Minolta Dimage 5400 vs Canon FS4000US

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:01:13 -0800, "Robert A" wrote:

Has anyone reviewed these two scanners together?

I am quite happy with my Canon but was thinking about replacing it with the newer Minolta if the image quality is improved. I don’t need the extra resolution, but I would like a scanner that can reach further into dense shadows of slide film, or can do a better job with traditional (Tri-X) black and white.

Comments appreciated!

The value to look at is the DMax. For the Minolta it’s 4.8 (and for the new Nikon, 4.2) Compare that with the scanner you have. The higher the figure the better it will resolve shadow areas. Personally, I think that’s especially important with Tri-X, my favourite B&W film.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

"Hecate" wrote in message

The value to look at is the DMax. For the Minolta it’s 4.8 (and for the new Nikon, 4.2)

Nikon claims 4.8 for the Coolscan 5000.

My Canon is a 14 bit scanner, hence the maximum "Dmax" is 4.2, but that’s not "real world." Do you have any experience with the Minota 5400?

-Robert

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:01:13 -0800, "Robert A" wrote:

Has anyone reviewed these two scanners together?

I am quite happy with my Canon but was thinking about replacing it with

the

newer Minolta if the image quality is improved. I don’t need the extra resolution, but I would like a scanner that can reach further into dense shadows of slide film, or can do a better job with traditional (Tri-X)

black

and white.

Comments appreciated!

The value to look at is the DMax. For the Minolta it’s 4.8 (and for the new Nikon, 4.2) Compare that with the scanner you have. The higher the figure the better it will resolve shadow areas. Personally, I think that’s especially important with Tri-X, my favourite B&W film.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:01:13 -0800, "Robert A" wrote:

Has anyone reviewed these two scanners together?

I am quite happy with my Canon but was thinking about replacing it with the newer Minolta if the image quality is improved. I don’t need the extra resolution, but I would like a scanner that can reach further into dense shadows of slide film, or can do a better job with traditional (Tri-X) black and white.

Comments appreciated!

The value to look at is the DMax. For the Minolta it’s 4.8 (and for the new Nikon, 4.2) Compare that with the scanner you have. The higher the figure the better it will resolve shadow areas. Personally, I think that’s especially important with Tri-X, my favourite B&W film.

The figure of 4.8 for the Minolta is theoretical (as admitted by the Minolta ads.), and is probably based on the fact that it has a 16 bit ADC. Whether it can reach this in practice will depend on a number of other factors.

I think the same will be true of all other claims of DMax. You really need to do a direct comparison to find which is best in practice,

TH

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 05:27:52 GMT, "Warren Sarle" wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

The value to look at is the DMax. For the Minolta it’s 4.8 (and for the new Nikon, 4.2)

Nikon claims 4.8 for the Coolscan 5000.

Not in the review I read 🙂

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:55:48 -0800, "Robert A" wrote:

My Canon is a 14 bit scanner, hence the maximum "Dmax" is 4.2, but that’s not "real world." Do you have any experience with the Minota 5400?

Not personal no, but I’m particularly interested because I need a new scanner and it’s either going to be the Nikon or the Minolta.

From what I’ve read, the differences are minimal. Both produce excellent scans. The Nikon software is better than the Minolta software. The dpi is higher on the Minolta. Both produce scans which resolve down to the grain. Nikon is USB 2 only, whereas the Minolta is USB 2 and Firewire. And that last detail probably means I’ll get the Minolta as I don’t care about the software, and both have ICE.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

That Canon scanner is quite old technology. It is slow and barely able to keep up with the demands of modern photography. SCSI (in the Canon form) is long gone. The Minolta is my pick of the litter right now if for no other reason than it has better support for 120 roll film negatives than the Nikon. I have used both and while the Minolta has better specs on paper…

Nikon is so close in quality – given that after scan processing can correct much of the difference, You could buy either one and never see a scan from the same neg which ‘looks’ noticably worse. Firewire and USB 2.0 are a non competition. there is SFA difference in the two. In Australia the Nikon importer plays God so I’d probably go the Minolta just to get further out of their grasp.

As an after thought. Epson have just released their new 4870 flat bed scanner. Has ICE and really good specs. Maybe worth a look? I ordered some yesterday so you can look for my mini-review and comments of it on http://www.technoaussie.com next week. Have a look here if you are interested: http://www.epson.com.au/products/corporate/perfection4870p.a sp

Your call at the end of it all.
Douglas
—————————————-

My Canon is a 14 bit scanner, hence the maximum "Dmax" is 4.2, but that’s not "real world." Do you have any experience with the Minota 5400?

