Nikon Coolscan Or Minolta 5400

[frankienardoz]

Hi guys,
I want to buy a good scanner below a 1000$ budget. I thought to get a Nikon Coolscan V ED which I used a couple of times and it works just fine but then it turned out it is out of production. I went on ebay and a second hand one is as expensive as new (only thing that it is impossible to find a new one cause it has been discontinued).

I was also looking at a minolta elite 5400 which has an higher resolution but does not have the nikon digital ice program which i find quite useful.


Basically what I would like to understand is which scanner is better and if anyone knows if Nikon is about to release a new edition of Coolscan (maybe a Coolscan VI).

Any suggestion is highly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Oh, the Minolta Elite 5400 is far far better than the Coolscan V. The only one that I would consider over the Minolta Elite 5400 is the Coolscan 9000.

[dcsang]

As someone who owns a Nikon 5000, I feel that it surpassed my previous scanner (Minolta Scan Elite II - 2820dpi).

That said, I would opt for something in production (to the best of my knowledge the 5000 isn't that much more expensive; in $U.S. mind you, than what your budget is).

Cheers,
Dave

[Florian1234]

Gabriel, could you please point out, what makes the Minolta 5400 better than the Coolscan?:)

[frankienardoz]

thank you for your reply gabriel
I know it has a higher resolution, is there any other reason why you think it s a better scanner? Do you know if it has something like a digital ice function and if it works with a mac osx 10.5.5 system?

[elude]

Black and white -> Minolta
Color & Black & white & Kodachrome -> Nikon

They're all really good, V, 5000, Elite 5400. In the end I prefer Nikon's software (NikonScan 4.2 which is very powerful).

[Frank Petronio]

You can find demo and slightly used Coolscan 5000s for about $1000 and it is a current production model. I'd avoid the Minolta unless it was a great deal.

[elude]

thank you for your reply gabriel
I know it has a higher resolution, is there any other reason why you think it s a better scanner? Do you know if it has something like a digital ice function and if it works with a mac osx 10.5.5 system?

Minolta's ICE isn't as good as Nikon's. One is Software, the other hardware ICE. The difference is sensitive.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Gabriel, could you please point out, what makes the Minolta 5400 better than the Coolscan?:)

It has a diffused light, which the Coolscan V (and 5000) lacks. The big disadvantage is, of course, that the company is defunct, bought out by Sony, and the scanner has been discontinued for at least two years. Nikon seems to still support the Coolscan V, 5000 and 9000 models.

[dcsang]

To date, (touch wood :D) I've not had any issues with my Nikon; that said, I didn't have any issues with the Minolta either but I switched because I wanted higher resolution and something that could handle slides a bit better (and I couldn't afford an Imacon :D)

Dave

[Gabriel M.A.]

thank you for your reply gabriel
I know it has a higher resolution, is there any other reason why you think it s a better scanner? Do you know if it has something like a digital ice function and if it works with a mac osx 10.5.5 system?

I do not know if the Minolta's bundled software actually runs on MacOS X (10.5+), but I know VueScan does and supports native (i.e. "hardware") ICE functions. I've used VueScan with success, but it's a pain when doing batch scans, which is what I do 90% of the time.

You could get an add-on for the Coolscan V and 5000, which allows you to scan full rolls at a time. But it's extremely difficult to find (I know), and it costs around $500 USD.

[Florian1234]

:D I'm still thinking about switching from V500 to the Coolsccan V. That said it would be either a new lens (several various caught my eye,hard to decide) or a new/other scanner.:o

[Tuolumne]

I have both a Minolta Elite 5400 and an Epson 4990 flatbed. Maybe there's something wrong with my Minolta, but my 4990 gives much better scans. I was even thinking of selling the Minolta, if there are any takers.

/T

[JPSuisse]

I thought that all LEDs produce diffused light. The minolta uses a white LED I think. The Nikon 5000 uses RGBI LEDs as a light source. Don't LED's require a collimator precisley because the light source is diffuse?

[dcsang]

I've used VueScan with success, but it's a pain when doing batch scans, which is what I do 90% of the time.

You could get an add-on for the Coolscan V and 5000, which allows you to scan full rolls at a time. But it's extremely difficult to find (I know), and it costs around $500 USD.

I concur - VueScan is awesome (I don't mind batch scanning at only 6 frames - never really need or desire to scan a whole roll at a time but that's me).

Gabe, WRT the batch add on - there's a hardware hack (posted on the forum here somewhere) that links to a real easy "fix" to allow the V and 5000 to do the batch scanning of rolls WITHOUT the add-on equipment.

Dave

[Wuddy]

Hi,

and while we are at hacks, there is one to diffuse the light in the Nikon
Coolscan LS-5000, read more about it here:
http://www.scanhancer.com/uploads/downloads/scanhancer_with_nikon_sa-21_adapter.pdf

I tried it and it only works with Vuescan, the Nikon software blocks it.
I did something similar on my condenser enlarger a while back.
It's done by inserting an opaque glass or paper in front of the light source.
I had a very grainy Ilford Delta 3200 exposed @2000 developed by a lab.

Left is the normal Nikon Coolscan, right with an opaque paper in front of the lightsource:
100% no PP

http://www.balimero.com/rff/rick3.jpg

It's still quite grainy but I think that is a matter of film choice and developing.

Anyway it's not conclusive to view scans from b&w film at 100%, they print
and scale well even if they don't look so nice on the screen. Still the diffuse
version prints better I think.

I don't know how that compares to the minolta 5400 which has a
kind of scanhancer (http://www.scanhancer.com/) built in or the Nikon 9000 which seems to be diffuser
than the 5000. But i'd sure like to find out...

It's a very workaround kind of solution which has it's drawbacks
but it also does extract more details from the highlights and possibly
the shadows too.

Michael

[jonmanjiro]

Gabe, WRT the batch add on - there's a hardware hack (posted on the forum here somewhere) that links to a real easy "fix" to allow the V and 5000 to do the batch scanning of rolls WITHOUT the add-on equipment.

Dave

FTR the hardware hack does work with the 5000, but does *not* work with the V because:

a. there's no port on the back of the V for the film to exit from.
b. the software will recognise the V firmware and prohibit batch scanning of entire rolls.

[CK Dexter Haven]

thank you for your reply gabriel
I know it has a higher resolution, is there any other reason why you think it s a better scanner? Do you know if it has something like a digital ice function and if it works with a mac osx 10.5.5 system?

I have a 5400v1. The software, with 10.5.5, is frustrating. Perhaps it's because of a dispute with some of my peripherals(?), but it sometimes refuses to start. I get an error message, which, when googled, it seems is quite common. Some people are able to get the software to work after deleting some preference files. Sometimes that works for me, sometimes not. Maybe it only used to work for me before i upgraded to Leopard? In any case, the software only works (when it works) for me in stand-alone mode. It does not work as the Import plug-in in Photoshop CS3.

Vuescan and Silverfast are options, though.

Also, my 5400 will not run whatsoever when my Epson 4990 is also connected via USB. Whenever i want to use the 5400, i have to disconnect the 4990.

Although i do like the results from the 5400, if i had it to do all over again, i'd probably get a Nikon scanner. I probably, though, should just pay for Silverfast to get my 5400 to work more consistently - but it's just too expensive and you have to buy it for each scanner.... For some reason, i just don't like the Vuescan results. When i use it with the 4990, the Epson software gives me much better imaging.

[bigdog]

CK Dexter,

I have the Minolta 5400 version I that I run with Silverfast software and the results are excellent. I think I only paid $75 for the scaled down version of the software and I find it was worth the investment considering the cost of the scanner.

[amateriat]

Some technical notes:

- All Nikon film scanners use an LED-based illumination system. All Minolta/Konica Minolta film scanners, up until the DS 5400 II, utilize a fluorescent tube for illumination. The 5400 II used an LED-based system similar to Nikon's.

- The optical difference between LED vs. fluorescent tube-based scanners is roughly equivalent to the difference between condenser vs. diffusion enlargers. The former can potentially tease out more detail from a negative, but at the expense of revealing more flaws in the film (scratches, dust, uneven development); the latter system is more forgiving of physical flaws in the film, but possibly at the expense of extreme detail.

- Nikon's most recent Coolscan models are supposed to be quite fast in terms of scan times. Minolta likely moved to an LED system for the 5400 II for this reason. (I haven't been bothered by the scan times with my first-generation 5400. For me, it's the quality of the scans I care about first and foremost, and the 5400 delivers in this regard.)

- Both Minolta's later scanners (from the DS2900 onward for the high-end models) and Nikon's Coolscans (from the III onward) utilize Digital ICE. Digital ICE is both hardware- and software-based for any scanner utilizing it, including recent flatbeds.

- Both the Minolta 5400 and 5400 II utilize a Grain Dissolver, essentially a diffuser that moves into the optical plane on-demand, and pretty much performs as advertised.

- I've heard of no reliability issues WRT the first-generation Minolta 5400. I had heard of some scattered issues with early-production versions of the 5400 II, but the few I've set up for some of my tech clients have worked fine.

- Batch scanning? Nikon give you the option of a film-strip loader on the 5000 that does an entire uncut roll, but it's gotten mixed reviews. (I vividly remember, at the stock agency I once worked at, trying to get the slide stack-loader for a Nikon LS-1000, then an LS-2000, to work reliably, with hilarious results; my boss was less amused.) With my Minolta, I simply bought a few extra film and slide holders and, during a serious scanning session, pre-load them; when one "rack" is done, my Mac chimes at me, I go over and remove the finished holder from the scanner, insert the new one, hit "scan", and go back to whatever I was doing (probably editing, but possibly tidying up my iTunes library).

- About the only time I use a flatbed for film scanning is when I want enlarged digital contact sheets. For that, my tabloid-platen-size UMAX PowerLook 2100XL is a champ: it can scan two 36-exposure rolls at once, and I usually print 11x14" contacts of each roll.

- The Nikon scanner to compare to the Minolta DS 5400 would be the 5000. Both are excellent scanners.


- Barrett

[amateriat]

Dexter: What version of Minolta's software are you running?

I mostly use VueScan these days, but I've had no problem with Minolta's software under Mac OS X Tiger (10.4.11; I always stay at least one "cat" back).


- Barrett

[amateriat]

For the original 5400:

http://tinyurl.com/6tzmu7 (http://tinyurl.com/6tzmu7For)

For the 5400 II:

http://tinyurl.com/78rhsp


- Barrett

[frankienardoz]

thanks a lot barret

[Michiel Fokkema]

I have both a Minolta Elite 5400 and an Epson 4990 flatbed. Maybe there's something wrong with my Minolta, but my 4990 gives much better scans. I was even thinking of selling the Minolta, if there are any takers.

/T

For me it is the other way around. My Minolta outperforms my 4990 by miles.
More sharpness more Dmax, more detail, better color.

Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema

[Gabriel M.A.]

Gabe, WRT the batch add on - there's a hardware hack (posted on the forum here somewhere) that links to a real easy "fix" to allow the V and 5000 to do the batch scanning of rolls WITHOUT the add-on equipment.

Dave

F@rk, I knew it. I knew there had to be a hack, but I couldn't figure it out for the life of me, so I went ahead and spent the money on the actual kit. The adaptor looks exactly the same as the bundled film strip feeder. I even tried to use that one while the roll thingy that goes in the back was mounted, and surely enough, the scanner wouldn't advance farther from the 6th frame.

I tried doing a search, but I can't find it (spelling mistakes and non-sequiturs --non sequitae??-- make searches a real challenge on online forums --forae??--) Do you recall more or less how it was titled/what subforum it was posted at?

[dcsang]

F@rk, I knew it. I knew there had to be a hack, but I couldn't figure it out for the life of me, so I went ahead and spent the money on the actual kit. The adaptor looks exactly the same as the bundled film strip feeder. I even tried to use that one while the roll thingy that goes in the back was mounted, and surely enough, the scanner wouldn't advance farther from the 6th frame.

I tried doing a search, but I can't find it (spelling mistakes and non-sequiturs --non sequitae??-- make searches a real challenge on online forums --forae??--) Do you recall more or less how it was titled/what subforum it was posted at?

Gabe,

Here's the thread:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67365

Read through it (it's only 2 pages) - I asked a few questions of Mabelsoud regarding the hack - it's pretty interesting and looks to be quite easy (even if you're not going to use solder :D)

Dave

[aparat]

I used to own the Elite 5400. It was a terrific scanner. Now I have the Nikon 9000, which is also a terrific scanner. Which one is better? Obviously, the Nikon is better, for at least two reasons (1) it does medium format, (2) it is still made and serviced by Nikon.

Both these scanners scan film very well. All the rest - applying curves, color balance, etc., is all software. When someone says that Nikon does better with Kodak while Minolta does better with Fuji, they're mostly talking about the scanner software, not the hardware. I scan via Vuescan to 16-bit linear files, and I apply curves in Photoshop, so to me, both Minolta and Nikon produce very good scans for 35mm film. Their dynamic range is very good, the detail is very good. The rest is just the operator. My advice is go for the cheaper, and spend the time learning how to scan. It will be time well spent.

[hanz]

Hi guys,
I want to buy a good scanner below a 1000$ budget. I thought to get a Nikon Coolscan V ED which I used a couple of times and it works just fine but then it turned out it is out of production. I went on ebay and a second hand one is as expensive as new (only thing that it is impossible to find a new one cause it has been discontinued).

I was also looking at a minolta elite 5400 which has an higher resolution but does not have the nikon digital ice program which i find quite useful.

Basically what I would like to understand is which scanner is better and if anyone knows if Nikon is about to release a new edition of Coolscan (maybe a Coolscan VI).

Thanks in advance.

I have both the 5400-II and coolscan V. I bought the 5400-II first after looking at many reviews. The higher resolution of the 5400 is IMO a real advantage, disadvantages are some (fixable) scanning artefacts, and lower build quality. After two repairs and a third breakdown I gave up on the 5400-II and got the coolscan.
The coolscan V is more solid, no visible scan artefacts.
I ran both with VueScan which allows you to use infrared cleaning with both scanners.
In short, get the coolscan if the price is right, else have a serious look at the newer Epson V700 flatbed.

Hope this helps, Hans

[dfoo]

The 5400 these days is quite expensive! A used one went for close to $700 on ebay a few days ago.

[Vobluda]

I don’t want to open a new thread so here is my dilemma. As I am constantly disappointed with scans from lab so I would like to purchase 35mm scanner.
I have an opportunity to get either Minolta 5400 or Coolscan IV, which is cheaper. I have try both of them and though the Minolta is better on paper I like Coolscan much more - better build, easier film loading and very good bundled SW. Minolta feels like toy and I was not that much impressed with results (maybe I was doing something wrong..). And Minolta is more used.

[Ronald M]

My first scanner was the KM5400. Marvelous machine. The diffuse light source is great.

The problem is buying something like this used. It could have been used to scan 1000000 negatives or 50. That leaves the condition of the insides very questionable. The outside does not get worn sitting on a desk.

[amateriat]

I don’t want to open a new thread so here is my dilemma. As I am constantly disappointed with scans from lab so I would like to purchase 35mm scanner.
I have an opportunity to get either Minolta 5400 or Coolscan IV, which is cheaper. I have try both of them and though the Minolta is better on paper I like Coolscan much more - better build, easier film loading and very good bundled SW. Minolta feels like toy and I was not that much impressed with results (maybe I was doing something wrong..). And Minolta is more used.
The Coolscan IV is a very good scanner, but I would hardly regard the Minolta 5400 as a "toy", either in build quality or performance; I've owned a 5400 (first version, not the 5400 II) since buying it new about five years ago, and it's been a solid performer, both for my own work and others' projects I've worked on. And, yes, the extra resolution has come in handy from time to time.

The 5400 II was a different design, with a different light source (LEDs instead of a fluorescent tube), somewhat faster scanning times/speed, and plastic outer casing rather than metal. The 5400 II met with more mixed reviews than the original 5400, but the few 5400 II scanners I've set up for clients seemed to work just fine.


- Barrett

[Svitantti]

Couple of my friends own the Coolscan V. They have said that Vuescans "ICE" works often better than Nikonscan's, which blurs the grain also rather just removes the dust. I've seen the samples and I agree totally.

I personally wouldn't use Nikonscans ICE and anyway I dont think ICE is too important when choosing the scanner. But I print my own final photos in the darkroom and just scan for internet.

The diffused scan with Nikon actually seems suprisingly much the same as my scans from Minolta Scan Dual IV. Friend scanned me a roll of B&W with the Nikon and the grain and tones were a bit weird I think. So I would agree that diffused light is nice for B&W.

Does Coolscan 9000 really improve results from Coolscan V or 5000 for 35mm? I would think it is about the same quality except that it eats MF.

I've heard much good about the 5400 too. The II version of it has some metal parts replaced with plastic ones I've heard. Dunno about other differences, but I would consider the "I" version I guess. Also Scan Dual IV is good if you want to save some money...

[elwrongo]

I've got (access to) a Konica Dimage 5400II and with its own software it works great (on XP). However, it is only supported up to XP and I couldn't get the drivers to install on Vista. Okay, use Vuescan. Vuescan works on Vista with the 5400 II but for some reason a red colour cast was coming through everything no matter what settings I used (4 hours trying). Skies always turquoise like cross processed or something. I have yet to try Silverfast with it. Vuescan works fine with my Epson 4990. But the Konica beats the 4990 for 35mm scans hands down. Its Ice system works well also. What do people favour for 120 film scanning?