Would you buy a Minolta 5400 film scanner now?

[Anoni Moose]

I'm interested in a new film scanner. High quality scans w/low noise.
Does not need automatic features for mass quantity scanning. Mostly
just mounted 2x2's.

That unit seems to be the least expensive but still high quality film
scanner. But it's a fairly new item so I'd expect first ones to
perhaps have mechanical as well as software bugs. Has that "settled
out" as of yet? If you bought one
recently, are you happy with it?

Is there something better at the same price (or less)?

Mike

P.S. - For XP machine w/USB 2.0 and firewire connections, both.

 

[Fernando]

I'm interested in a new film scanner. High quality scans w/low noise.
Does not need automatic features for mass quantity scanning. Mostly
just mounted 2x2's.

That unit seems to be the least expensive but still high quality film
scanner. But it's a fairly new item so I'd expect first ones to
perhaps have mechanical as well as software bugs. Has that "settled
out" as of yet? If you bought one
recently, are you happy with it?

Is there something better at the same price (or less)?

I don't think there's something better for the price, still I can't
say I'm fully satisfied with mine (have it since 3 days, scanned 5
rolls). Maybe I was expecting too much.
Software is OK (latest Dimage Scan Utility 1.14, that also upgrades
the firmware), but:

1) Sloooooooow when 4x multisampling on, grain dissolver on, ICE on.
Very slow. Say 10 minutes (Firewire, XP, Athlon 2400+, 1 GB, SATA) at
5400dpi for a slide
2) Dynamic range is not terrific. I have problems pulling details from
shadows, no matter what I try
3) Resolution is OK, but I was expecting more

I also have a Polaroid SS120. A bit less resolving power, but about
1/2 stop more dynamic range, cleaner shadows (and does not even have
multisampling), and faster too! But then, it used to cost $2000, so I
think I'm expecting too much from the 5400, that is a fine machine at
the end of the day...

Fer

 

[Robert Feinman]

I'm interested in a new film scanner. High quality scans w/low noise.
Does not need automatic features for mass quantity scanning. Mostly
just mounted 2x2's.

That unit seems to be the least expensive but still high quality film
scanner. But it's a fairly new item so I'd expect first ones to
perhaps have mechanical as well as software bugs. Has that "settled
out" as of yet? If you bought one
recently, are you happy with it?

Is there something better at the same price (or less)?

Mike

P.S. - For XP machine w/USB 2.0 and firewire connections, both.

You can look at my online discussions to help you decide. If you
don't plan to make bigger than 8x10 or so enlargements one of the
2700 dpi scanners will be good enough. They're about 1/2 the cost.
Follow the tips link on my home page to read about scanners and
optimizing scans.

 

[Dierk Haasis]

Is there something better at the same price (or less)?

No. Not even as good.

 

[Anoni Moose]

You can look at my online discussions to help you decide. If you
don't plan to make bigger than 8x10 or so enlargements one of the
2700 dpi scanners will be good enough. They're about 1/2 the cost.
Follow the tips link on my home page to read about scanners and
optimizing scans.

Thank you for your comments.

One of the intents of my new i9900 printer is to make prints 13" x 19"
for mounted wall display. That said, my current film scanner is
an oldie goldie Polaroid 35 (I think the number was) that has about
a 2700/2800 dpi rating -- but it has quite a lot of noise (IMO) even
with multiscanning using vuescan. Which is why I asked about noise
as well. Seemed like a scanner that offered 48bit scanning might
have a low enough optical/front-end noise level to make it meaningful?
Anyway, I've never been happy with my existing scans which is why I'm
looking for something better. I've an Epson 2450 flatbed scanner, but
that's even less satisfactory than the Polaroid film scanner.

Mike

P.S. - Machine is Athlon 3200+ based w/RAID-0 drives.

 

[Hecate]

I'm interested in a new film scanner. High quality scans w/low noise.
Does not need automatic features for mass quantity scanning. Mostly
just mounted 2x2's.

