New Reflecta RPS10M (aka Pacific Image PrimeFilm XA) or used Coolscan 4000?

[13Promet]

Hello everybody,

in order to digitalize my negs I'm using my X-E2 coupled with a macro lens and a slide duplicator so far.
The IQ is OK, but I would like to take advantage of batch processing and reduce the PP work I'm going through by my current workflow.

After looking around I found the Minolta 5400 to be the best solution, but it's nearly impossible to find one over here, and when they show up the pices are crazy (more expensive than when it was sold brand new).

The remaining options within my budget (roundabout 600€) are the Reflecta and the Coolscan 4000.

I've read several reviews regarding both, but unfortunately I could not find any direct comparison.

Of course, the Reflecta would be brand new, 2 years warrranty, slightly superior actual resolution and full roll batch processing.
But I'm not really sure about the final actual IQ compared to the Nikon, which is supposed to employ better lens and mechanics.

Did anybody try them both and is able to perform an overall comparison?

Thank you in advance for any support!

Alessandro

 

[Merlijn53]

A minolta 5400 goes on ebay under €600. I got mine under €400 a year ago.
Frank

 

[HHPhoto]

A friend of mine has the new Reflecta RPS 10M and is very satiesfied.
It has a bit better resolution in real world results compared to the Nikon Coolscan V and 5000.
A German photo test magazine also came to this conclusion. It is a very good scanner.

Cheers, Jan

 

[13Promet]

A friend of mine has the new Reflecta RPS 10M and is very satiesfied.
It has a bit better resolution in real world results compared to the Nikon Coolscan V and 5000.
A German photo test magazine also came to this conclusion. It is a very good scanner.

Cheers, Jan

I've read that review as well, and I know about its resolution, but unfortunately there are two "buts":

1) that website is selling the Reflecta scanner (and not the coolscan 4K any more, of course)
2) Resolution is not the only parameter for judjing a scanner (just like a camera).

That's why I'd like a direct comparison

Thank you for your kind support, Jan!

 

[13Promet]

A minolta 5400 goes on ebay under €600. I got mine under €400 a year ago.
Frank

That's indeed about the price it was sold new when it was still on the market.
A bit too much for an 8 years old scanner which is not supported any more by Minolta.
If I could find it for 400€ I'd get it instantly, but I guess you've been pretty lucky! 🙂

 

[Merlijn53]

That's indeed about the price it was sold new when it was still on the market.
A bit too much for an 8 years old scanner which is not supported any more by Minolta.
If I could find it for 400€ I'd get it instantly, but I guess you've been pretty lucky! 🙂

Maybe you mean the cheaper models, but the 5400 was around 800 when sold new.
Frank

 

[13Promet]

Maybe you mean the cheaper models, but the 5400 was around 800 when sold new.
Frank

I mean the 5400 II, indeed.
Best price over here was about 700€ brand new, but doesn't make much difference.
There is just a little price reduction, which is out of this world considering that it's pretty old, preishable consumer electronics.
Of course there's an impact for the fact that - even 10 years later - there isn't any product of the same quality in its price range.
For instance, I'm able to get the used Coolscan 4000 for 550€ now, which costed much more than the 5400 brand new.

You're probably right, anyway: it's worth to wait for a good deal on the Minolta.
But the Selecta, brand new for the same price, is tempting.

Basically I'm lost, and that's why I'm seeking eye-opening advices 🙂

 

[Merlijn53]

Well, I don't know about the reflecta for sure, but I do know, that the reason why the older nikon and minolta scanners are so populair is the quality of the optics and the fact that they focus on the negative. I.e. flatbed scanners, but as far as I know all dedicated filmscanners except Imacon that are sold nowadays have a fixed lens. That does not have to be a problem, but it can make a big difference in sharpness when making bigger prints.
At the moment I use a minolta 5400, an Imacon Flextight and an Epson 700, each having their own advantages and disadvantages, but there are a lot of situations where the Epson just isn't good enough.
If the coolscan is in good condition, I would give it a try.

 

[Nokton48]

I just bought a refurbished rebuilt Nikon Coolscan LS-2000 and I am looking forward to giving it a try. $299 with a one year warranty.

 

[lonemantis]

I bought the Primefilm XA (aka 10M) and used it briefly before returning it to B&H. I haven't used the 4000, but I'm extremely lucky to have access to an LS-5000 through my work.

From my limited experience, the XA did have marginally better resolution, but with a slower scan time. The real dealbreaker, however, was that the colours it generated were very disappointing, compared to the Nikon. Calibration might help, but the Nikon is much better out of the box.

The Nikons, of course, cannot be easily serviced. However, if you have even basic experience assembling computers, they're pretty easy to strip down and maintain. The XA is not a bad scanner by any means, but in the same price range as a 4000, I'd strongly prefer the Nikon.

 

[13Promet]

Eventually I've gone for the Nikon 4000.
Total cost was a very afffordable 450€: 350€ for a perfectly working one with the MA-20 slide adapter only, and 100€ for another one with all the three working adapters (MA-20 + SA-21 + FH-3) but the scanner itself faulty, which anyway could be used it in the future for spare parts.
The non-working one is also newer (basically it saw no use), so I might consider switching the mainboards between the two, as it powers on...

I've run some tests in the last few days, and I'm pretty satisfied about the results and the quick workflow compared to the "shoot the film" one (I'm using it with Vuescan with it).

But I also have to say that, unexpectedly, the Fuji X-E2 + Nikkor 60 macro + Flash + Polaroid slide duplicators setup delivers better results by a not so slight margin: little more optical resolution (even if the file res is 16 VS 24 Mpx) and the grain is definitely less harsh.
I think the difference depends on the quality of the lens, and possibly lighting (LED Vs. flash).


This is an example of one of the first color scans with little PP in Lightroom.

M6, Summicron 50 IV, (cheapo) Fuji C200
Scan-151011-0002_PP (Large) by S A, su Flickr

Thank you all for the very kind and precious support!!!

 

[Jhausler]

I'm very happy with my Reflecta. I had to return the first copy because the batch feeding was off, but #2 works well. If you get one, buy from someone with easy and free returns/exchanges.

Here's a darker shot if you're curious to see shadows. It's HP5 stand developed in rodinal, so take that for what it's worth. Auto focus was used, but no multiexposure... i haven't paid for the Silverfast upgrade yet.

Here's a full size if you want to peep:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mangler/21803733836/sizes/o/

 

[Jhausler]

Another shot with Reflecta 10M. This time Delta100 with standard processing.

Full size:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/705/21750529626_26ab5bc722_o.jpg

 

[k__43]

Both scanners should be fine .. an overlooked scanner might be the Canon FS4000
From my experience a great scanner for C41, very nice colors
The only problem might be finding one with a not fading lamp. CCFLs just slowly die over the time. I even thought about replacing that lamp with an RGB LED array but then again I think the light is one of the main reasons the scanner produces those nice colors.
I've now settled for a Nikon LS8000