frankienardoz
Newbie
Hi guys,
I want to buy a good scanner below a 1000$ budget. I thought to get a Nikon Coolscan V ED which I used a couple of times and it works just fine but then it turned out it is out of production. I went on ebay and a second hand one is as expensive as new (only thing that it is impossible to find a new one cause it has been discontinued).
I was also looking at a minolta elite 5400 which has an higher resolution but does not have the nikon digital ice program which i find quite useful.
Basically what I would like to understand is which scanner is better and if anyone knows if Nikon is about to release a new edition of Coolscan (maybe a Coolscan VI).
Any suggestion is highly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
I want to buy a good scanner below a 1000$ budget. I thought to get a Nikon Coolscan V ED which I used a couple of times and it works just fine but then it turned out it is out of production. I went on ebay and a second hand one is as expensive as new (only thing that it is impossible to find a new one cause it has been discontinued).
I was also looking at a minolta elite 5400 which has an higher resolution but does not have the nikon digital ice program which i find quite useful.
Basically what I would like to understand is which scanner is better and if anyone knows if Nikon is about to release a new edition of Coolscan (maybe a Coolscan VI).
Any suggestion is highly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Oh, the Minolta Elite 5400 is far far better than the Coolscan V. The only one that I would consider over the Minolta Elite 5400 is the Coolscan 9000.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
As someone who owns a Nikon 5000, I feel that it surpassed my previous scanner (Minolta Scan Elite II - 2820dpi).
That said, I would opt for something in production (to the best of my knowledge the 5000 isn't that much more expensive; in $U.S. mind you, than what your budget is).
Cheers,
Dave
That said, I would opt for something in production (to the best of my knowledge the 5000 isn't that much more expensive; in $U.S. mind you, than what your budget is).
Cheers,
Dave
Florian1234
it's just hide and seek
Gabriel, could you please point out, what makes the Minolta 5400 better than the Coolscan?
frankienardoz
Newbie
thank you for your reply gabriel
I know it has a higher resolution, is there any other reason why you think it s a better scanner? Do you know if it has something like a digital ice function and if it works with a mac osx 10.5.5 system?
I know it has a higher resolution, is there any other reason why you think it s a better scanner? Do you know if it has something like a digital ice function and if it works with a mac osx 10.5.5 system?
elude
Some photographer
Black and white -> Minolta
Color & Black & white & Kodachrome -> Nikon
They're all really good, V, 5000, Elite 5400. In the end I prefer Nikon's software (NikonScan 4.2 which is very powerful).
Color & Black & white & Kodachrome -> Nikon
They're all really good, V, 5000, Elite 5400. In the end I prefer Nikon's software (NikonScan 4.2 which is very powerful).
Frank Petronio
Well-known
You can find demo and slightly used Coolscan 5000s for about $1000 and it is a current production model. I'd avoid the Minolta unless it was a great deal.
elude
Some photographer
Minolta's ICE isn't as good as Nikon's. One is Software, the other hardware ICE. The difference is sensitive.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Gabriel, could you please point out, what makes the Minolta 5400 better than the Coolscan?
It has a diffused light, which the Coolscan V (and 5000) lacks. The big disadvantage is, of course, that the company is defunct, bought out by Sony, and the scanner has been discontinued for at least two years. Nikon seems to still support the Coolscan V, 5000 and 9000 models.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
To date, (touch wood ) I've not had any issues with my Nikon; that said, I didn't have any issues with the Minolta either but I switched because I wanted higher resolution and something that could handle slides a bit better (and I couldn't afford an Imacon )
Dave
) I've not had any issues with my Nikon; that said, I didn't have any issues with the Minolta either but I switched because I wanted higher resolution and something that could handle slides a bit better (and I couldn't afford an Imacon )Dave
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I do not know if the Minolta's bundled software actually runs on MacOS X (10.5+), but I know VueScan does and supports native (i.e. "hardware") ICE functions. I've used VueScan with success, but it's a pain when doing batch scans, which is what I do 90% of the time.
You could get an add-on for the Coolscan V and 5000, which allows you to scan full rolls at a time. But it's extremely difficult to find (I know), and it costs around $500 USD.
Florian1234
it's just hide and seek
I'm still thinking about switching from V500 to the Coolsccan V. That said it would be either a new lens (several various caught my eye,hard to decide) or a new/other scanner.Tuolumne
Veteran
I have both a Minolta Elite 5400 and an Epson 4990 flatbed. Maybe there's something wrong with my Minolta, but my 4990 gives much better scans. I was even thinking of selling the Minolta, if there are any takers.
/T
/T
JPSuisse
Well-known
I thought that all LEDs produce diffused light. The minolta uses a white LED I think. The Nikon 5000 uses RGBI LEDs as a light source. Don't LED's require a collimator precisley because the light source is diffuse?
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
I concur - VueScan is awesome (I don't mind batch scanning at only 6 frames - never really need or desire to scan a whole roll at a time but that's me).
Gabe, WRT the batch add on - there's a hardware hack (posted on the forum here somewhere) that links to a real easy "fix" to allow the V and 5000 to do the batch scanning of rolls WITHOUT the add-on equipment.
Dave
Wuddy
Member
Hi,
and while we are at hacks, there is one to diffuse the light in the Nikon
Coolscan LS-5000, read more about it here:
http://www.scanhancer.com/uploads/downloads/scanhancer_with_nikon_sa-21_adapter.pdf
I tried it and it only works with Vuescan, the Nikon software blocks it.
I did something similar on my condenser enlarger a while back.
It's done by inserting an opaque glass or paper in front of the light source.
I had a very grainy Ilford Delta 3200 exposed @2000 developed by a lab.
Left is the normal Nikon Coolscan, right with an opaque paper in front of the lightsource:
100% no PP
It's still quite grainy but I think that is a matter of film choice and developing.
Anyway it's not conclusive to view scans from b&w film at 100%, they print
and scale well even if they don't look so nice on the screen. Still the diffuse
version prints better I think.
I don't know how that compares to the minolta 5400 which has a
kind of scanhancer built in or the Nikon 9000 which seems to be diffuser
than the 5000. But i'd sure like to find out...
It's a very workaround kind of solution which has it's drawbacks
but it also does extract more details from the highlights and possibly
the shadows too.
Michael
and while we are at hacks, there is one to diffuse the light in the Nikon
Coolscan LS-5000, read more about it here:
http://www.scanhancer.com/uploads/downloads/scanhancer_with_nikon_sa-21_adapter.pdf
I tried it and it only works with Vuescan, the Nikon software blocks it.
I did something similar on my condenser enlarger a while back.
It's done by inserting an opaque glass or paper in front of the light source.
I had a very grainy Ilford Delta 3200 exposed @2000 developed by a lab.
Left is the normal Nikon Coolscan, right with an opaque paper in front of the lightsource:
100% no PP
It's still quite grainy but I think that is a matter of film choice and developing.
Anyway it's not conclusive to view scans from b&w film at 100%, they print
and scale well even if they don't look so nice on the screen. Still the diffuse
version prints better I think.
I don't know how that compares to the minolta 5400 which has a
kind of scanhancer built in or the Nikon 9000 which seems to be diffuser
than the 5000. But i'd sure like to find out...
It's a very workaround kind of solution which has it's drawbacks
but it also does extract more details from the highlights and possibly
the shadows too.
Michael
FTR the hardware hack does work with the 5000, but does *not* work with the V because:
a. there's no port on the back of the V for the film to exit from.
b. the software will recognise the V firmware and prohibit batch scanning of entire rolls.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
I have a 5400v1. The software, with 10.5.5, is frustrating. Perhaps it's because of a dispute with some of my peripherals(?), but it sometimes refuses to start. I get an error message, which, when googled, it seems is quite common. Some people are able to get the software to work after deleting some preference files. Sometimes that works for me, sometimes not. Maybe it only used to work for me before i upgraded to Leopard? In any case, the software only works (when it works) for me in stand-alone mode. It does not work as the Import plug-in in Photoshop CS3.
Vuescan and Silverfast are options, though.
Also, my 5400 will not run whatsoever when my Epson 4990 is also connected via USB. Whenever i want to use the 5400, i have to disconnect the 4990.
Although i do like the results from the 5400, if i had it to do all over again, i'd probably get a Nikon scanner. I probably, though, should just pay for Silverfast to get my 5400 to work more consistently - but it's just too expensive and you have to buy it for each scanner.... For some reason, i just don't like the Vuescan results. When i use it with the 4990, the Epson software gives me much better imaging.
bigdog
Established
CK Dexter,
I have the Minolta 5400 version I that I run with Silverfast software and the results are excellent. I think I only paid $75 for the scaled down version of the software and I find it was worth the investment considering the cost of the scanner.
I have the Minolta 5400 version I that I run with Silverfast software and the results are excellent. I think I only paid $75 for the scaled down version of the software and I find it was worth the investment considering the cost of the scanner.
amateriat
We're all light!
Some technical notes:
- All Nikon film scanners use an LED-based illumination system. All Minolta/Konica Minolta film scanners, up until the DS 5400 II, utilize a fluorescent tube for illumination. The 5400 II used an LED-based system similar to Nikon's.
