SCANNER: NIKON or MINOLTA?

[mike goldberg]

Hi...

I'm about to purchase a DEDICATED scanner, and it comes down to 2 choices:

- Nikon Coolscan V ED [expensive!]

- Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV

NOTE: The Minolta is available BOTH new & used... with purchase being made in Europe. I understand that Konica-Minolta have gone out of business.

The scanner is mostly for scanning B & W 35mm negs, old and new.

FEEDBACK on these models and/or the issues involved, is very welcome.
[BTW: My excellent Epson 2480 flatbed scanner, is NOT for negs.]
Cheers,
Mike 🙂

 

[kaiyen]

If you are absolutely, postively going to scan ONLY traditional, silver-based b&w film, then the Minolta makes sense. I always recommend for folks to get ICE-capable scanners, but the KM is a good deal.

allan

 

[JoeFriday]

I've got a Nikon CS V and love it.. I highly recommend it.. but the KM Dual Scan is less than half the price, so that is a factor

allan makes a good point.. the Nikon has ICE, which is only helpful with C41 film.. but then, the Nikon also has a higher resolution, IIRC

if you go with the Dual Scan, make sure it has a warranty.. there have been quality control issues with that model in the past

 

[akptc]

Has anyone tried the Nikon LS-2000? It can be had for under $200 used, with all the attachments, I wonder how it compares to the Minolta one.

 

[kaiyen]

The 2000 is a SCSI scanner isn't it? That's getting pretty old. The oldest I'd go is the IV (which is what I have).

allan

 

[mike goldberg]

Re: My Post: SCANNER: NiKon or Minolta...
Thanks for your replies, thus far.

ICE, anyone?
The Nikon Coolscan V ED has the latest version of Digital ICE4, which corrects for dust & scratches.

REPLIES from those who have used ICE are very welcome!
Thanks,

 

[kaiyen]

Does the all caps "REPLIES" mean anything? Hope I did not offend at some point.

ICE...works very well. ICE4 includes DEE, or digital exposure enhancement (something like that), which helps you bring out shadow detail through gain increase without blowing out your highlights. Like an automatic selective gain increase. I don't have it on mine so I don't know that much about it. It works better in NikonScan than in Vuescan. But...it works. I recommend it if you can afford it.

allan

 

[JoeFriday]

ICE works extremely well and saves me an hour of cleanup time for every scan.. some say that it robs sharpness, but my opinion is that it's worth every penny.. I've had scratched negatives that scanned without any noticeable flaws when using ICE

 

[jlw]

ICE works extremely well and saves me an hour of cleanup time for every scan.. some say that it robs sharpness, but my opinion is that it's worth every penny.. I've had scratched negatives that scanned without any noticeable flaws when using ICE

An important note about ICE is that it does not work on conventional silver-halide b&w negatives. (The ICE technology distinguishes between dust and image details by looking at the infrared transmittance of the film, and b&w film blocks most of the infrared, preventing the ICE from working.)

It does do a good job on chromogenic (C-41 process) b&w negatives.

 

[akptc]

ICE4 info

ICE4 info

Found this info on what ICE4 is, does, and who has it.

http://www.asf.com/products/ICE4/ICE4_overview.shtml

 

[sf]

go here :


http://www.shutterflower.com/scanner comparison.htm

the Nikon V ED does look like the best out there for 35mm (from our results at least) and for a reasonable cost (less than $2000). That would be a good choice.

The Minolta 5400 II also performs very very well. And for a much lower price.

I can say that I have heard of Nikon scanners failing more than Minolta scanners. Banding and other issues are occasionally in reviews of Nikon dedicated scanners. I own the KM Multi Pro, and it has never shown any issues at all.

 

[Beniliam]

I had the KM DS IV and probably will buy other scan... but... I know that buy the scan that buy... never (at least now) the quality will be comparable with one Drum Scan in 35 mm. With this assumed, could thrown the money with pleasure...

In my mind 2 scans:

KM Dimage Scan 5400 II : difficult to find. I hope that in Spain I can find one, and dont have problems...

Nikon V or 5000: I dont know if the 5000 will be much more scan. But I doubt much that can really worth the cost that had, compared to the V. If failed the Minolta the V will be the best alternative.


The real problem with the 35 mm film scans its that the quality of the scan never can compare with the Drum Scans or one DSLR (in terms of noise and ... resolution?) With MF are possible to be obtained very nice enlargements with one scans like the new Epsons V700/750 because the information are infinitive more than one negative of 35 mm. Its a pity that dont investigate more ... I have the hunt that I will not be able to extend a photo of 35 mm to a 50 x 60 ( I never enlarge one photo of mine to this size... but... spend 600-1500€ - $ and dont have this guarantee its a robbery)

Maybe Im wrong. With the Minota SD IV Im very happy. Its my first scanner. I dont know if I can obtain ´better´ negatives with other expensive scanner... If the dynamic range its effective, if the maximum resolution its effective, if better lens do more quality... I never can buy one Imacon. I prefer if one day have this money spend in other thing...

 

[sf]

The real problem with the 35 mm film scans its that the quality of the scan never can compare with the Drum Scans or one DSLR (in terms of noise and ... resolution?)

Check out my scanner comparison. OUR scanner comparison. It shows quite clearly that the Nikon and Minolta 35mm scanners compare rather well to the drum scanners. http://www.shutterflower.com/scanner comparison.htm.

Really, I don't see any useful difference between the two.

 

[kaiyen]

George,
I lost the thread from where your scanner comparison page sprung. Tammons did the Howtek drum scan? Can either you or him/her discuss his/her background in drum scanning? Just checking.

thanks,
allan

 

[Beniliam]

George I know this great scan comparation.

My great doubt is: the noise that appear in the screen is the same that appear in the copy. I can obtain more shadow detail with one film scanner with 4.8 Dmax or with one drum scan with 3.2 - 4.2 DMax.... I dont know if the dates that put characteristics are real or not. I think that the only way to know the quality of one scanner its making copies in paper, not see the results of the crops in the screen. When I made the comparation of the Imacon 949 and the Konica Dual Scan IV, I made before a strip of tests. Really the Imacon won, but not for much at this size... that its a great news...

🙂

Regards