Film scanner for 35mm (and maybe 6x6)

[carstenw]

I have read the other thread about the Nikon Coolscan IV, and was wondering about something similar. I have the opportunity to buy a Konica-Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 II, at around $1100, but could of course opt for the Nikon Coolscan V for much less, or the Coolscan 5000 for a touch more than the K-M. I want to use it for scanning all my old pictures, as well as continuing to use my M6 alongside my M8, and I would like to have a very good scanner for this.

I also shoot medium format on occasion, and am considering getting more into that, but since the Coolscan 9000 is so expensive, I am wondering if it might make more sense to get the K-M 5400 II and a flatbed scanner like the Epson V750, which apparently does well for MF, but less so for 35mm.

Does anyone have experience with any of these and can help me compare my options a bit, for example Coolscan V vs. 5000, and so on.

[hamey]

Hello Carsten.

I can only speak on my Minolta 54-mk2, just superb.
LFI rated it better then the Nikons.
Though there have been some lovely Nikons scans
On the Leica Photo forums.

It's a pity Leica doesn't release a 35mm scanner for the Film fans.

Cheers.

[pleeson]

$1100 for a discontinued model plus $750 for the V750-M.
or $1830 for a new Nikon 9000. (Current US Amazon/Adorama price)
The Nikon would seem to be the logical option, and I like being able to scan 5 slides at once.
A leica scanner would likely be a panasonic at 3X Nikon's price.

VueScan recommended also...

[rob_x2004]

Carsten,

The 5400ii is very good. I am not sure about the VueScan/Vista/5400ii mix though. It isnt coming together for me. I am purchasing XP to go on to a partitioned drive so that I can run the Minolta software.

You should consider is whether after market scanning programs supply drivers for the operating system have. For example I believe Silverfast wrote 5400ii drivers for XP, but now the 5400ii is discontinued, and I cant see any Silverfast/Vista drivers being written.

I downloaded Silverfast 5400ii drivers for OSX and it corrupted the Minolta software and took me about eight hours and Mac forum advice to get the scanner back on line. Seriously unhappy occasion.

As far as the Minolta software is concerned, I think it is very good, and a more convenient and more accurate proposition than the aftermarkets. They didnt get very much wrong with this scanner. If they shoved it in a black case and stuck a red dot on it everyone would be happy.

I purchsed one of the last two available new in box in Australia and I payed under A$1,000 getting on for two years ago.

[ron110n]

Minolta Dimage Scan Multi PRO , there are a few at eBay.
It scans 35mm and 120 MF. Dpi is 3200 for the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi PRO vs. Nikon LS9000 with 4000 Dpi.
Cost a lot less than a Nikon LS9000 at roughly half for a used one.

Scanning MF is a different beast from 35mm.
I use a Nikon LS9000 and the 800 dpi edge against Minolta Dimage Scan Multi PRO is "unecessary" especially for 6x6.
I only set my scan at 250 dpi on 6x6. Scans @ 1500 dpi is way too big for your screen and about 450mb each frame on colored slides or negative @ 16x scan.
Take note that a 6x6 media is about 5 to 6 times bigger than a 35mm.

B&W is fine just at 1500 dpi, both 35mm and MF. Yet less than half of the Minolta's output.

Developing and Scanning 35mm need more attention, while 6x6 is very forgiving especially on shadow detail and the depth is "ooh la la" at all shots.

Best,

-Ron

________________
Caveman's Gallery

Neolithic Artistry

[Peter D Lux 2]

Hi Carsten,

I used to work with the Minolta, and it was quite good though time consuming...

I bought the Epson V750 pro and I'm very pleased with it.

I do both 35mm and 6 x 4,5

Here's my film/scan workflow...

- Have the films developed only.
- Batch-scan my rolls with the V750 PRO in a resolution good enough to judge the photo's.
- Don't worry too much about colour correction.
- Negatives I really like and want to print for customers, I just have scanned by a pro lab.

the difference between the V750 PRO and the Nikon scanners is, I think, not as interesting as the difference between Epson/Nikon and professional Imacon/Heidelberg scanners.

The money and time I save batch scanning my rolls of film on the V750 PRO, is well spent on the pro-lab scans when I really need the quality.

BTW the scanning quality of the V750PRO is quite good, and one roll of film doesn't take a whole lot of time.

[Peter D Lux 2]

Originally Posted by carstenw

I have the opportunity to buy a Konica-Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 II, at around $1100

Hi Carsten,

One more thing,

I think $1100 is waaaay too expensive. I sold mine this spring for €450,- (bought it new for €600 two years ago...)

Peter

[thrid]

$1100 is way too much for a scanner that has been discontinued and who's parent company is no longer in business.

I have both the Nikon 5000ED and 9000ED.

The biggest problem with the 5000 series is that it doesn't have a glass negative holder.
Nikon sells a special filmstrip holder for about $25 that helps a lot, but I still 'press' my negs flat under a few books before scanning them. Other than that it is an excellent scanner. One of it's biggest advantages is that it uses LED's as its lightsource. The LED last for over 100,000 hours, don't need a warm up period and in general are very stable.

The 9000ED is an excellent machine, that delivers professional results. It's main competitor is the Imacon 343 and from what I have been told they are very, very close in performance, with the Nikon being about $3000 cheaper. To get the most out of the 9000 you need the glass negative holder, which is about $250-300 extra.

I've used both Vuescan and NikonScan with these units and ended up picking the Nikon software. It was easier to use, gave excellent results and works with multiple previews/thumbnails.

I would also take a look at the Microtek ArtixScan 120.

Microtek ArtixScan 120tf Multiformat Film Scanner

A friend of mine has one of these and he's very happy with it. It lists at $1799, but a lot of places are selling this machine with a $200-300 dollar refund coupon.

[earleygallery]

What do you intend to do with the scanned images?

I have the Epson flatbed and whilst a dedicated 35mm scanner will no doubt provide slightly better results, the Epson isn't at all bad. I've printed 35mm scans up to A3. Of course for MF its excellent.

[brt]

I am using the Konica-Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 II and can recommend it.
Scanning is time consuming, because you have to finetune the focus manually for each frame for best results. The KM software is o.k. You will never ever get drivers for Vista. I run XP in a VMware virtual machine under Vista. You will need VMware Workstation 6.x in order to use USB 2.0 based hardware.

Berend

[Photoskeptic]

I've posted many times about my 5400. I have a series 1. It was not until I got the SilverFast software that my scans became great. I'm sorry your experience with SilverFast was not good. You must leave the Minolta software loaded in your computer so that SilverFast can identify the scanner as being turned on. The Minolta service dept was abysmal. Unfortunately, when Sony took over, they decided to use the same service dept but under the Sony name (I'm not even sure if service for Minolta still exists at all!). If mine ever craps out, I'm not sure what I'll do - get a Nikon or maybe quit shooting film. OTOH, I vacillate all the time about quitting digital and JUST doing film I suppose it is good to have choices.

[nrj]

I use a Minolta Multipro which does 35mm at 4800 dpi and mf at 3200. I used to use a Nikkon 4000 for 35mm. I think the Multipro gives me better scans and comes with a glass holder for mf included. The software runs fine on my Mac with OS10.4.3. I've printed upto 22x17 from my Leica M6 chromes on my epson 3800 and like the results a lot, and prints from scanned mf show the expected benefits in print too. The multipro is discontinued but I bought mine secondhand with no problems. Last time I looked (1+ year ago) driver software was still available for download. I think its a really good scanner (I haven't tried the top and very expensive models like Imacon etc).

Nik

[carstenw]

Thanks for all the answer, and please keep them coming.

I intend to use the prints for prints, initially personal, with time hopefully also for sale. I want to use film and digital side-by-side, as well as digitise my old films.

Can anyone compare the Coolscan V and Coolscan 5000?

Btw, the scanner is NIB, I believe never used. The guy who owns it bought two when the model was discontinued. I see them going for $700 used on eBay, so the price is not that bad. Seen in that light, and given that the Coolscan 9000 costs about €2200 around here, the Minolta+Epson V750 is still a great deal, plus I get a flatbed scanner.

