Dimage Scan Elite 5400 vs Dimage Scan Elite 5400 II

[Richard Phelps]

:roll: So are there any actual users of the 5400 Mk 2 out there who
would like to comment on their experiences with this scanner? I would
be especially interested in hearing from people who have used the ICE
4 feature with Kodachrome and/or Velvia slides, and anyone who has
made really large (like 16 x 20) prints from their scans.

I for one, am inclined to give Minolta the benefit of the doubt on the
Mk 2, but I'd sure like to hear from some real users.

 

[Anoni Moose]

Another mistake that you are making - it does not "look like Nikon"!

Nikon use 4 optically co-located LEDs and a single line CCD ...

Yes it does, much more than it did in "version 1".
Just compare sales brochures.

If you want to delve into the details of construction...
maybe one company used C++ for their software while
the other one used delphi with completely different
internal architectures. But most look to see if it
supports Windows or Mac OS X. To most users and I think
typical purchasers, "LED" light source is in both the 5400
version 2 and in Nikon scanners, while 5400 Version 1 had a
diffused lamp source. The new 5400 and the Nikons look
a LOT more alike as compared with Nikon vs. the first
Minolta unit.

Taken to sufficient detail, any two units are vastly
different -- unless they're the same unit.

Mike

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Yes it does, much more than it did in "version 1".
Just compare sales brochures.

A chicken looks "much more" like an ostrich than an elephant does, but
that does not mean a chicken actually does look like an ostrich!

To most users and I think
typical purchasers, "LED" light source is in both the 5400
version 2 and in Nikon scanners, while 5400 Version 1 had a
diffused lamp source.

No it didn't - the Mk1 used a partially collimated light source (in
common with all previous Minolta scanners) and included and *optional*
diffuser that could be selected by the user at scan time. The MkII does
not include that user selectable option, but nobody has yet ascertained
whether it has a collimated or diffuse light source.

The new 5400 and the Nikons look
a LOT more alike as compared with Nikon vs. the first
Minolta unit.

I have a keyring which uses LED illumination - nobody would consider
that the keyring looks like a Nikon scanner! Nor would the use of a
cold cathode lamp in the Mk1 Minolta be considered to make it look like
the Canon, Mikrotek or Polaroid scanners.

Taken to sufficient detail, any two units are vastly
different -- unless they're the same unit.

And the commonality of a single technology (not even the commonality of
a component or configuration) does not make two otherwise different
units similar.

 

[Anoni Moose]

Anoni Moose <[email protected]> writes

Sigh.... perhaps I should be more blunt. I've talked
about the APPEARANCE of similarity when the units are
looked at on a brochure "bullet" level by those purchasing
them. Whether it really is similar in terms of performance
characteristics is relatively unimportant to my "end" point.

So, chickens and ostriches look very similar when compared
with a elephant because they're both birds and elephants
aren't. Particularly when the spec sheet says "bird"
and one doesn't go further than the spec sheet before
buying.

Point of what appearances are is something I think
important to manufacturer marketting guys (mostly because
it's more important to sales than actual fact a lot of the time).
I think Minolta was trying to appear more Nikon-like (which
was my point that you disagreed with). If you don't think
so, fine. They may very well not done it on purpose. But
I still think they did.

Mike

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Sigh.... perhaps I should be more blunt. I've talked
about the APPEARANCE of similarity when the units are
looked at on a brochure "bullet" level by those purchasing
them.

No you didn't. Your specific words were:
"But I haven't take one of the new ones apart to see if they did
something non-traditional rather than "look like Nikon" which it
otherwise appears."

You are referring here to something that can be discriminated between
one implementation and another by examination. So unless you were
referring to dismantling the brochure line by line then we are led to
believe that your reference is to the appearance of the hardware itself,
not how it is described on paper.

The "brochure" itself is quite different from the Nikon brochure, even
in general description. Minolta specifically refer to a "white LED" and
a "tri-linear CCD" whilst Nikon go to some detail (depending on the
actual brochure) to explain that they use 4 LEDs, one for each of the
RGBI colours, and a single linear CCD. How you can claim that this is
an attempt to look like the Nikon brochure beats me.

Of course, both brochures use the same letters but not necessarily in
the same order - they are sooooo similar!

 

[Richard Phelps]

While it is somewhat amusing to read your critiques of the other
posters, Kennedy, might you have anything useful to say pertaining to
the actual subject, namely these scanners? Since you obviously
consider youself to be quite intelligent, perhaps you could share
some of your observations about the scanners, rather than the other
peoples posts.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

While it is somewhat amusing to read your critiques of the other
posters, Kennedy, might you have anything useful to say pertaining to
the actual subject, namely these scanners? Since you obviously
consider youself to be quite intelligent, perhaps you could share
some of your observations about the scanners, rather than the other
peoples posts.

I suggest you learn to read the archives, since I get a little tired of
repeating myself!

 

[Ralf R. Radermacher]

Since you obviously
consider youself to be quite intelligent, perhaps you could share
some of your observations about the scanners, rather than the other
peoples posts.

Read the man's signature. Says it all. Must have been pissed an awful
lot, lately.

Ralf

 

[Anoni Moose]

No you didn't. Your specific words were:
"But I haven't take one of the new ones apart to see if they did
something non-traditional rather than "look like Nikon" which it
otherwise appears."

Thanks for reinforcing what I said and meant. Notice
how I referenced how it "looked like Nikon" and how
I explained how I haven't checked to see if their attempt
to APPEAR like Nikon was true in reality as well (context-wise
I think you were arguing things weren't as they appeared,
which is something not in conflict with what I had
said -- statement basically said just that).

You are referring here to something that can be discriminated between

one implementation and another by examination. So unless you were
referring to dismantling the brochure line by line then we are led to

believe that your reference is to the appearance of the hardware itself,
not how it is described on paper.

I think you're reading into what I wrote something I
didn't intend. It may be that I'm not writing clear
enough, and that could be my fault. Most purchasers
probably won't take a unit's hw apart to see exactly what's
going on inside. I own one and still don't plan to
take it apart (although there was a time when I was
younger that I would have despite all the dust and crud
I might inject w/o anything to gain). Maybe when I
replace it after it's obsolete.

I did hog-out one of the 2x2 slide carriers (got 3) to modify
it to take two realist-format stereo slides instead.
Something which was important to me, btw. That it can
be fairly easily adapted to stereo slides, including those
in RBT mounts is a big plus for it. New one probably
uses the same carrier , so that one should work
well too.

The "brochure" itself is quite different from the Nikon brochure, even
in general description. Minolta specifically refer to a "white LED" and
a "tri-linear CCD" whilst Nikon go to some detail (depending on the
actual brochure) to explain that they use 4 LEDs, one for each of the

RGBI colours, and a single linear CCD. How you can claim that this is
an attempt to look like the Nikon brochure beats me.

They both say "LED + CCD" methods while the old 5400 doesn't.

The old 5400 instead heavily promo'd the grain dissolver.

Of course, both brochures use the same letters but not necessarily in

the same order - they are sooooo similar!

You know, you're right! Thanks for coming over to
my side of this dust-mite sized arguement.


Mike

 

[Hecate]

While it is somewhat amusing to read your critiques of the other
posters, Kennedy, might you have anything useful to say pertaining to
the actual subject, namely these scanners? Since you obviously
consider youself to be quite intelligent, perhaps you could share
some of your observations about the scanners, rather than the other
peoples posts.

And you obviously haven't been reading this newsgroup for the last god
knows how many years when Kennedy has been posting long and useful
articles up to and including the physics of optics and scanning.

Do try and keep up before you make ridiculous comments.

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Hecate]

Read the man's signature. Says it all. Must have been pissed an awful
lot, lately.

hahaha! And this is the man who thinks Vuescan is the best software on
the planet...

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Read the man's signature. Says it all. Must have been pissed an awful
lot, lately.

Why is that Ralf? Whilst I haven't said anything recently that wasn't
factual, you seem to be making a habit of doing just the opposite and
talking complete piss.

 

[ramonablue]

It may be that I'm not writing clear enough, and that could be my fault.

A for recognizing your problem, and F for denial. The ngs are full of
misinformation, whether intentional or otherwise, precisely because
posters fail to write with clarity and context.

 

[Don]

Why is that Ralf? Whilst I haven't said anything recently that wasn't
factual, you seem to be making a habit of doing just the opposite and
talking complete piss.

Oh, just ignore him, Kennedy. He's proven repeatedly he's not worth
the effort. Besides, he just doesn't get it.

Not to mention that the more ignored he is, the more his head
explodes! ;o)

Don.

 

[Anoni Moose]

fault.

A for recognizing your problem, and F for denial. The ngs are full of
misinformation, whether intentional or otherwise, precisely because
posters fail to write with clarity and context.

That's fair. I've certainly accused others of that
and if I'm doing it, then I should be lashed severely.

Thanks for the "third party" view.

Mike