"Douglas MacDonald" …

That Canon scanner is quite old technology. It is slow and barely able to keep up with the demands of modern photography. SCSI (in the Canon form) is long gone. The Minolta is my pick of the litter right now if for no other reason than it has better support for 120 roll film negatives than the Nikon.

snip

As an after thought. Epson have just released their new 4870 flat bed scanner. Has ICE and really good specs. Maybe worth a look? I ordered some yesterday so you can look for my mini-review and comments of it on http://www.technoaussie.com next week. Have a look here if you are interested: http://www.epson.com.au/products/corporate/perfection4870p.a sp

I think someone might be confusing their scanner specs. Neither the Minolta 5400 nor the Canon FS4000US supports 120 roll film, being 35mm and APS scanners.

I don’t think the 4870 can be put in quite the same league as these dedicated film scanners for 35mm purposes, good as it is. I have been using one for the last 10 days or so and it is not as sharp on initial scan as my Coolscan IV. The Coolscan IV is definitely not 4.2 or 4.8 dmax, I forget what it is supposed to be but the Epson claims 3.8 for itself. My results so far would make me think that the 4870 can just edge the Coolscan out for dmax. It’s putting in a good showing for its price and this one does do 120 roll film and larger.
I’ll be interested in your findings so I’ll keep an eye out for your mini review. Given the high winds in your area I shall expect a blow by blow account.

Brian
(the other one)

In article <lYAYb.64314$>,
says…

That Canon scanner is quite old technology. It is slow and barely able to keep up with the demands of modern photography. SCSI (in the Canon form) is long gone. The Minolta is my pick of the litter right now if for no other reason than it has better support for 120 roll film negatives than the Nikon. I have used both and while the Minolta has better specs on paper…
Nikon is so close in quality – given that after scan processing can correct much of the difference, You could buy either one and never see a scan from the same neg which ‘looks’ noticably worse. Firewire and USB 2.0 are a non competition. there is SFA difference in the two. In Australia the Nikon importer plays God so I’d probably go the Minolta just to get further out of their grasp.

As an after thought. Epson have just released their new 4870 flat bed scanner. Has ICE and really good specs. Maybe worth a look? I ordered some yesterday so you can look for my mini-review and comments of it on http://www.technoaussie.com next week. Have a look here if you are interested: http://www.epson.com.au/products/corporate/perfection4870p.a sp
Your call at the end of it all.
Douglas
—————————————-

My Canon is a 14 bit scanner, hence the maximum "Dmax" is 4.2, but that’s not "real world." Do you have any experience with the Minota 5400?

If you are interested I just added a comparison of the Epson 4870 and the Minolta 5400 to my web site. Follow the tips link on the home page.

—
Robert D Feinman

Landscapes, Cityscapes, Panoramas and Photoshop Tips
http://robertdfeinman.com

Initial impressions are pretty good.
Scans a whole roll of 35mm film at once, provided you cut it to fit of course. Makes the Canon FS4000 show it’s age. Time will tell how good I can get a scan.
Douglas

"mono" wrote in message

I’ll be interested in your findings so I’ll keep an eye out for your mini review. Given the high winds in your area I shall expect a blow by blow account.

Brian
(the other one)

Hi,

I have the Minolta 5400, bought it after being dissapointed with the Nikon IV. I am very happy with it. You can scan 4 slides or 6 negatives at a time and Minolta will increment the image number and store them as TIFF or JPG. Makes life easier when you need to scan larger quantities.
ICE takes about a minute longer to scan but saves you hours of cleaning slides. Rosita

On 19 Feb 2004 00:44:59 GMT, (HRosita) wrote:

Hi,

I have the Minolta 5400, bought it after being dissapointed with the Nikon IV. I am very happy with it. You can scan 4 slides or 6 negatives at a time and Minolta will increment the image number and store them as TIFF or JPG. Makes life easier when you need to scan larger quantities.
ICE takes about a minute longer to scan but saves you hours of cleaning slides. Rosita

Thanks for that. Sounds good to me 🙂

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:34:38 -0500, Robert Feinman
wrote:

If you are interested I just added a comparison of the Epson 4870 and the Minolta 5400 to my web site. Follow the tips link on the home page.

Interesting, especially about Vuescan.

Nice site, btw, though I think I shall have to write a comment piece for my site on B&W *isn’t* obsolete 😉

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui