Nikon 5000ED vs. K-M 5400-2

Back in 2004, there was a thread here titled "Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED"
with lots of discussion on the relative merits, especially speed, of
the Nikon 5000ED compared to the Konica Minolta 5400. I have the 5400-2
which is a slightly newer model, but want to add something to the
rather long discussion on digital ICE and speed.

While, as noted in 2004, the K-M has a longer processing time for
digital ICE than the Nikon, at least with older slides (which that
thread was about), I have found my 5400-2 vastly superior to a
professional service's 5000ED. Many slides which were unusable from the
5000ED but "very good" (not excellent) with my 5400-2. Maybe the
longer processing time is producing better dust and scratch removal?

Something similar goes on with DVD production. A fast processing time
is not always better and the professional DVD's we buy in the stores
use an amount of processing time that none of us would put up with --
in order to get the much better picture quality of professionally
produced DVD's.

I'll admit that two samples of one (mine and the services) is far from
a scientific study, but it does point up an important hypothesis that
was mostly overlooked in the original thread. (Kudos to the one or two
back then who did touch on the issue.)

Some of the slides I've been scanning are as much as 65 years old,
dating back almost to the dawn of Kodachrome, and come out amazingly
vibrant, but only after digital ICE and a little PhotoShop work.

Hope this is of some help.

Martin

PS I realize the discussion is a bit academic since K-M is out of this
business now, but the 5400-2 is probably available used and the general
idea applies to all scanners: long ICE processing times may actually be
good!

wrote in message
oups.com...
Back in 2004, there was a thread here titled "Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED"
with lots of discussion on the relative merits, especially speed, of
the Nikon 5000ED compared to the Konica Minolta 5400. I have the 5400-2
which is a slightly newer model, but want to add something to the
rather long discussion on digital ICE and speed.

While, as noted in 2004, the K-M has a longer processing time for
digital ICE than the Nikon, at least with older slides (which that
thread was about), I have found my 5400-2 vastly superior to a
professional service's 5000ED. Many slides which were unusable from the
5000ED but "very good" (not excellent) with my 5400-2. Maybe the
longer processing time is producing better dust and scratch removal?

Something similar goes on with DVD production. A fast processing time
is not always better and the professional DVD's we buy in the stores
use an amount of processing time that none of us would put up with --
in order to get the much better picture quality of professionally
produced DVD's.

I'll admit that two samples of one (mine and the services) is far from
a scientific study, but it does point up an important hypothesis that
was mostly overlooked in the original thread. (Kudos to the one or two
back then who did touch on the issue.)

Some of the slides I've been scanning are as much as 65 years old,
dating back almost to the dawn of Kodachrome, and come out amazingly
vibrant, but only after digital ICE and a little PhotoShop work.

Hope this is of some help.

Martin

PS I realize the discussion is a bit academic since K-M is out of this
business now, but the 5400-2 is probably available used and the general
idea applies to all scanners: long ICE processing times may actually be
good!

Alan Browne had one for sale on this forum only a week or so ago......

William Graham wrote:

Alan Browne had one for sale on this forum only a week or so ago......

Still for sale although (now that I'm in Europe) a few people around
Montreal have been e-mailing for info and starting to dicker.

Mine is the 5400 (not the -II). The 5400 'may' have better build, but
the -II does have a better light source than the non -II.

I bought the Nikon 9000 ED. Not because of any shortcomings of the
5400 but rather becasue I now need to scan MF as well.

Cheers,
Alan

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
oups.com...

William Graham wrote:

Alan Browne had one for sale on this forum only a week or so ago......

Still for sale although (now that I'm in Europe) a few people around
Montreal have been e-mailing for info and starting to dicker.

Mine is the 5400 (not the -II). The 5400 'may' have better build, but
the -II does have a better light source than the non -II.

I bought the Nikon 9000 ED. Not because of any shortcomings of the
5400 but rather becasue I now need to scan MF as well.

Cheers,
Alan


Alan,

Quick Nikon vs. Minolta question for you since you have used both..... How
is the noise (audible) when the Nikon is actually scanning? My wife hates
when I scan because of the high pitched whine that my 5400 makes while
transporting and scanning. You can hear it just about anywhere in the house.

Thanks,
Bill

--
"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."
-President Theodore Roosevelt

Wm Gardner wrote:


Alan,

Quick Nikon vs. Minolta question for you since you have used both..... How
is the noise (audible) when the Nikon is actually scanning? My wife hates
when I scan because of the high pitched whine that my 5400 makes while
transporting and scanning. You can hear it just about anywhere in the house.

It's less of a whine, more of a rumble. But I have the 9000 ED which is
huge compared to the 5000... whether that changes the noise or not, I
don't know.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Hi All,

Mine is the 5400 (not the -II). The 5400 'may' have better build, but
the -II does have a better light source than the non -II.
Having given up on my 5400-II I can confirm it is flimsy... I replaced it
with the 5000ED (what else?) which at least weights enough so that you do
not push it back when you press the 'on' switch.

I bought the Nikon 9000 ED. Not because of any shortcomings of the
5400 but rather becasue I now need to scan MF as well.

Cheers,
Alan


Alan,

Quick Nikon vs. Minolta question for you since you have used both.....
How is the noise (audible) when the Nikon is actually scanning? My wife
hates when I scan because of the high pitched whine that my 5400 makes
while transporting and scanning. You can hear it just about anywhere in
the house.
Indeed, my daughter used to hate the whining of the 5400-II! No complaints
about the Nikon though it isn't more silent. Still, I have the feeling
that noise reduction with Noise Ninja at 5400dpi went better than with the
lower resolution Nikon: the distance between the aliased grain and image
features is less so to speak. For example, with some films I find that the
Nikon generates quite some dark outlier pixels which NN doesn't handle
well. OTOH, the 5400-II produced regularly scan artifacts which also
needed special filtering.
Last but no least, the Nikon is clearly better supported by Vuescan on
Linux, in fact it proved to be plug&play.

-- Hans

"hans" wrote in message
news
Hi All,

Mine is the 5400 (not the -II). The 5400 'may' have better build, but
the -II does have a better light source than the non -II.
Having given up on my 5400-II I can confirm it is flimsy... I replaced it
with the 5000ED (what else?) which at least weights enough so that you do
not push it back when you press the 'on' switch.

I bought the Nikon 9000 ED. Not because of any shortcomings of the
5400 but rather becasue I now need to scan MF as well.

Cheers,
Alan

Yeah....I tacked a 1 x 3 to the back of the desk behind mine, so it wouldn't
slide off onto the floor when I inserted the film carrier.....but other than
that, it has stood up well.....