Minolta DImage Dual Scan IV or Nikon Coolscan 5 -- Which is best value for money?

[Peter D]

I know, I know, it's not a fair question (the Minolta is way cheaper), but
this is what I've come down to. I was originally looking for a Dual Scan IV,
but the salesman made me drool with the benefits of the Nikon. Why the
Nikon? The 80 slide add-on/hopper unit. It would sooo make my life easier to
load and leave it to run overnight/during a movie.

Scanning needs:
- 35mm Slides (some are Kodakchrome, Ektachrome) -- about 2500 in total
- 35mm Negatives

Storage is not a problem (spare250G Hard Drive and a DVD burner)
Spare laptop and desktop that have 1G RAM each and can be dedicated to the
job.

 

[cats_five]

The Nikon V won't take the bulk loader - it's the LS4000 & LS5000 that
do. See:

http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/...TE1JnBfY2F0X2x2bDI9fmFueX4mcF9wYWdlPTI*&p_li=

Or to put it another way:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?F3AC2205C

Also, it takes 50 slides not 80, but then I've never got more than 40
out of a 36-exposure film. You also don't need to leave the LS5000
overnight to do a batch of slides - it will do 36 in a little over an
hour, at least mine on my PC will. I've got an XP 3200+ processor and
1GB RAM.

Finally, the Digital ICE in the Nikon (and in any other scanner that
has it) doesn't usually work well with Kodachrome, as the film isn't
totally transparent to the IR channel that 'tells' the software what
marks are scratches and/or dirty. I have a lot of Kodachrome (though
not as many as you) and am debating what to do. I might find that some
sets of slides work better with it than others, but that means I have
to do a test scan or two rather than just scanning the set.

Finally, keep your original material safe and sound and make sure you
use some kind of naming convention so you can always easily find the
original for a given scan. My own plan is to batch-scan at something
less than 4,000dpi (maybe 2,000 - I need to do some tests), and to
return to the original material for anything I want a better quality
scan of - for example if I want to crop into the image, or just because
I like it and want a better scan.

 

[Guy Jordan]

There is also the Pacific Image PowerSlide 3600. It will take a tray of
slides at a time but I have no idea of the scan quality.

-Guy

 

[Mendel Leisk]

I know, I know, it's not a fair question (the Minolta is way cheaper), but
this is what I've come down to. I was originally looking for a Dual Scan IV,
but the salesman made me drool with the benefits of the Nikon. Why the
Nikon? The 80 slide add-on/hopper unit. It would sooo make my life easier to
load and leave it to run overnight/during a movie.

Scanning needs:
- 35mm Slides (some are Kodakchrome, Ektachrome) -- about 2500 in total
- 35mm Negatives

Storage is not a problem (spare250G Hard Drive and a DVD burner)
Spare laptop and desktop that have 1G RAM each and can be dedicated to the
job.

As long as you've raised your sights, money wise, you could also
consider the Minolta Scan Elite 5400, either second gen., or first gen.
if you can find one.

 

[Djon]

The original Scan Elite 5400 is a good machine, but extremely slow in
color with Ice. The newer Minolta is a bad machine mechanically, but
just as fast as the Nikon V when it works (in my experience)

IMO with new machines the sensible choices consist of Nikon V and Nikon
5000 and Nikon 8000/9000.

With 2500 slides, one's first step in workflow might be triage/editing.
Might be a once-in-lifetime opportunity to edit brutally!

 

[Jay]

I know, I know, it's not a fair question (the Minolta is way cheaper), but
this is what I've come down to. I was originally looking for a Dual Scan
IV, but the salesman made me drool with the benefits of the Nikon. Why
the Nikon? The 80 slide add-on/hopper unit. It would sooo make my life
easier to load and leave it to run overnight/during a movie.

Scanning needs:
- 35mm Slides (some are Kodakchrome, Ektachrome) -- about 2500 in total
- 35mm Negatives

Storage is not a problem (spare250G Hard Drive and a DVD burner)
Spare laptop and desktop that have 1G RAM each and can be dedicated to the
job.

Don't know about the Coolscan V but I use the Coolscan IV and have been very
impressed. I have a lot of scratched negatives and the ICE is very effective
at cleaning them up. My only complaint is that it makes a sound like a
wheelbarrow full of marbles.

Jay

 

[Djon]

How long does it take your Nikon IV to do a maximum resolution scan
with Ice?

V isn't particularly noisy, but it's definitely audible. Extremely
heavy metal construction.

My V takes 2.5 minutes @ 4000ppi. That does NOT include any
pre-scanning, which I don't usually find necessary with mounted slides
(except for Kodachrome because of the failure rate with Ice). As well,
downloading time to the HD depends on the speed of your computer and
port (USB 1 Vs USB 2 Vs Firewire). Total time per image can be a lot
longer than scan time in any case...my own typical total time is
probably 5-7 minutes per negative, 5 minutes per slide...no more than a
dozen images in an hour.

 

[Don]

My V takes 2.5 minutes @ 4000ppi. That does NOT include any
pre-scanning, which I don't usually find necessary with mounted slides
(except for Kodachrome because of the failure rate with Ice). As well,
downloading time to the HD depends on the speed of your computer and
port (USB 1 Vs USB 2 Vs Firewire).

And, of course, bit depth.

But another thing that influences scan time quite considerably is
exposure. Unfortunately, auto exposure setting usually hides baseline
exposure value so it's very difficult to compare scan times. For a
meaningful test auto exposure should be turned off and a common
baseline (e.g. an exposure of 0) should be used.

Don.

 

[Jay]

For the main scan I think it's about 5 minute per frame in general. I
usually do a batch of 4 negatives and just set it going and go and do
something else. It's too long to just sit and wait for it. I always do a
pre-scan and then check the cropping though. Sometimes it's just slightly
off for some reason. I've done more than 1000 photos now and the results are
worth the effort.

Jay.