Film Scanner: Nikon vs Minolta

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.

Alan Browne 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.

How important is ICE? Does Minolta have something similar, or does it
not matter in some way?

--
Why pay money to have your family tree traced; go into politics and
your opponents will do it for you.
~Author Unknown

Alan Browne 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.

How important is ICE? Does Minolta have something similar, or does it
not matter in some way?

--
Why pay money to have your family tree traced; go into politics and
your opponents will do it for you.
~Author Unknown

The Dave© wrote:


How important is ICE? Does Minolta have something similar, or does it
not matter in some way?

ICE is the clincher. Some dust cannot be safely or easilly removed, scratches
are simply there. ICE is essential. The 5400 has ICE. (As do the Nikon
4000/5000, Coolscan V ED)

http://www.aliasimages.com/ScanScratch.htm

Just mouse over the image to see post-ICE.

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.

Martin Riddle wrote:

The FAQ says it does have Digital ICE. This generally uses the IR (infrared) channel to locate the dust and artifacts on the film to
filter them out.

Maybe Alan can tell you what ICE is supplied with the 5400, my Elite II has ICE3 which was from ASF and had ROC and GEM ( color
restoration and Grain management).

Per the spec, just "ICE", no version or flavour. Includes ROC/GEM as well.


--
-- 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 Browne wrote:

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.


[...]

I have read elsewhere that 4000 is sufficient for most films, and for
these films, 5400 will not gain anything. Now the films I use are
color negative professional such as NPS, and Kodak films including
Portra and Ultra, with speeds of 100-160. I enlarge to 12"x18".

Do I gain from the 5400?

Thanks,
Mike.

Alan Browne wrote:

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.


[...]

I have read elsewhere that 4000 is sufficient for most films, and for
these films, 5400 will not gain anything. Now the films I use are
color negative professional such as NPS, and Kodak films including
Portra and Ultra, with speeds of 100-160. I enlarge to 12"x18".

Do I gain from the 5400?

Thanks,
Mike.

Alan Browne wrote:

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.


[...]

I have read elsewhere that 4000 is sufficient for most films, and for
these films, 5400 will not gain anything. Now the films I use are
color negative professional such as NPS, and Kodak films including
Portra and Ultra, with speeds of 100-160. I enlarge to 12"x18".

Do I gain from the 5400?

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

Mike, do you want to scan Kodachrome or traditional B&W film?
If so the Minolta 5400 is a clear choice due to more-diffuse light
or something. Most owners of Nikon scanners complain about this.

Alan's summary is good: speed = Nikon, high resolution = Minolta.
He forgot to add that Vuescan supports Nikon better, and that the
Nikon scanners (except with extra cost FH-3 film holder) crop more.

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

Mike, do you want to scan Kodachrome or traditional B&W film?
If so the Minolta 5400 is a clear choice due to more-diffuse light
or something. Most owners of Nikon scanners complain about this.

Alan's summary is good: speed = Nikon, high resolution = Minolta.
He forgot to add that Vuescan supports Nikon better, and that the
Nikon scanners (except with extra cost FH-3 film holder) crop more.