Nikon Coolscan Or Minolta 5400

Dexter: What version of Minolta's software are you running?

I mostly use VueScan these days, but I've had no problem with Minolta's software under Mac OS X Tiger (10.4.11; I always stay at least one "cat" back).


- Barrett
 
Tuolumne said:
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
Click to expand...

For me it is the other way around. My Minolta outperforms my 4990 by miles.
More sharpness more Dmax, more detail, better color.

Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema
 
dcsang said:
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
Click to expand...

F@rk, I knew it. I knew there had to be a hack, but I couldn't figure it out for the life of me, so I went ahead and spent the money on the actual kit. The adaptor looks exactly the same as the bundled film strip feeder. I even tried to use that one while the roll thingy that goes in the back was mounted, and surely enough, the scanner wouldn't advance farther from the 6th frame.

I tried doing a search, but I can't find it (spelling mistakes and non-sequiturs --non sequitae??-- make searches a real challenge on online forums --forae??--) Do you recall more or less how it was titled/what subforum it was posted at?
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
F@rk, I knew it. I knew there had to be a hack, but I couldn't figure it out for the life of me, so I went ahead and spent the money on the actual kit. The adaptor looks exactly the same as the bundled film strip feeder. I even tried to use that one while the roll thingy that goes in the back was mounted, and surely enough, the scanner wouldn't advance farther from the 6th frame.

I tried doing a search, but I can't find it (spelling mistakes and non-sequiturs --non sequitae??-- make searches a real challenge on online forums --forae??--) Do you recall more or less how it was titled/what subforum it was posted at?
Click to expand...

Gabe,

Here's the thread:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67365

Read through it (it's only 2 pages) - I asked a few questions of Mabelsoud regarding the hack - it's pretty interesting and looks to be quite easy (even if you're not going to use solder :D)

Dave
 
I used to own the Elite 5400. It was a terrific scanner. Now I have the Nikon 9000, which is also a terrific scanner. Which one is better? Obviously, the Nikon is better, for at least two reasons (1) it does medium format, (2) it is still made and serviced by Nikon.

Both these scanners scan film very well. All the rest - applying curves, color balance, etc., is all software. When someone says that Nikon does better with Kodak while Minolta does better with Fuji, they're mostly talking about the scanner software, not the hardware. I scan via Vuescan to 16-bit linear files, and I apply curves in Photoshop, so to me, both Minolta and Nikon produce very good scans for 35mm film. Their dynamic range is very good, the detail is very good. The rest is just the operator. My advice is go for the cheaper, and spend the time learning how to scan. It will be time well spent.
 
frankienardoz said:
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).

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

I have both the 5400-II and coolscan V. I bought the 5400-II first after looking at many reviews. The higher resolution of the 5400 is IMO a real advantage, disadvantages are some (fixable) scanning artefacts, and lower build quality. After two repairs and a third breakdown I gave up on the 5400-II and got the coolscan.
The coolscan V is more solid, no visible scan artefacts.
I ran both with VueScan which allows you to use infrared cleaning with both scanners.
In short, get the coolscan if the price is right, else have a serious look at the newer Epson V700 flatbed.

Hope this helps, Hans
 
I don’t want to open a new thread so here is my dilemma. As I am constantly disappointed with scans from lab so I would like to purchase 35mm scanner.
I have an opportunity to get either Minolta 5400 or Coolscan IV, which is cheaper. I have try both of them and though the Minolta is better on paper I like Coolscan much more - better build, easier film loading and very good bundled SW. Minolta feels like toy and I was not that much impressed with results (maybe I was doing something wrong..). And Minolta is more used.
 
My first scanner was the KM5400. Marvelous machine. The diffuse light source is great.

The problem is buying something like this used. It could have been used to scan 1000000 negatives or 50. That leaves the condition of the insides very questionable. The outside does not get worn sitting on a desk.
 
Vobluda said:
I don’t want to open a new thread so here is my dilemma. As I am constantly disappointed with scans from lab so I would like to purchase 35mm scanner.
I have an opportunity to get either Minolta 5400 or Coolscan IV, which is cheaper. I have try both of them and though the Minolta is better on paper I like Coolscan much more - better build, easier film loading and very good bundled SW. Minolta feels like toy and I was not that much impressed with results (maybe I was doing something wrong..). And Minolta is more used.
Click to expand...
The Coolscan IV is a very good scanner, but I would hardly regard the Minolta 5400 as a "toy", either in build quality or performance; I've owned a 5400 (first version, not the 5400 II) since buying it new about five years ago, and it's been a solid performer, both for my own work and others' projects I've worked on. And, yes, the extra resolution has come in handy from time to time.

The 5400 II was a different design, with a different light source (LEDs instead of a fluorescent tube), somewhat faster scanning times/speed, and plastic outer casing rather than metal. The 5400 II met with more mixed reviews than the original 5400, but the few 5400 II scanners I've set up for clients seemed to work just fine.


- Barrett
 
Couple of my friends own the Coolscan V. They have said that Vuescans "ICE" works often better than Nikonscan's, which blurs the grain also rather just removes the dust. I've seen the samples and I agree totally.

I personally wouldn't use Nikonscans ICE and anyway I dont think ICE is too important when choosing the scanner. But I print my own final photos in the darkroom and just scan for internet.

The diffused scan with Nikon actually seems suprisingly much the same as my scans from Minolta Scan Dual IV. Friend scanned me a roll of B&W with the Nikon and the grain and tones were a bit weird I think. So I would agree that diffused light is nice for B&W.

Does Coolscan 9000 really improve results from Coolscan V or 5000 for 35mm? I would think it is about the same quality except that it eats MF.

I've heard much good about the 5400 too. The II version of it has some metal parts replaced with plastic ones I've heard. Dunno about other differences, but I would consider the "I" version I guess. Also Scan Dual IV is good if you want to save some money...
 
I've got (access to) a Konica Dimage 5400II and with its own software it works great (on XP). However, it is only supported up to XP and I couldn't get the drivers to install on Vista. Okay, use Vuescan. Vuescan works on Vista with the 5400 II but for some reason a red colour cast was coming through everything no matter what settings I used (4 hours trying). Skies always turquoise like cross processed or something. I have yet to try Silverfast with it. Vuescan works fine with my Epson 4990. But the Konica beats the 4990 for 35mm scans hands down. Its Ice system works well also. What do people favour for 120 film scanning?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom