wilonstott
Wil O.
I'm interested in getting one of these. Any clear winner? How's reliability?--no more konica/minolta, so this is a big issue. Any information would be very helpful. Thanks a lot guys.
Minolta 5400 or 5400II?
- Thread starter wilonstott
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 15
- Views 1K
Rhoyle
Well-known
They were both excellent. The 5400II supposedly a little better, but since they're not serviceable, get the one that works.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
I bought the II, but returned it and bought the first version. But, for the life of me, i can't remember why....
Either way, if you use a Mac, plan on adding some 3rd party scanning software. Or, be frustrated by the inconsistently operating Minolta stuff which was never designed for the Intel processor/recent OS.
That said, i think the 5400 v1 is fantastic for B+W/silver films. Not sure about color. It might 'increase' grain a bit more than a Nikon. Not sure. If i had to buy a scanner today, i'd probably get a Nikon.
Either way, if you use a Mac, plan on adding some 3rd party scanning software. Or, be frustrated by the inconsistently operating Minolta stuff which was never designed for the Intel processor/recent OS.
That said, i think the 5400 v1 is fantastic for B+W/silver films. Not sure about color. It might 'increase' grain a bit more than a Nikon. Not sure. If i had to buy a scanner today, i'd probably get a Nikon.
Sparrow
Veteran
I've been happy enough with the MKI version
I only use it for stuff I'm going to print as it's not that fast, but it's worth the wait if you’re looking for quality
I only use it for stuff I'm going to print as it's not that fast, but it's worth the wait if you’re looking for quality
sevres_babylone
Veteran
I can't comment on reliability, because I've used mine (original version) so little. Although a little bit more recently. I am now using it with Vuescan, which works well with it.
The fact I use it so little is a comment on my dislike for scanning, not on the scanner or software.
The fact I use it so little is a comment on my dislike for scanning, not on the scanner or software.
Last edited:
wilonstott
Wil O.
*have a mac and already have vuescan
Sparrow
Veteran
All the stuff on the "RFF" link in my signature is done with the mkI.
I'm mac and viewscan too.
I'm mac and viewscan too.
douwe
Jazz and Silver
I have the 5400 version 1 running on my desk right now. I only scan B&W and I like the scanner. See my flickr site for scans. All of them are scanned on the minolta.
www.flickr.com/photos/krooshof
www.flickr.com/photos/krooshof
MDenton
Established
Re the point about Minolta software on a Mac. I'm quite happily running the latest version (v.1.1.6) of the Minolta software on my intel Mac OS 10.5.8
Driver downloads at http://ca.konicaminolta.com/support/americas/scanners/dimage-scanners/index.html
Driver downloads at http://ca.konicaminolta.com/support/americas/scanners/dimage-scanners/index.html
Last edited:
MDenton
Established
I should add I'm using the 5400.
wilonstott
Wil O.
yea i'm running 10.5.8 as well--so thats good news
naren
Established
I have the first 5400 and I love it except the software issues. IMO the Minolta software is waaay better than Vuescan and is possibly my fav of all scanner softwares I've used. It's been a while but I have used Nikons and currently also use an older Imacon. The problem I have is it stops working on me when the application quits if the computer freezes up or if the power goes. Then when I've rebooted I can't use the software. (even after deleting the file it says in the readme doc that you must delete when this happens) I even tried installing on my external hard drive after deleting the prog but that didn't work either. The first time I had this problem I needed to reformat my hard drive for other reasons and then after that I was using it again. This time I don't know what to do, except after reading one of the other comments I will try booting Classic and then the Minolta software. I'm running OS 10.4.11
As far as the 2 versions are concerned, the 1st one has a firewire 400 port and I believe the 2nd one does not. I have limited ports on my mini so this influenced my choice. I also vaguely recall after looking at a pretty good test of a number of scanners that there was no significant difference in scans between the 2. Should also not that I was told it is not really true that USB 2.0 is faster than firewire 400- only for burst speed. I have not really tried using it both ways to compare and see if it matters at all, because most important for me is just keeping the scanner plugged in with firewire.
As far as the 2 versions are concerned, the 1st one has a firewire 400 port and I believe the 2nd one does not. I have limited ports on my mini so this influenced my choice. I also vaguely recall after looking at a pretty good test of a number of scanners that there was no significant difference in scans between the 2. Should also not that I was told it is not really true that USB 2.0 is faster than firewire 400- only for burst speed. I have not really tried using it both ways to compare and see if it matters at all, because most important for me is just keeping the scanner plugged in with firewire.
Vitor
Member
I have the 5400 and I'm happy with the results.
To add to what was already said, the 5400 as Grain Dissolver, it uses a special glass to diffuse the light and give a smoother grain, the 5400 II uses Digital GEM, this method uses an algorithm. I don't know what method is best, but the Grain Dissolver is highly regarded.
The 5400 II is faster in operation from what I know.
You wont be wrong with any of them.
To add to what was already said, the 5400 as Grain Dissolver, it uses a special glass to diffuse the light and give a smoother grain, the 5400 II uses Digital GEM, this method uses an algorithm. I don't know what method is best, but the Grain Dissolver is highly regarded.
The 5400 II is faster in operation from what I know.
You wont be wrong with any of them.
srtiwari
Daktari
I have the 5400 II, and have use it on a Power PC Mac with the 10.6. It works.
I use the KM software, and will download the latest version- thanks mdenton.
I am intrigued by the number of people who like/use Vuescan, which I find very "fiddly" and unnecessarily complicated.
Does Vuescan produce better image quality ? More options for less than perfect negatives ?
KM software does NOT provide RAW files either- that one difference.
I would like to use Vuescan, and set it up so that it is less time intensive each time.
I use the KM software, and will download the latest version- thanks mdenton.
I am intrigued by the number of people who like/use Vuescan, which I find very "fiddly" and unnecessarily complicated.
Does Vuescan produce better image quality ? More options for less than perfect negatives ?
KM software does NOT provide RAW files either- that one difference.
I would like to use Vuescan, and set it up so that it is less time intensive each time.
Sparrow
Veteran
I would use the KM software, but I can't get it to work reliably on mine; running 10.5.8 at the mo
srtiwari
Daktari
Stewart,
I too use the 10.5.8, not the 10.6. what is the problem you are having ?
I too use the 10.5.8, not the 10.6. what is the problem you are having ?
