Canoscan FS4000 Vs. Minolta Dimage Elite Scan 5400 Vs. Diamage Dual Scan III

Discussion in 'Minolta' started by Robert Meyers, Oct 28, 2003.

  1. Hello all,

    I am planning on purchasing a film scanner. Now I was wondering if nanyone
    had any thoughts on the following scanners:

    Canoscan FS4000U

    Minolta DiMage Elite Scan 5400

    Minolta DiMage Dual Scan III

    I relize these seem to hva vastly different capabilities, though the end
    result of what you get out is similar. So here is the question: which
    would you buy and why? On paper, it seems a toss up between the 5400 and
    the FS4000U. Is this true? The 5400 produces what is pretty close to the
    limit for 35mm from my understanding. Is it worth the extra $100?

    Thanks all!
     
    Robert Meyers, Oct 28, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Robert Meyers

    JR Guest

    Of the 3, I have the 5400, and I don't regret it...It does great with
    both slides and negatives, and is amazing with B&W....I ahve had other
    minolta scanners and they are made well and last...anyone wanna buy a
    Scan Dual II?

    JR
     
    JR, Oct 28, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Robert Meyers

    Alan Browne Guest

    comp.periphs.scanners is a better forum.

    the DSE5400 is the top dog right now. Some people have experienced
    'line' artifcat problems with it. Most people seem satisfied.

    I'm not famillar with the Canon enough.
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 28, 2003
    #3
  4. Robert Meyers

    Jeff Playter Guest

    I wish I had researched the FS4000 a little more. It is unbearably slow. I
    enjoy the quality, but it's just too slow for my tastes. Anyone want to buy
    a slightly used FS4000???
     
    Jeff Playter, Oct 28, 2003
    #4
  5. Robert Meyers

    Alan Browne Guest

    Sorry, I'm going to beat up on you a little bit!

    "It is unbearably slow. Want to buy it?"

    Some companies used to sit sales people in rank by their sales at
    meetings or special events. You'd be outside the room!

    Appreciating good taste rarely comes in haste.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 28, 2003
    #5
  6. Sorry, already bought one from someone with the same complaint. Have
    you tried SCSI?
     
    Michael Benveniste, Oct 28, 2003
    #6
  7. Robert Meyers

    Rich Pos Guest

    The Canon is also on my short list although I have spent some time
    reading about how painfully slow thay can be.
    How are your scan times with SCSI?

    RP©
     
    Rich Pos, Oct 28, 2003
    #7
  8. harvey steeves wrote:
    you might be interested to know that nikon just introduced their new
    scanner line - the 35mm ones are supposed to be available in november
    (but being nikon, they didn't say which year)
    I had a Minolta on order but heard that the nikons were coming so
    waited, i will be comparing the 5400 to the new nikon 5000 (which is
    supposed to scan @4000 dpi in 20 secs.)
     
    harvey steeves, Oct 29, 2003
    #8
  9. Robert Meyers

    Rich Pos Guest

    On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:12:07 -0600, harvey steeves

    Now that's the ticket!!
    Any links available for this info??

    RP©
     
    Rich Pos, Oct 29, 2003
    #9
  10. Robert Meyers

    Deathwalker Guest

    35mm film doesn't have much more than 4000dpi of info on it. Cost, speed,
    ease of use then come into play. There is also dynamic range, sharpness and
    effectiveness of things like ir cleaning. I own a scan elite II. a dual
    scan iii is an elite II without the infra scratch and dust detection.
     
    Deathwalker, Oct 29, 2003
    #10
  11. Robert Meyers

    Bruce Graham Guest

    [This followup was posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm and a copy was sent
    to the cited author.]

    I am a happy Canon FS54000 camper, BUT it is still slower by design than
    the Nikons. The Nikons can do single scan RGB and infrared (ICE, Fare)
    because I understand they have LED illumination, which can be flashed on
    and off at high speed during the scan. The cold cathode lamps used by
    Canon and Minolta take a bit of time to warm up and stabilise and require
    that two full scans be made. The supplied Canon software "calibrates"
    before almost every scan (taking about a minute) but Vuescan leaves the
    calibration in the hand of the user saving some time but maybe at some
    small theoretical quality cost (I haven't noticed it though).

    On the other hand, the Canon design is cheaper and capable of excellent
    quality. The lamp is brighter than the Nikon LEDs and it has cheaper,
    smaller aperture optics which are very sharp and which have fewer depth
    of field issues that some complain about with the Nikon.

    I have no experience of the Minolta 5400, but it seems to be conceptually
    similar to the Canon, but with a higher resolution CCD plus a diffuser
    to reduce effects of grain edges.

    It seems hardest to get good comparisons of the noise performance of the
    various scanners. Conventional wisdom on this ng seems to be that the
    Nikons are better than the Canon. Don't know about the Minolta.

    Ed Hamrick, author of Vuescan and as such very knowledgeable about all
    the scanners he supports recommends the Nikons, but I think the Minolta
    5400 was released after Ed put his recomendations on his website.

    Bruce Graham
     
    Bruce Graham, Oct 29, 2003
    #11
  12. harvey steeves, Oct 29, 2003
    #12
  13. My experience is different. Also examining film under a microscope will tell
    a different story. There is probably up to 8000 ppi in a 35mm frame,
    provided you use quality optics and a steady hand (or a tripod).

    See http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/scan/se5400/se5400.htm ,
    especially example no. 1.

    I'll be adding more 4000 ppi examples to the available comparisons shortly.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Oct 29, 2003
    #13
  14. Robert Meyers

    Rich Pos Guest

    Rich Pos, Oct 29, 2003
    #14
  15. Robert Meyers

    Alan Browne Guest

    Stop top posting, please.

    Velvia 50 / 100 is rated at 160 lp/mm or 4064 lp/in, or 8128 dpi.

    Fuji Neopan: 200 lp/mm ---> 10,000 dpi

    Gigabitfilm 25: 900 lp/mm ----> 45,720 dpi.
     
    Alan Browne, Oct 29, 2003
    #15
  16. Just timed a 42-bit, 4000dpi scan of a color negative with FARE on,
    using a machine with a 1GHz Athlon and 392 meg of memory. 3 minutes,
    42 seconds, which is pretty typical.
     
    Michael Benveniste, Oct 29, 2003
    #16
  17. Robert Meyers

    Rafe B. Guest


    Still 4000 dpi across the board. Interesting.

    I don't see (yet) where the 9000 is going to steal
    a lot of thunder from the 8000. They talk about a
    "newly developed" CCD and improved
    algorithms for processing of scans from
    negatives...


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Oct 29, 2003
    #17
  18. Robert Meyers

    Rich Pos Guest

    With FARE off... probably half that long?!

    Thanks for taking the time to post the info.
    If a scan with FARE off is indeed about 1.5 minutes @ 4000dpi, I could
    live with that.
    I have a 20Mbit/sec SCSI card in my machine.
    Adaptec AHA- 2930CU on a PIII 800 with 768MB RAM.
    Overall, are you satisfied with the FS4000? It is in my price range
    and I like the SCSI interface even though it has become something of a
    legacy device.

    Best,

    RP©
     
    Rich Pos, Oct 29, 2003
    #18
  19. Just had an opportunity last week to use the new Minolta 5400 film scanner
    and found it to produce stunning results. Very high dynamic range, etc.
    However, VERY slow when scanning at 5400 and activating digital ice, etc.
     
    Gerald G. McGeorge, Oct 29, 2003
    #19
  20. Still a little early to tell, because I'm still on the low end of the
    learning curve. In fact, I'm still trying to figure out what software
    to use. Paint Shop Pro can only handle 24-bit images. While Corel
    Photo Paint 10 can handle 42-bit images, it's too slow to use. I'll
    probably try VueScan next before shelling out the bucks for Photoshop.

    In general the Canon seems like a reasonable compromise for my needs.
    I paid $430 for a reconditioned FS4000US, so my downside risk is
    fairly small.

    Later this week, I'm getting an 11x16 made from an NPS negative at my
    local lab. Once I've figured out what I'm doing software-wise, I'll
    scan the same negative and print an 11x16 on an Epson 2200 for a Mark
    I eyeball test.
     
    Michael Benveniste, Oct 29, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.