[rob_x2004]

Berend, do you see much of a difference manual focussing 5400ii? I use "focus at scan" and walk away during batch scans and let it set up to each frame. I tried manual focus initially. I think because of negative curl, I couldnt get any improvement on autofocus. Maybe it is time I got into gear and had another look at manual focus.

[xrogers]

The only difference I noticed between coolscan V and 5000 results was speed (I only scan black and white and color negatives, slide shooters may notice something else). The 5000 takes more accessories (a roll film feeder, for instance).

The artixscan 120 is also excellent, but doesn't have ICE. If your primary use is color negs, ICE is worth it. The artixscan uses a diffuse light source (like the minoltas) which some prefer for black and white. I have a Polaroid 120 (same as the artixscan) and like it quite a bit. Sweet scanner for 6x7 negs.

I agree that the Minolta's price is a bit high for a discontinued out-of-warranty item, even if as new.

Until later,

--clyde

[zernikepolynom]

Just out of curiosity - the typical size of my prints is A3-ish. I never heard of the workflow to have an A3 print done and scan it with an A3 flatbed scanner. The requirements to the scanner would be much more relaxed, a dust particle would be 10 times smaller and less distinct since scanned in reflection rather than transmission.

Since nobody does it, there must be a catch in this process (dynamic range?).

[Leicademon]

Just to confuse things further... I've been using an Epson V700 flatbed film scanner for about a year, because the K-Minolta that i lusted after was out of production. Couldn't be happier! Cost around US$600 and at 6400 Dpi produces huge files. The ability to scan prints as well is a great advantage.

[DaCh]

Hi Carsten
I have used 35mm Coolscan for a long time and have always been very happy with the results.
If I had the cash I would not hesitate to by the medium format Nikon.
I shoot allsorts of formats so having a flat bed film scanner is important for me.
I use an Epson 4990 which I got because it has had great reviews an it does work very well on all formats.
I can not compare these to other makes but they both work well enough for me.
Cheers
David

[nrj]

forgot to mention the Minolta Multipro has ice too. I started out not using it but it was a pain to clone out dust specs etc afterwards so now I use it all the time chromes or negs

Nik

[rafael_macia]

Originally Posted by carstenw

I have read the other thread about the Nikon Coolscan IV, and was wondering about something similar. I have the opportunity to buy a Konica-Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 II, at around $1100, but could of course opt for the Nikon Coolscan V for much less, or the Coolscan 5000 for a touch more than the K-M. I want to use it for scanning all my old pictures, as well as continuing to use my M6 alongside my M8, and I would like to have a very good scanner for this.

I also shoot medium format on occasion, and am considering getting more into that, but since the Coolscan 9000 is so expensive, I am wondering if it might make more sense to get the K-M 5400 II and a flatbed scanner like the Epson V750, which apparently does well for MF, but less so for 35mm.

Does anyone have experience with any of these and can help me compare my options a bit, for example Coolscan V vs. 5000, and so on.

Hello Carsten,

I have had the Minolta scanner you mention for about three years. It is a wonderful scanner!
When I was researching,and, shopping around for a quality scanner, I ended up deciding it would be the Nikon Coolscan, or the Minolta.
I had a professional photographer friend, with a Nikon Coolscan do some scans of 35's.
I was not impressed.
I did not do a direct comparison because I could not get my hands on a Minolta .... so I did not do a side by side.
I learned that the Minolta had a version of Digital Ice that was a couple of generations newer,than the Nikon. And a lot better. Also, the light source of the Minolta is significantly different than the Nikon.
The price is high, but if the unit is in perfect condition, go for it.
People shoot digital more and more. So scanner "days are numbered", the Minolta seemed to be the best of the best, I would seriously doubt anyone develops and puts a finer scanner on the market.
Why?
Digital shooters are the future for manufacturers.

Pay "through the nose" .... you will not think about the money once it's bought!

ps. the Minolta software, and instructions, are difficult ........ there are work arounds one must learn

Good luck!

Rafael