.
would it be better to consider a nikon rather than on out of production tool?
anyone know if sony has plans to introduce a scanner based on the above?
tia-tomj
i think the difference between these two is the light source.
would it be better to consider a nikon rather than on out of production tool?
anyone know if sony has plans to introduce a scanner based on the above?
tia-tomj
Ronald M
Veteran
Nothing wrong with 5400 model 1 unless you need software for new operating systems. You will have to get Vue Scan.
Today I would get a med format Nikon and glass carrier which I would mask down for 35mm. No sure how effective this would be.
Film flatness is a problem with enything except a drum scan or Flextight.
Today I would get a med format Nikon and glass carrier which I would mask down for 35mm. No sure how effective this would be.
Film flatness is a problem with enything except a drum scan or Flextight.
amateriat
We're all light!
For what it's worth:
The principal difference between the 5400 I and II is the light source: the I uses a fluorescent tube-type light source, while the II (which, incidentally, was not officially a replacement for the I, but an addition to the line) uses an LED source similar to Nikon's. The scuttlebut is that Minolta (Konica-Minolta by then) made the change to rival the scanning speed of Nikon's scanners, which were noticeably faster. From an image-quality standpoint, it's probablly a draw; I liken the difference between the two scanners' light sources as I do the difference between an enlarger with a diffusion light source (5400 I) and one with a condenser light source (5400 II, and every Nikon scanner I can think of, all the way back to the LS-10).
Some have felt the 5400 II wasn't as reliable as the I; I can't say for certain here. I've been using a 5400 I practically since it was released, and it's been fabulous. The 5400 I definitely has the Grain Dissolver function, which lives up to the hype, though I haven't found myself needing it all that often. I don't know whether or not the feature was removed from the 5400 II.
Sony releasing a new version of the scanner (or any scanner at all)? Don't hold your breath...they agreed to make a deal with KM mainly to get hold of their dSLR product/technology (now playing as the Sony Alpha) in order to get a jump-start in that market without starting from scratch, and they're having enough of a time keeping that flame burning versus brands C and N. IMO, they've always had a severe allergy to anything remotely connected with film.
- Barrett
The principal difference between the 5400 I and II is the light source: the I uses a fluorescent tube-type light source, while the II (which, incidentally, was not officially a replacement for the I, but an addition to the line) uses an LED source similar to Nikon's. The scuttlebut is that Minolta (Konica-Minolta by then) made the change to rival the scanning speed of Nikon's scanners, which were noticeably faster. From an image-quality standpoint, it's probablly a draw; I liken the difference between the two scanners' light sources as I do the difference between an enlarger with a diffusion light source (5400 I) and one with a condenser light source (5400 II, and every Nikon scanner I can think of, all the way back to the LS-10).
Some have felt the 5400 II wasn't as reliable as the I; I can't say for certain here. I've been using a 5400 I practically since it was released, and it's been fabulous. The 5400 I definitely has the Grain Dissolver function, which lives up to the hype, though I haven't found myself needing it all that often. I don't know whether or not the feature was removed from the 5400 II.
Sony releasing a new version of the scanner (or any scanner at all)? Don't hold your breath...they agreed to make a deal with KM mainly to get hold of their dSLR product/technology (now playing as the Sony Alpha) in order to get a jump-start in that market without starting from scratch, and they're having enough of a time keeping that flame burning versus brands C and N. IMO, they've always had a severe allergy to anything remotely connected with film.
- Barrett
Last edited:
