Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Canon and Minolta scanner

Subject: [OM] Re: Canon and Minolta scanner
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 14:09:51 -0700
Ralf Loi wrote:

>Hi all,
>I'm thinking of buying a new scanner (now I have a Microtek one, 1800 dpi).
>I will probably choose one between the Canon FS4000 (used) and the Minolta
>Scan Elite 5400 II.
>I have only slides (some Kodachromes too).
>Hints and tips welcome.
>  
>
I went through this choice a few months ago. I scoured the web for news, 
opinions and reviews and especially samples. I came to a few personal 
conclusions:

Canon wins hands down on focus. There were reports scattered throughout 
forums and some reviews about DOF and/or focus problems with the Nikons 
and the first Minolta 5400. Whether the 5400II was better wasn't clear. 
Absolutely nobody with a Canon said anything about focus problems and 
many praised the edge to edge sharpness without effort.

While it may make a difference with super fine grain film, generally any 
resolution over maybe about 4000 dpi just doesn't coax any more detail 
off the film. Victor of photo-i, who is an experienced pro and has 
reviewed lots of scanners, claims that 3200 dpi is the best for 35mm 
film. In a head to head comparison of the 5400 I and the FS4000 that I 
found, the extra dpi simply made no difference in visible detail, only 
bigger files. Ability to pull out shadow detail appears very close 
between the FS4000, 5400 I and 4000ED, with different posted samples 
slightly favoring different scanners.

Color comparisons are highly suspect because they are so dependent on 
software and profiling. A review of color balance is a review of the 
software and viewing dynamics too, and I don't know how to separate 
them. I'm convinced that equally good color is obtainable with any of 
these, especially with film profiling, although the ease of finding the 
practice that gives good results may vary with scanner and software. I 
can't really back this up with experience, as the only two film scanners 
I've had are Canons.

All of these high end scanners have IR dust removal capability. ICE on M 
& K and FARE on C appear to be comparable, and very good at their jobs. 
photo-i tests indicate that FARE is much faster. I have used FARE on 
just a couple of Kodachrome slides with resonable success. While it is 
apparently true that Kodachrome dyes don't let IR through, the places 
where dust is the biggest problem on slides, like sky, have relatively 
low density dye layers and the dust removal works ok, at least on my 
FS4000. I think someone else has posted about successful use of ICE on 
Kodachromes.

Scan speed tests and reports are all over the place, especially for the 
FS4000. I think a lot depends on slide vs. neg, film density, software 
and options chosen, dust removal on/off, computer hardware, etc. I just 
couldn't come up with a reasonable comparison that made sense to me. The 
FS4000 has USB 1.1 and SCSI. I think part of the great reported speed 
differences for it are due to choice of interface. Unlike the FS2710, it 
doesn't come with a SCSI card. I found a used one with the latest 
Adaptec SCSI card and have never used the USB.

Well, no suspense left; I opted for an FS4000. Obviously I can't say 
whether it was the best choice in some ultimate sense, but I've never 
regretted the choice and am quite happy with the scanner. I know nothing 
about the Canoscan software that came with it. I was already a VueScan 
user and continue to use it. Of course, I might be perfectly happy with 
a 5400 II if that's what I had, who knows?

Moose




==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz