Minolta Dimage 5400 vs Canon FS4000US

[Robert A]

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!

 

[David C Miers]

I don't have a 5400, but rather a minolta scandual III. I can only comment
from that perspective. What I see thus far is the Minolta software is not
that great on seeing the shadow detail. However Vuescan is great in that
regard. My suggestion for shadow detail is get a scanner that works
seamlessly with Vuescan.

 

[Robert A]

Thanks for the reply. I should have mentioend in my original post that I
currently use Vuescan with my Canon FS4000.

-Robert

 

[joe]

A couple of months ago, someone on the forum was willing to do a
comparative slide scan....me and my Canon 4000 vs his 5400. We both
used Vuescan.....

1) His scanner was much better a resolving the image (Velvia 50 shot
with a CZ lens) than mine. That being said, I'm not sure that you
would be able to resolve any more in a "typical" size print. The
detail on high contrast line-to-line resolution was great!

2) There was a different color hue that both scanners imparted. I
thought the FS4000 did a tad better but given that I color correct in
PS, no big deal.

3) Onto your question.....I'mnot sure that the 5400 was any better in
resolving low contast material (shadow) than the 4000. I couldn't
asbstact any significant difference between the two.

If I had to do it all over again, I'd have to say that 4000 ppi seems
like the right level. The 5400 does a great job but I'm not sure that
the benefits are worth it. If I had to do it all over again, I'd
probably get a Nikon 4000 because I'll bet the scanner noise is less
(and hence less Neat Image needed).

Just some thoughts.

Joe