Film Scanner: Nikon vs Minolta

I am now considering Nikon 5000 and Minolta 5400. My criteria
are resolution and reliability. Speed is not important, within
reason. Any opinions? Other suggestions?
Thanks,
Mike.

Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:

I am now considering Nikon 5000 and Minolta 5400. My criteria
are resolution and reliability. Speed is not important, within
reason. Any opinions? Other suggestions?
Thanks,
Mike.

I should probably add Nikon Coolscan V to the list.
Mike.

Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:

I am now considering Nikon 5000 and Minolta 5400. My criteria
are resolution and reliability. Speed is not important, within
reason. Any opinions? Other suggestions?
Thanks,
Mike.

I should probably add Nikon Coolscan V to the list.
Mike.

Nikon Service is a strong consideration. They are incompetent and arrogant.
359 dollars and two shippings over 2 months to 'repair' my Nikon 4000 and it
now operates at 1/3rd the speed it used to (45 minutes to scan a negative at
full resolution with ICE). Furthermore Nikon stopped answering emails when I
complained about this.
Buy the Minolta - they cannot possible be worse than the *******s at Nikon
Service.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Mike - EMAIL IGNORED" wrote in message
...
I am now considering Nikon 5000 and Minolta 5400. My criteria
are resolution and reliability. Speed is not important, within
reason. Any opinions? Other suggestions?
Thanks,
Mike.

Nikon Service is a strong consideration. They are incompetent and arrogant.
359 dollars and two shippings over 2 months to 'repair' my Nikon 4000 and it
now operates at 1/3rd the speed it used to (45 minutes to scan a negative at
full resolution with ICE). Furthermore Nikon stopped answering emails when I
complained about this.
Buy the Minolta - they cannot possible be worse than the *******s at Nikon
Service.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Mike - EMAIL IGNORED" wrote in message
...
I am now considering Nikon 5000 and Minolta 5400. My criteria
are resolution and reliability. Speed is not important, within
reason. Any opinions? Other suggestions?
Thanks,
Mike.

Mike - EMAIL IGNORED wrote:

I am now considering Nikon 5000 and Minolta 5400. My criteria
are resolution and reliability. Speed is not important, within
reason. Any opinions? Other suggestions?

A brief summary of other M v. N scanner threads goes:

speed, less color fooling around: Nikon
higher resolution, lower price : Minolta

I have the 5400 and of course my perfectly unbaised view is that it is a
wonderful machine and beats the crap out of that Nikon thing. ;-)

I've seen many full-res scans from the Nikon and they are, of course, every bit
as good as the Minolta. Of course the Minolta gives you 82% more pixels at full
res.

The Nikon has the additional advantage of having an attachement to do batches of
slides (50), so a lot can be doen while you're sleeping or working on other
things. This is the one thing I wish the Minolta had.

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: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

(Alan=A0Browne) wrote:
I've seen many full-res scans from the Nikon and they are, of course,
every bit as good as the Minolta.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D

If Minolta gives you 82% more pixels at full res, then how is it that,
full-res scans from the Nikon are every bit as good as the Minolta V?



Cody,
Lunch with a Wise man is better than a gift from a fool.

http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOverc...otographyLinks

(Alan=A0Browne) wrote:
I've seen many full-res scans from the Nikon and they are, of course,
every bit as good as the Minolta.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D

If Minolta gives you 82% more pixels at full res, then how is it that,
full-res scans from the Nikon are every bit as good as the Minolta V?



Cody,
Lunch with a Wise man is better than a gift from a fool.

http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOverc...otographyLinks

(Alan=A0Browne) wrote:
I've seen many full-res scans from the Nikon and they are, of course,
every bit as good as the Minolta.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D

If Minolta gives you 82% more pixels at full res, then how is it that,
full-res scans from the Nikon are every bit as good as the Minolta V?



Cody,
Lunch with a Wise man is better than a gift from a fool.

http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOverc...otographyLinks

AnOvercomer 02 wrote:


(Alan Browne) wrote:
I've seen many full-res scans from the Nikon and they are, of course,
every bit as good as the Minolta.
=============================

If Minolta gives you 82% more pixels at full res, then how is it that,
full-res scans from the Nikon are every bit as good as the Minolta V?

I didn't phrase that very well, did I?

To the limit of the Nikon's resolution it performs very well. Large prints made
with the Minolta could not be made with the Nikon.

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: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.