Nikon or Minolta?

ClaremontPhoto

ClaremontPhoto

Jon Claremont
Local time
3:53 PM
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
5,214
Most people seem to think the Nikon Coolscan V is a great scanner.

But I can see a Minolta Dimage 5400 for about the same price.

4000 dpi on the Nikon and 5400 dpi on the Minolta, and the price is around the same.

Is there some reason why people preder the Nikon?
 
I own both. (don't ask) Both produce equally good scans. I think the Minolta is more user friendly in that it presents your thumbnails more rapidly. Once you start the editing, all's about the same. The Minolta scans 4 slides at a time compared to the Nikon's 1. I do like the Nikon's carrierless scanning for print negatives. If I had to keep one, it would be the Minonta. My impatience makes me turn to my old flat bed because of its true "batch" scanning capability. The if I want to fine tune I use the Minolta more often.
 
Thank you.

This would be for a project in which I'd need to scan 35mm color negs to at least 4000dpi.

i just wondered why everybody (except you) says go for the Nikon Coolscan.
 
I've got the older Nikon Coolscan IV, it's very well made and good for negs. The V is much quicker and allegedly better for trannies. The Minolta is the budget (?) benchmark for trannies with the higher dynamic range and as stated already is better for batch slide scanning. Regardless of which one you go for, I'd suggest trying Vuescan software, it's a lot better than the Nikon scanner software.

Either scanner will do a fantastic job on 35mm negs.
 
Well thank you back alley. That has made my choice a lot clearer!

Seriously, is it comparable to the Nikon and Minolta, performance-wise and price-wise?

Please, nobody reply and say they have an FSU scanner, or a Chevrolet scanner or something equally confusing.
 
i am such a newbie to this stuff.

i got mine in a trade with gene w for an oly 35rc he wanted.
i didn't/still don't know the difference between models/brands.

i'm the last person to ask.

joe
 
I'm interested in this too - I have a Nikon Coolscan V but have been recently toying with switching to the (apparently higher spec'ed) Minolta since it's lighter (I'm foolish enough to attempt to travel with my Coolscan on a regular basis)... but I keep reading the the Coolscan is better and am now wondering if I'd be disappointed with the Minolta.
 
I can't see the difference in a scan from the Nikon compared to the minolta. I'm restricted by my monitor and my ink jet. I think the thing that weighs in most for me is the speed and ease of use. My opinion is that the Minolta wins in that regard. I wish I had the Vuescan soft ware and think that that is where the real effect would be realized. I'm satisfied (for my use) with the Photo shop Elements and either of the scanners mentioned, but if I were looking to publish, I'd have to look into the Imarons or high end Epsons. But then I'd probably be shooting a 5D or somethink of its ilk.
 
One important advantge

One important advantge

one important advntage of the Minolta scanner is the multipass function.
 
I use the original Minolta 5400 and am satisfied with it's performance but then again I also like my HP printer. I like swimming against the stream. How it would compare to a similar Nikon scanner I would not know and have no need to find out, yet anyway, while the Minolta is working.

Bob
 
Jon, when I purchased my (1st gen) Minolta 5400 it was, as much as anything, because it cost considerably less than a comparable Nikon and it was getting good reviews. It's been a good scanner. Slow when using ICE, but because I mainly scan silver-based B&W I don't use ICE that often so it's not a huge factor.

The 2nd gen Minolta 5400 II hasn't played to quite the same reviews for B&W use. They evidently changed the nature of the internal lamp, which B&W photographers don't like as much. If I were buying today, I'd probably spring for the Nikon IV.

I use Vuescan and would continue to use it regardless of which scanner I owned.

Gene
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom