Has anyone reviewed these two scanners together?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.
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)
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:01:13 -0800, "Robert A" wrote:the
Has anyone reviewed these two scanners together?
I am quite happy with my Canon but was thinking about replacing it with
blacknewer 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)
and white.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.
Comments appreciated!
--
Hecate
veni, vidi, reliqui
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:01:13 -0800, "Robert A" wrote: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.
Has anyone reviewed these two scanners together?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.
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!
"Hecate" wrote in messageNot in the review I read :)
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?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.
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?
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
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...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.
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?
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,Thanks for that. Sounds good to me :)
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
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.