- The optical difference between LED vs. fluorescent tube-based scanners is roughly equivalent to the difference between condenser vs. diffusion enlargers. The former can potentially tease out more detail from a negative, but at the expense of revealing more flaws in the film (scratches, dust, uneven development); the latter system is more forgiving of physical flaws in the film, but possibly at the expense of extreme detail.
- Nikon's most recent Coolscan models are supposed to be quite fast in terms of scan times. Minolta likely moved to an LED system for the 5400 II for this reason. (I haven't been bothered by the scan times with my first-generation 5400. For me, it's the quality of the scans I care about first and foremost, and the 5400 delivers in this regard.)
- Both Minolta's later scanners (from the DS2900 onward for the high-end models) and Nikon's Coolscans (from the III onward) utilize Digital ICE. Digital ICE is both hardware- and software-based for any scanner utilizing it, including recent flatbeds.
- Both the Minolta 5400 and 5400 II utilize a Grain Dissolver, essentially a diffuser that moves into the optical plane on-demand, and pretty much performs as advertised.
- I've heard of no reliability issues WRT the first-generation Minolta 5400. I had heard of some scattered issues with early-production versions of the 5400 II, but the few I've set up for some of my tech clients have worked fine.
- Batch scanning? Nikon give you the option of a film-strip loader on the 5000 that does an entire uncut roll, but it's gotten mixed reviews. (I vividly remember, at the stock agency I once worked at, trying to get the slide stack-loader for a Nikon LS-1000, then an LS-2000, to work reliably, with hilarious results; my boss was less amused.) With my Minolta, I simply bought a few extra film and slide holders and, during a serious scanning session, pre-load them; when one "rack" is done, my Mac chimes at me, I go over and remove the finished holder from the scanner, insert the new one, hit "scan", and go back to whatever I was doing (probably editing, but possibly tidying up my iTunes library).
- About the only time I use a flatbed for film scanning is when I want enlarged digital contact sheets. For that, my tabloid-platen-size UMAX PowerLook 2100XL is a champ: it can scan two 36-exposure rolls at once, and I usually print 11x14" contacts of each roll.
- The Nikon scanner to compare to the Minolta DS 5400 would be the 5000. Both are excellent scanners.
- Barrett
- All Nikon film scanners use an LED-based illumination system. All Minolta/Konica Minolta film scanners, up until the DS 5400 II, utilize a fluorescent tube for illumination. The 5400 II used an LED-based system similar to Nikon's.
- The optical difference between LED vs. fluorescent tube-based scanners is roughly equivalent to the difference between condenser vs. diffusion enlargers. The former can potentially tease out more detail from a negative, but at the expense of revealing more flaws in the film (scratches, dust, uneven development); the latter system is more forgiving of physical flaws in the film, but possibly at the expense of extreme detail.
- Nikon's most recent Coolscan models are supposed to be quite fast in terms of scan times. Minolta likely moved to an LED system for the 5400 II for this reason. (I haven't been bothered by the scan times with my first-generation 5400. For me, it's the quality of the scans I care about first and foremost, and the 5400 delivers in this regard.)
- Both Minolta's later scanners (from the DS2900 onward for the high-end models) and Nikon's Coolscans (from the III onward) utilize Digital ICE. Digital ICE is both hardware- and software-based for any scanner utilizing it, including recent flatbeds.
- Both the Minolta 5400 and 5400 II utilize a Grain Dissolver, essentially a diffuser that moves into the optical plane on-demand, and pretty much performs as advertised.
- I've heard of no reliability issues WRT the first-generation Minolta 5400. I had heard of some scattered issues with early-production versions of the 5400 II, but the few I've set up for some of my tech clients have worked fine.
- Batch scanning? Nikon give you the option of a film-strip loader on the 5000 that does an entire uncut roll, but it's gotten mixed reviews. (I vividly remember, at the stock agency I once worked at, trying to get the slide stack-loader for a Nikon LS-1000, then an LS-2000, to work reliably, with hilarious results; my boss was less amused.) With my Minolta, I simply bought a few extra film and slide holders and, during a serious scanning session, pre-load them; when one "rack" is done, my Mac chimes at me, I go over and remove the finished holder from the scanner, insert the new one, hit "scan", and go back to whatever I was doing (probably editing, but possibly tidying up my iTunes library).
- About the only time I use a flatbed for film scanning is when I want enlarged digital contact sheets. For that, my tabloid-platen-size UMAX PowerLook 2100XL is a champ: it can scan two 36-exposure rolls at once, and I usually print 11x14" contacts of each roll.
- The Nikon scanner to compare to the Minolta DS 5400 would be the 5000. Both are excellent scanners.
- Barrett
Last edited: