Advice on Nikon vs Minolta film scanner

[Rob]

I have several thousand family slides and 35mm negatives from the
60's through 90's that I would like to digitize. I think my needs are
modest and would probably end up printing pictures up to about 8 x10
from these scans. Based on what I've read I'm looking at two options,
both are USB 2 which I think I need to easily transfer the files
(compared to USB 1.1)
1) Minolta dual scan IV (3200 dpi) ~$300
2) Nikon coolscan V (4000 dpi) ~$600

In your expert opinions is the Nikon worth the extra. It obviously has
a higher scan resolution and appears to come with better software
(ICE, etc). How noticable is the scan quality difference between these
two

By the way, I'm assuming that most agree that either of these is a
better option than buying a 'good' flatbed like the new Epson 4870 for
~ $400

Thanks for any advice and opinions,
Rob

 

[Mendel Leisk]

I have several thousand family slides and 35mm negatives from the
60's through 90's that I would like to digitize. I think my needs are
modest and would probably end up printing pictures up to about 8 x10
from these scans. Based on what I've read I'm looking at two options,
both are USB 2 which I think I need to easily transfer the files
(compared to USB 1.1)
1) Minolta dual scan IV (3200 dpi) ~$300
2) Nikon coolscan V (4000 dpi) ~$600

In your expert opinions is the Nikon worth the extra. It obviously has
a higher scan resolution and appears to come with better software
(ICE, etc). How noticable is the scan quality difference between these
two

By the way, I'm assuming that most agree that either of these is a
better option than buying a 'good' flatbed like the new Epson 4870 for
~ $400

Thanks for any advice and opinions,
Rob

Unless the majority of your film is silver based black and white, and
maybe even then, I would lean towards the Nikon, or the Minolta Elite
5400, or something with infrared detection of defects. I have scanned
1800 Tri-X images with non-ICE scanner, and will have spent close to 2
years doing post scan cleaning of the Vuescan raw files by the time
I'm done, averaging 1/2 to 1 hour per image. On top of this, I spent
another 10 months in an earlier (doomed) attempt to cleaned finished
gamma files, before beginning again, cleaning the Vuescan raw files
directly.

Note, ICE (or FAIR) enabled scanners are mechanically different,
having infrared detection. This infrared detection can be used with
ICE software, or through different software such as Vuescan, or
manipulated as a distinct, infrared channel (RGBI), within Photoshop.

Bottom line, cleaning files manually is very, very time consuming.

 

[JMooreTS]

1) Minolta dual scan IV (3200 dpi) ~$300

2) Nikon coolscan V (4000 dpi) ~$600

Neither.

Look at a Minolta Scan Elite II, particularly factory refurbished (6 month
warranty) on Ebay - - - $375 with careful bidding. Has ICE and scans up to
2800.

John

 

[Stephen Rogers]

I have several thousand family slides and 35mm negatives ....>
is the Nikon worth the extra. It obviously has
a higher scan resolution and appears to come with ....
(ICE, etc).

If you have several thousand slides and negs do not even think of
buying a scanner without ICE. You will curse yourself. ICE is the
difference between hours and hours of tedious work in an image editor
and sitting back in amazement at how wonderful ICE is. Taking that as
essential, I think your real choice is between Coolscan V and Minolta
DSE5400, in a similar price bracket. I cannot comment on the relative
merits of those two except to say I have a Coolscan V.

 

[Chris M.]

I bought the Minolta Dual Scan III a few years ago to scan family
slides from the 60's and 70's. If I could do it again I would have
bought the Nikon.

The Minolta did fine on new slides and negatives but the old slides
aren't always in the best condition. Even if the Nikon couldn't
make the old slides look better, it probably has better resale value
than the Minolta.

Digital ROC and SHO plug ins for adobe were awesome in doing
color corrections.

-Chris