That unit seems to be the least expensive but still high quality film
scanner. But it's a fairly new item so I'd expect first ones to
perhaps have mechanical as well as software bugs. Has that "settled
out" as of yet? If you bought one
recently, are you happy with it?

Is there something better at the same price (or less)?

Mike

P.S. - For XP machine w/USB 2.0 and firewire connections, both.

Well, I like it. But, the software is not the best. In fact, the
software was the only reason I thought about purchasing the Nikon LS
50 at the time. However, I'm now looking at buying Silverfast Ai.
Other than that, the scanner is great.

 

[Anoni Moose]

Well, I like it. But, the software is not the best. In fact, the
software was the only reason I thought about purchasing the Nikon LS
50 at the time. However, I'm now looking at buying Silverfast Ai.
Other than that, the scanner is great.

Thanks!

I may start hunting for good prices along with starting to try
convincing she-who-must-be-obeyed that it's a good idea....

Mike

 

[Hecate]

Thanks!

I may start hunting for good prices along with starting to try
convincing she-who-must-be-obeyed that it's a good idea....

Tell her how good she'll look when you can control the image-making
from start to finish

 

[Bill Tuthill]

Well, I like it. But, the software is not the best. In fact, the
software was the only reason I thought about purchasing the Nikon LS 50
at the time.

You would get a Nikon Coolscan V, even though it can't scan full frame?

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

You would get a Nikon Coolscan V, even though it can't scan full frame?

Since when were 35mm frames larger than the 25.1x38mm scan area of the
Nikon?

 

[Hecate]

You would get a Nikon Coolscan V, even though it can't scan full frame?

Yes, it can.

 

[Maris V. Lidaka Sr.]

I would, and I did - through eBay and I'm very satisfied. Use VueScan with
it, though.

Maris

 

[Bill Tuthill]

Since when were 35mm frames larger than the 25.1x38mm scan area of the
Nikon?

My impression is that certain of the holders are at fault. Perhaps
someone who knows the Coolscan V could please explain the situation
in simpler terms than this discussion,

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008LJg

or this discussion:

http://www.nikonians.org/dcforum/DCForumID11/1269.html

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

My impression is that certain of the holders are at fault. Perhaps
someone who knows the Coolscan V could please explain the situation
in simpler terms

I do know, that is why I made the comment!

The LS-50, like other 35mm scanners in the Nikon range, has an active
capture area of 25.1x38.0mm, which is oversized for the nominal 24x36mm
frame. That means that the entire frame from virtually any 35mm camera
on the market can be captured without cropping.

However, like other 35mm scanners in the Nikon range, the LS-50 comes
with two film adapters. The MA-21 takes single slides and reduces the
available scan area to 25.1x36.8mm - still marginally greater than the
nominal 35mm frame. The MA-21 also takes an optional film strip adapter
for unmounted film strips of up to 6 frames, the FH-3, which holds the
film perfectly flat. This film strip holder reduces the available scan
area to exactly the nominal 24x36mm area of the 35mm frame. No cropping
occurs with the MA-21 adapter in any configuration.

However, the other adapter provided with the LS-50 is a motorised feed
unit for unmounted film strips, called the SA-21. With this adapter the
scan area does result in some cropping of the vertical height of the
35mm frame to allow for the three film sprocket detectors, which are
used for frame positioning. With the SA-21, the available scan area is
23.3x38mm, so approximately 0.7mm is cropped from the lower edge of the
frame.

IN short, there is nothing to stop you from capturing a full 35mm frame
scan with any Nikon scanner and it is quite wrong to claim that the
scanner is incapable of doing so.

 

[Michael Siemon]

....

However, the other adapter provided with the LS-50 is a motorised feed
unit for unmounted film strips, called the SA-21. With this adapter the
scan area does result in some cropping of the vertical height of the
35mm frame to allow for the three film sprocket detectors, which are
used for frame positioning. With the SA-21, the available scan area is
23.3x38mm, so approximately 0.7mm is cropped from the lower edge of the
frame.

IN short, there is nothing to stop you from capturing a full 35mm frame
scan with any Nikon scanner and it is quite wrong to claim that the
scanner is incapable of doing so.

However, it is perfectly correct to state that there is a defect
in the SA-21 that prevents full frame capture via motorized feed.
That this defect may be simply a consequence of the design does
not make it any less a defect.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

However, it is perfectly correct to state that there is a defect
in the SA-21 that prevents full frame capture via motorized feed.
That this defect may be simply a consequence of the design does
not make it any less a defect.

No, it isn't a defect. As I stated above, the space is required by the
three film sprocket sensors necessary for the correct positioning of the
film using the motorised feed. That is a limitation of the design - a
tradeoff of convenience against functionality - which certainly is not a
defect. On the contrary, it is a considerable advantage over other
manufacturers who *only* support unmounted film strip scanning via
intricate holders, as opposed to providing the user with the choice of
scan options.

Furthermore, irrespective of the motorised feed's limitations or
capabilities, the statement in the OP was that the scanner itself was
incapable of a full frame scan - not that certain adapters traded the
oversized scan area for convenience. If an LS-50 user, or any Nikon
35mm film scanner user for that matter, requires full frame then the
scanner is more than capable of delivering it and more, using the same
type of manually loading film holders that other high quality dedicated
film scanners use.

 

[Michael Siemon]

However, it is perfectly correct to state that there is a defect
in the SA-21 that prevents full frame capture via motorized feed.
That this defect may be simply a consequence of the design does
not make it any less a defect.

No, it isn't a defect. As I stated above, the space is required by the
three film sprocket sensors necessary for the correct positioning of the
film using the motorised feed. That is a limitation of the design ...[/QUOTE]

Sigh. Are you in marketing or something? It is perhaps an unavoidable
defect, in terms of the trade-off you describe. If I were employed to
test the product, I would have filed this at a design review, even
if there were no known resolution. Engineering trade-offs are, of
course, always necessary. That's what engineering is about -- But
please don't confuse currently acceptable practice with absence of
defects! The state of the art could change, for example.

There has been an awful lot of "absolute" blather on all sides
of this thread. A bit of objectivity would help -- acknowledging that
what is a perfectly acceptable trade-off for one user may well be a
disaster for another. Uses (and people) differ.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

No, it isn't a defect. As I stated above, the space is required by the
three film sprocket sensors necessary for the correct positioning of the
film using the motorised feed. That is a limitation of the design ...

Sigh. Are you in marketing or something?[/QUOTE]

No, a senior design engineer for electro-optical equipment of
considerably greater complexity than any scanner that has ever been
discussed on this forum.

It is perhaps an unavoidable
defect, in terms of the trade-off you describe.

There is, by definition, no such thing as an "unavoidable defect".

If I were employed to
test the product, I would have filed this at a design review, even
if there were no known resolution.

And here we find out your position - professional time waster!

Engineering trade-offs are, of
course, always necessary. That's what engineering is about -- But
please don't confuse currently acceptable practice with absence of
defects! The state of the art could change, for example.

Similarly, do not confuse a currently *necessary* design consequence as
a defect. According to your meaningless interpretation, everything that
has ever been designed or manufactured is defective, since there are
always limitations which are improved on by changes to the state of the
art. If that were the case, the very need for a film scanner itself is
a defect, since current state of the art photography does not even
require film!

You have the option of throwing the motorised SA-21 in the trash can and
using the MA-21/FH-3 manual combination, thus avoiding the issue in its
entirety. As such, the SA-21 with all of its convenience and
limitations, is merely a free optional extra which the user is not
required to avail themselves of. It is *not* a defect, not even a
limitation, of the scanner itself.

 

[Scott]

Well, technically true, but you should add that you have to buy the FH-3, as
it does not come with the scanner. Kind of odd, considering the low price
of the holder. If you use the film strip reader, SA-21 I believe, it does
crop.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Well, technically true, but you should add that you have to buy the FH-3, as
it does not come with the scanner. Kind of odd, considering the low price
of the holder. If you use the film strip reader, SA-21 I believe, it does
crop.

Doesn't crop with the MA-21 slide holder either, which is included. So,
by definition, it isn't the scanner that is cropping!